3 ms·

I'm allergic to these anti-partisanship missives that keep being voted up. As Martin Luther King put it, > "First, I must confess that over the last few years

I'm allergic to these anti-partisanship missives that keep being voted up. As Martin Luther King put it, > "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." We live in a time of bitter struggle. I may scrupulously avoid partisan statements on HN, but elsewhere, damned if I am going to fight with anything less than all I have.

village-idiot 8y ago
Agreed. Some of these "partisan" issues are about fundamental principles. To not talk about them is to basically surrender the very basics of what I consider right and wrong. To say “oh, that’s just partisan” is patronizing claptrap.
anothergoogler 8y ago
That's quite a leap to say that anybody who isn't partisan is "more devoted to order than justice." Frankly I find it indecent how you try to fuse your words and views with King's, unless I missed the part where he says that you must support a political party to move the needle.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> I'm allergic to these anti-partisanship missives that keep being voted up. The moderates are trying to keep the extremes in line.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  "The moderates" are tired of having their nuanced opinions tied to passive enablement of the worst possible elements of modern body politic thanks to pithy, oversimplified quotes from dead philosophers making their way through social media from everyone who took polisci 101 and stopped short of 300 level inquiry.
thrower123 8y ago
I'm allergic to these sentiments that we are somehow living in dangerous and catastrophic end times, rather than a golden age of mankind. It's bizarre and fearful and, in my opinion, redirects too much energy towards torches and pitchforks rather than productive efforts.
- ChristianBundy 8y ago
  The idea that we're living in a golden age is dangerous and potentially catastrophic. Software engineers may be living in a golden age, but our exploitation of the Earth's resources and animals (including humans) can't continue forever. Things must continue to change.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
grzm 8y ago
There's an important difference between being principled and giving in to tribalistic views of us vs. them. The point of many "anti-partisan missives" is to recognize that there are many things we can—and must—work together on to be effective, and that we often limit ourselves when we stop ourselves from listening and understanding each other because of the labels we place on each other. Yes, there are things people disagree on, but there are also many that we actually do agree on, and can work to improve if we look beyond partisanship.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  Amen to this. Additionally, there is room for dissent within a group that is working together (e.g a political party). If everybody is focussed on towing the party line, then it is very easy for the views of the party to become unchallengeable dogma. Of course there are constructive and unconstructive ways of doing this, but disagreeing shouldn't necessarily be seen as negative.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  I think Scott Alexander's essay http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything... covers the salient points of this rather well. It's worth a read if you haven't.
zeth___ 8y ago
>I may scrupulously avoid partisan statements on HN You're doing a rather poor job of it. Edit: A downvote and flag in less time than it took to redirect me back to the front page. Someone needs to take a chill pill.

village-idiot 8y ago

Agreed. Some of these "partisan" issues are about fundamental principles. To not talk about them is to basically surrender the very basics of what I consider right and wrong. To say “oh, that’s just partisan” is patronizing claptrap.

anothergoogler 8y ago

That's quite a leap to say that anybody who isn't partisan is "more devoted to order than justice." Frankly I find it indecent how you try to fuse your words and views with King's, unless I missed the part where he says that you must support a political party to move the needle.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> I'm allergic to these anti-partisanship missives that keep being voted up. The moderates are trying to keep the extremes in line.

dvtrn 8y ago
"The moderates" are tired of having their nuanced opinions tied to passive enablement of the worst possible elements of modern body politic thanks to pithy, oversimplified quotes from dead philosophers making their way through social media from everyone who took polisci 101 and stopped short of 300 level inquiry.

thrower123 8y ago

I'm allergic to these sentiments that we are somehow living in dangerous and catastrophic end times, rather than a golden age of mankind. It's bizarre and fearful and, in my opinion, redirects too much energy towards torches and pitchforks rather than productive efforts.

ChristianBundy 8y ago
The idea that we're living in a golden age is dangerous and potentially catastrophic. Software engineers may be living in a golden age, but our exploitation of the Earth's resources and animals (including humans) can't continue forever. Things must continue to change.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

grzm 8y ago

There's an important difference between being principled and giving in to tribalistic views of us vs. them. The point of many "anti-partisan missives" is to recognize that there are many things we can—and must—work together on to be effective, and that we often limit ourselves when we stop ourselves from listening and understanding each other because of the labels we place on each other. Yes, there are things people disagree on, but there are also many that we actually do agree on, and can work to improve if we look beyond partisanship.

nicoburns 8y ago
Amen to this. Additionally, there is room for dissent within a group that is working together (e.g a political party). If everybody is focussed on towing the party line, then it is very easy for the views of the party to become unchallengeable dogma. Of course there are constructive and unconstructive ways of doing this, but disagreeing shouldn't necessarily be seen as negative.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Baeocystin 8y ago
I think Scott Alexander's essay http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything... covers the salient points of this rather well. It's worth a read if you haven't.

zeth___ 8y ago

>I may scrupulously avoid partisan statements on HN You're doing a rather poor job of it. Edit: A downvote and flag in less time than it took to redirect me back to the front page. Someone needs to take a chill pill.