6 ms·

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardl

Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything is right vs left to some people. There is no discussion of the consequences of this action, just name-calling an unsubstantiated claims. I hate discussing politics because the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required to fully support Republicans or Democrats makes my head hurt.

baddox 13y ago
Are either of those actually examples of political tribalism? The first seems to be mocking the ignorance of many partisans, while the second seems to be attributing political tribalism to Rand Paul. Neither commenter seems to be exhibiting political tribalism.
diminoten 13y ago
This is right vs. left. He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part. Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly.
- jdreaver 13y ago
  I know it is right vs left, and I don't care. Being a pawn in the right vs left debate is a waste of time. I care about the actual effects of this suit. > Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly. Are you kidding me? There is so much to life besides partisan politics. Deciding not to care about partisan politics is one of the best decisions of my life. It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics. Trying to steer the current political system to do your bidding is a waste of time unless you have a tremendous amount of resources and willpower. For the average citizen, the only winning move is not to play.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Not playing is not playing, it's not a winning move, it's no move. Nor did he say anything about life being partisan politics; he said issues, i.e. political issues are all partisan. > It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics. For 99.999% of people, no, it's really not. Voting is the most powerful thing you can do to change things in any meaningful way. Those who show up run the show; those who don't show up follow the laws passed by those who do.
- tanon500 13y ago
  If you have the power and opportunity to change a wrong, but do nothing, then you're as culpable as whoever caused the wrong in the first place. In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future. Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    If what you say is true, then every single second of every single day that I'm not spending my time maximizing my benefit to society and others, I'm living in... well, "sin" or whatever moral bad state you would like to call it. You may choose to live like that, but I prefer to judge myself in a way that doesn't make literally everything I do an immoral act.
    - tanon500 13y ago
      We're all selfish and make decisions in our best interest (our families' and close ones' interests _are_ our own) - whether or not you look at those selfish decisions as a "sin" isn't a distinction I've made or intend to.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Okay, but what you said was that any time we don't act and can act we are operating "in sin", which leads to the conclusion that if we don't always act in the most optimal way for society, we're acting in sin. So even if you didn't intend to, you just made all selfish acts sinful.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part. I am not a big Rand Paul fan, but I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion. ISTM that he'd be as almost as much of a pain-in-the-ass to a Republican president from the less-libertarian/isolationist/goldbug wing of the party. Look at the spats he's had with Christie, at a start.
dmix 13y ago
Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-bring-debt-ceiling-to-vote-without-policy-attachments.html?from=homepage http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.
- jdreaver 13y ago
  Agreed. Another reason to disregard partisan politics, because the two sides are really one on the most important issues of our time.
  - ProAm 13y ago
    Government shutdown of 2013?
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Yes, like immigration, health care, women's rights, food stamps, voting rights, minimum wage, social security, and taxation.
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  That's a pretty _horrible_ example of the parties coalescing into a single viewpoint, since intentionally defaulting on our debts is an extremist view by any definition. That's like saying "clearly the two parties are basically the same because they both don't support nuking Russia". "Both parties agree not to act like lunatics" is a terrible example of "the parties are merging". A much less bizarre example would be the way the parties have moved towards each other on issues like national security, the finance industry, etc.
  - dmix 13y ago
    This is not an extreme example. The alternative was conditional terms on expanding the debt limit, not defaulting on the debt. The bill passed without any additional restrictions on spending or changes to collection. The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now and both parties are doing little to stop its expansion. As I said in my original comment, the fringe are the ones who are legitimately different from the single party, for example, as you mentioned, the Tea Partiers would support either defaulting or significant restrictions on spending.
nhebb 13y ago
Ever since reading about the Robbers Cave Experiment [1], I have trouble looking at politics without seeing it through that lens. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/
- mkaziz 13y ago
  Ahh, a great classic. You can view all humanity through that lens, all the time.
- gruseom 13y ago
  That study is a classic that belongs alongside Milgram (obedience to authority) and Zimbardo (Stanford prison experiment). I'm not sure why it isn't better known. The three go together perfectly.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
That is the main problem I see with modern politics. It basically becomes "stereotypes of the left versus stereotypes of the right". A friend of a friend told me that he didn't see Gay marriage being outlawed in many states as a civil rights issue. I said I did. At this point, he asked "so you're a democrat?" I said "not really, I don't think of myself as associated with either party" and his answer was, no joke, "well how can I understand why you believe what you do without knowing what party you're in?" as if every Democrats brain is connected to one thought center and the same with Republicans. The strawmen that come out of this are utterly insane. "well you think what Christie did with closing the bridge and putting lives in danger was bad? What about Benghazi?!?!" as if you had to be on team Benghazi is bad or team Christie closing the bridge was bad and there were no other options. It's incredibly depressing really.
- rohunati 13y ago
  This is exactly the problem. We could be having deep, analytical discussions about the principles and philosophies that form the basis of our political convictions. Instead, our conversations are tainted by partisanship.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I'm sorry. We're busy training the next generation of knowledge workers. Things like "how to construct a cogent argument based upon a reasoned moral framework" or "how to distill essential points and deduce the original line of reasoning from a long-form essay" are artsy fartsy humanities unnecessary to getting a paycheck in the real world.
    - rohunati 13y ago
      Haha if that's the case, then we're all going to end up like drones. We'll only be able to do what we're told and we won't be able to think for ourselves. We'll never be able to think deeply about issues, because hey -- that's useless! That won't get me a paycheck! Innovation is inherently interdisciplinary. If we aren't exposed to different ways of thought, we won't be able to approach problems from the variety of different perspectives that are both necessary and key to creative problem solving.
larrys 13y ago
"a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base." This is for publicity purposes nothing more than that. (Of course he also believes in what he is doing but the main driver is to give him even more household recognition). After all Paul represents Kentucky. So why fight a battle for all of us. I hate when politicians do things like this (In NY Spitzer did this and Schumer does the same). They take on issues that garner much press mention which is not to say they don't have benefits to those in their state.) See "grandstanding" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/grandstanding http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-engli...
x0054 13y ago
I would venture to guess that their are a lot of people in United States who believe in cutting government spending and fiscal responsibility but at the same time are socially liberal, and believe that people should be given opportunities and left alone to do what they will with their life and have sex and marry who ever they want (assuming consent and free will). Basically, something tells me that there are a lot of people who understand that the problems we are facing are more complex than the sound bite solutions which our politicians provide. Why isn't there a 3rd party. I am not talking about libertarians, or anarchists, or the Green Party. I want to vote for the party of "reasonable" people who will use logic, science, and well documented facts to get my vote, not rhetoric and scare tactics. The "balance" party perhaps.
- shasta 13y ago
  > Why isn't there a 3rd party? http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html
- cwisecarver 13y ago
  I totally agree. I am the guy you just described and I think of myself as a libertarian, before the Tea Party ruined the term. I'd like us to rein in spending and make lawmakers accountable for the money they vote to spend. At the same time I'm in favor of absolutely anyone doing absolutely anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Marry three desk lamps and a fishing pole if you want. How does that in any way affect me? Smoke some green tea leaves and a polyester blanket if it makes you happy. You burn down my apartment building and we're gonna have words. We don't need to be spending our blood and treasure to butt into other countries' affairs. I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first.
  - tmuir 13y ago
    >I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first. Perhaps you meant the word "days" literally. The CIA, created in 1947, solely exists to butt into other countries affairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...
ekianjo 13y ago
wait until they call Paul a racist.
glasz 13y ago
welcome to the false left-right paradigm. most people just don't realize that it's deliberately being used to have the sheep running in circles every 4 years. meanwhile, there's only one political agenda on all sides. but it's ok. go back to sleep.
nl 13y ago
Right vs Left is a pretty boring way of looking at it, and I find different lens much more useful. One surprising one is the power of the executive branch vs the other branches of government. Views on that don't fall along right vs left lines at all, and I think there are plenty in the Republican party (as well as the Democratic party) who will see this as an attempt to limit presidential power, and will be opposed to it on that ground.
habitue 13y ago
Politics is the mind-killer: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ It takes a concerted effort to think of political issues purely consequentially.

baddox 13y ago

Are either of those actually examples of political tribalism? The first seems to be mocking the ignorance of many partisans, while the second seems to be attributing political tribalism to Rand Paul. Neither commenter seems to be exhibiting political tribalism.

diminoten 13y ago

This is right vs. left. He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part. Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly.

jdreaver 13y ago
I know it is right vs left, and I don't care. Being a pawn in the right vs left debate is a waste of time. I care about the actual effects of this suit. > Like it or not, everything literally is partisan politics. No issue in the US rises above partisanship. That's the system we live in, you'll just have to accept that or attempt to change it directly. Are you kidding me? There is so much to life besides partisan politics. Deciding not to care about partisan politics is one of the best decisions of my life. It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics. Trying to steer the current political system to do your bidding is a waste of time unless you have a tremendous amount of resources and willpower. For the average citizen, the only winning move is not to play.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Not playing is not playing, it's not a winning move, it's no move. Nor did he say anything about life being partisan politics; he said issues, i.e. political issues are all partisan. > It is indeed possible to change the world without using the government and partisan politics. For 99.999% of people, no, it's really not. Voting is the most powerful thing you can do to change things in any meaningful way. Those who show up run the show; those who don't show up follow the laws passed by those who do.
tanon500 13y ago
If you have the power and opportunity to change a wrong, but do nothing, then you're as culpable as whoever caused the wrong in the first place. In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future. Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.
- diminoten 13y ago
  If what you say is true, then every single second of every single day that I'm not spending my time maximizing my benefit to society and others, I'm living in... well, "sin" or whatever moral bad state you would like to call it. You may choose to live like that, but I prefer to judge myself in a way that doesn't make literally everything I do an immoral act.
  - tanon500 13y ago
    We're all selfish and make decisions in our best interest (our families' and close ones' interests _are_ our own) - whether or not you look at those selfish decisions as a "sin" isn't a distinction I've made or intend to.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Okay, but what you said was that any time we don't act and can act we are operating "in sin", which leads to the conclusion that if we don't always act in the most optimal way for society, we're acting in sin. So even if you didn't intend to, you just made all selfish acts sinful.
twoodfin 13y ago
He wouldn't have done this to a Republican president, do you think he, Rand Paul, would have? Do you know much about Rand Paul? The man's entire political career is based on acting the partisan part. I am not a big Rand Paul fan, but I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion. ISTM that he'd be as almost as much of a pain-in-the-ass to a Republican president from the less-libertarian/isolationist/goldbug wing of the party. Look at the spats he's had with Christie, at a start.

dmix 13y ago

Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-bring-debt-ceiling-to-vote-without-policy-attachments.html?from=homepage http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.

jdreaver 13y ago
Agreed. Another reason to disregard partisan politics, because the two sides are really one on the most important issues of our time.
- ProAm 13y ago
  Government shutdown of 2013?
- saalweachter 13y ago
  Yes, like immigration, health care, women's rights, food stamps, voting rights, minimum wage, social security, and taxation.
wutbrodo 13y ago
That's a pretty _horrible_ example of the parties coalescing into a single viewpoint, since intentionally defaulting on our debts is an extremist view by any definition. That's like saying "clearly the two parties are basically the same because they both don't support nuking Russia". "Both parties agree not to act like lunatics" is a terrible example of "the parties are merging". A much less bizarre example would be the way the parties have moved towards each other on issues like national security, the finance industry, etc.
- dmix 13y ago
  This is not an extreme example. The alternative was conditional terms on expanding the debt limit, not defaulting on the debt. The bill passed without any additional restrictions on spending or changes to collection. The national debt is one of the biggest issues in the country right now and both parties are doing little to stop its expansion. As I said in my original comment, the fringe are the ones who are legitimately different from the single party, for example, as you mentioned, the Tea Partiers would support either defaulting or significant restrictions on spending.

nhebb 13y ago

Ever since reading about the Robbers Cave Experiment [1], I have trouble looking at politics without seeing it through that lens. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/

mkaziz 13y ago
Ahh, a great classic. You can view all humanity through that lens, all the time.
gruseom 13y ago
That study is a classic that belongs alongside Milgram (obedience to authority) and Zimbardo (Stanford prison experiment). I'm not sure why it isn't better known. The three go together perfectly.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

That is the main problem I see with modern politics. It basically becomes "stereotypes of the left versus stereotypes of the right". A friend of a friend told me that he didn't see Gay marriage being outlawed in many states as a civil rights issue. I said I did. At this point, he asked "so you're a democrat?" I said "not really, I don't think of myself as associated with either party" and his answer was, no joke, "well how can I understand why you believe what you do without knowing what party you're in?" as if every Democrats brain is connected to one thought center and the same with Republicans. The strawmen that come out of this are utterly insane. "well you think what Christie did with closing the bridge and putting lives in danger was bad? What about Benghazi?!?!" as if you had to be on team Benghazi is bad or team Christie closing the bridge was bad and there were no other options. It's incredibly depressing really.

rohunati 13y ago
This is exactly the problem. We could be having deep, analytical discussions about the principles and philosophies that form the basis of our political convictions. Instead, our conversations are tainted by partisanship.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I'm sorry. We're busy training the next generation of knowledge workers. Things like "how to construct a cogent argument based upon a reasoned moral framework" or "how to distill essential points and deduce the original line of reasoning from a long-form essay" are artsy fartsy humanities unnecessary to getting a paycheck in the real world.
  - rohunati 13y ago
    Haha if that's the case, then we're all going to end up like drones. We'll only be able to do what we're told and we won't be able to think for ourselves. We'll never be able to think deeply about issues, because hey -- that's useless! That won't get me a paycheck! Innovation is inherently interdisciplinary. If we aren't exposed to different ways of thought, we won't be able to approach problems from the variety of different perspectives that are both necessary and key to creative problem solving.

larrys 13y ago

"a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base." This is for publicity purposes nothing more than that. (Of course he also believes in what he is doing but the main driver is to give him even more household recognition). After all Paul represents Kentucky. So why fight a battle for all of us. I hate when politicians do things like this (In NY Spitzer did this and Schumer does the same). They take on issues that garner much press mention which is not to say they don't have benefits to those in their state.) See "grandstanding" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/grandstanding http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-engli...

x0054 13y ago

I would venture to guess that their are a lot of people in United States who believe in cutting government spending and fiscal responsibility but at the same time are socially liberal, and believe that people should be given opportunities and left alone to do what they will with their life and have sex and marry who ever they want (assuming consent and free will). Basically, something tells me that there are a lot of people who understand that the problems we are facing are more complex than the sound bite solutions which our politicians provide. Why isn't there a 3rd party. I am not talking about libertarians, or anarchists, or the Green Party. I want to vote for the party of "reasonable" people who will use logic, science, and well documented facts to get my vote, not rhetoric and scare tactics. The "balance" party perhaps.

shasta 13y ago
> Why isn't there a 3rd party? http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/120.html
cwisecarver 13y ago
I totally agree. I am the guy you just described and I think of myself as a libertarian, before the Tea Party ruined the term. I'd like us to rein in spending and make lawmakers accountable for the money they vote to spend. At the same time I'm in favor of absolutely anyone doing absolutely anything they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Marry three desk lamps and a fishing pole if you want. How does that in any way affect me? Smoke some green tea leaves and a polyester blanket if it makes you happy. You burn down my apartment building and we're gonna have words. We don't need to be spending our blood and treasure to butt into other countries' affairs. I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first.
- tmuir 13y ago
  >I want the post-WWII days back where we didn't bother anyone that didn't bother us first. Perhaps you meant the word "days" literally. The CIA, created in 1947, solely exists to butt into other countries affairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...

ekianjo 13y ago

wait until they call Paul a racist.

glasz 13y ago

welcome to the false left-right paradigm. most people just don't realize that it's deliberately being used to have the sheep running in circles every 4 years. meanwhile, there's only one political agenda on all sides. but it's ok. go back to sleep.

nl 13y ago

Right vs Left is a pretty boring way of looking at it, and I find different lens much more useful. One surprising one is the power of the executive branch vs the other branches of government. Views on that don't fall along right vs left lines at all, and I think there are plenty in the Republican party (as well as the Democratic party) who will see this as an attempt to limit presidential power, and will be opposed to it on that ground.

habitue 13y ago

Politics is the mind-killer: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ It takes a concerted effort to think of political issues purely consequentially.