3 ms·
> At a certain point "X acts wrongly" is viewed (either by the voters or by partisan media) as so inconsequential compared to the "evils" of Y that X remains th
by tshaddox 4y ago
> At a certain point "X acts wrongly" is viewed (either by the voters or by partisan media) as so inconsequential compared to the "evils" of Y that X remains the correct choice.
Surely that can be a valid conclusion of a reasonable person though, right? Party X can just actually be better than Party Y and that can still be true when Party X does some bad things. In my view, this doesn't become problematic partisanship until a significant chunk of value someone is getting from their party comes from their own sense of identity as a supporter of that party, because that sense of identity has nothing to do with the policies or other actions of the party in question: it's by definition completely divorced from any serious political estimation of the virtues and ills of a party.
- munk-a 4y agoI completely agree with you about it being a valid conclusion from a reasonable person. I think we all do that to some extent - we're always softer on "our team"... but it's also quite rational to look at a minor corruption scandal and feel it's outweighed by a politician's view on some highly sensitive topic like reproductive rights. The issue is that we're taking it to extremes.
- humans2 4y ago[dead]
- bluGill 4y agoWhen someone in party X does bad thing it is okay to party X, while party Y screams about it. Then later someone in party Y does the same thing and it is okay with party Y, while party X screams.
- tshaddox 4y agoI would still make a distinction between being more personally forgiving or patient with someone who's part of your group and actually thinking that the same immortal act is acceptable from someone in your group and unacceptable from someone in a competing group or thinking the law ought to treat people differently depending on their political party.