How do you define "partisan"?

How do you define "partisan"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 12:58:40 AM)
There has been discussion in this forum lately about the term "partisan". Rather than have another thread de-railment, let us discuss the meaning of the word. Please, no personal attacks, offer your opinions without flaming others! Here is a basic definition - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) par·ti·san1 /ˈpɑr[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]tə[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]zən, -sən; Brit. ˌpɑr[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]təˈzæn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pahr-tuh-zuh[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]n, -suh[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]n; Brit. pahr-tuh-zan] –noun 1.an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. 2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army. –adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics. 4. of, pertaining to, or carried on by military partisans or guerrillas. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Partisan (Format edit)

juliaoceania -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 10:16:09 AM)
I use it mostly in belonging to a political party and showing blind allegiance to that party. In this country we have two main political parties, they control discourse. Now there are lesser partisan type political movements that try to influence government policy, like the unions and corporate america, but for the most part I think of political whores willing to say or do anything for their party. The type of people that would lie, spin, prevaricate, do anything to make their "side" look good. I do not consider myself a partisan because I will not defend the actions of others based upon political affiliations There was something that my former dominant said that was extremely wise when it came to politics. He was/is an activist. It that stuck with me strongly. He often would say that it weakens one's positions to belong to cults of personality, and that when the politician becomes more than the issue then one has compromised their issues. People attack the position by attacking the person instead of the position. People are often fallible, if their position is sound it does not matter how fallible they are. He thought we set ourselves up for disillusionment when we put anyone on a pedestal. The democrats suffered this when Bill Clinton was caught lying about his sexual indiscretions, and now the Republicans are beginning to suffer this because their leader is emotionally retarded and spiritually bankrupt. Now they are fighting to defend this person with every ounce of who they are, just like the dems did with Clinton... the difference is that Bush is just more evil, heartless, and plain clueless than any other president that we have ever had.

SimplyMichael -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 10:19:01 AM)
Anything that exposes criminal, immoral, hypocritical, short sighted, incompetend and or idiotic behavior of Republicans.

popeye1250 -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 10:42:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I use it mostly in belonging to a political party and showing blind allegiance to that party. In this country we have two main political parties, they control discourse. Now there are lesser partisan type political movements that try to influence government policy, like the unions and corporate america, but for the most part I think of political whores willing to say or do anything for their party. The type of people that would lie, spin, prevaricate, do anything to make their "side" look good. I do not consider myself a partisan because I will not defend the actions of others based upon political affiliations There was something that my former dominant said that was extremely wise when it came to politics. He was/is an activist. It that stuck with me strongly. He often would say that it weakens one's positions to belong to cults of personality, and that when the politician becomes more than the issue then one has compromised their issues. People attack the position by attacking the person instead of the position. People are often fallible, if their position is sound it does not matter how fallible they are. He thought we set ourselves up for disillusionment when we put anyone on a pedestal. The democrats suffered this when Bill Clinton was caught lying about his sexual indiscretions, and now the Republicans are beginning to suffer this because their leader is emotionally retarded and spiritually bankrupt. Now they are fighting to defend this person with every ounce of who they are, just like the dems did with Clinton... the difference is that Bush is just more evil, heartless, and plain clueless than any other president that we have ever had. Julia, well said. I don't think "blind allegiance" to anything is healthy. There are "good" things about both the Democrats and Republicans, but there seem to be more "bad" things about each of them too. Today our government is captive to the needs and wishes of big business more so than since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. That is certainly not a "good" thing and certainly leads to corruption. I think the biggest mistake partisan-wise that the American People are making today is the reliance on only two political partys, what some call the "Big Box" partys like the two big stores at both ends of a shopping mall. People end up working blindly for "The Party" and not for "The People" the ultimate example of that being Ted "Legless" Kennedy. And many people don't even consider Bush to be a "Republican." I think that the greatest disservice that the American People can do to themselves is to limit their potential by only voting for Democrats or Republicans. We are SORELY in need of third, fourth, and fifth Partys in this country to keep the Dems and Repubs in check! I'm not happy anymore when either one of those Partys is in power and I strongly suspect that I'm not alone.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 12:08:03 PM)
Generically, "partisan" is a dedicated belief and defense of a specific point of view, or belief system, with the added point of being willing to espouse and defend that point of view or belief system. You can be a partisan for a specific political party (which seems to be the way that many people here on the forums view it), but this is simply one way to be a partisan. Being a "partisan" is neither a good nor a bad thing. It's a descriptive term. Some people seem to take offense at it because it is defined as "esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. " Notice the abbreviation "esp" which means especially. "Especially" doesn't mean exclusively, just commonly. I submit that everyone is emotional attached to their belief systems to a degree or another. I submit that everyone is biased to a certain extent. The more important question is whether or not they are also open to reason, and whether they have closed off their mind about things which challenge their belief system. You can be a partisan for your relationship with your mate. Generally considered a good thing. You can be a partisan for your religion. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing. You can be a partisan for a particular set of "non-religious" beliefs such as athesism. You can be a partisan for a set of political beliefs without being a member of a political party. Whether or not you are offended at being called a "partisan" depends on whether or not you are comfortable with what you believe and espouse. I think people who are offended are because they believe that they "only use reason" in their lives and beliefs. Unfortunately, anything one believes as "fact" is both open to interpretation, and your conclusions are many times also based on the sum total of your emotional state, pre-conditioning, psychological profile, and other inherent, pre-existing biases you have. FirmKY

littlesarbonn -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 12:21:20 PM)
The second definition is actually where the political usage derives. It's behavior that is utilized by a group of people who are displaced from government and act accordingly in any fashion to disrupt the logical flow of power to those in charge. Our morphing of the usage has turned it from an outsider group that attempts to use hostile methods of disrupt the flow of power to opposites who use political tactics and somewhat dubious methods to disrupt the other side all in the name of a common view that the partisans have towards one philosophy. This is why Democrats can be partisan towards Republicans (especially when there was one party control) and why Republicans can be partisan towards Democrats (often by playing the "Democrats have historically been in power" card). Outsiders to the whole political process, those who have little or no means of being heard because of the dominance of both parties, are really the true partisans, except even the media ignores them unless they do something so awful that it becomes criminal behavior, and then the coverage is more about criminality than it is about politics, leaving any third party partisan behavior with little to no recourse in today's governmental system here in the states.

juliaoceania -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 12:26:01 PM)
quote: The second definition is actually where the political usage derives That is my view, when one is speaking of politics and partisanship it is obvious in my mind they are speaking of party affiliation, it is the common usage that I think of. If we are going to talk about partisanship being any emotional tie to a position, I guess one could say anyone that belongs to a religion is partisan in their belief.... most people I know do not use the word this way.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 12:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: The second definition is actually where the political usage derives That is my view, when one is speaking of politics and partisanship it is obvious in my mind they are speaking of party affiliation, it is the common usage that I think of. If we are going to talk about partisanship being any emotional tie to a position, I guess one could say anyone that belongs to a religion is partisan in their belief.... most people I know do not use the word this way. The first definition is the most commonly accepted one. That's why its the first one: –noun 1.an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. Perhaps the people who uses it as simply a political term, are focused on it's use that way, the same way that when you say "a partisan" to a military man, he thinks of an irregular fighter the way littlesarbonn uses it? But the wider meaning, and more common one, is the one I quoted above. FirmKY

littlesarbonn -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 2:26:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: The second definition is actually where the political usage derives That is my view, when one is speaking of politics and partisanship it is obvious in my mind they are speaking of party affiliation, it is the common usage that I think of. If we are going to talk about partisanship being any emotional tie to a position, I guess one could say anyone that belongs to a religion is partisan in their belief.... most people I know do not use the word this way. The first definition is the most commonly accepted one. That's why its the first one: –noun 1.an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. Perhaps the people who uses it as simply a political term, are focused on it's use that way, the same way that when you say "a partisan" to a military man, he thinks of an irregular fighter the way littlesarbonn uses it? But the wider meaning, and more common one, is the one I quoted above. FirmKY I think my point was missed. Yes, the first definition is MORE widely used. BUT, the first definition essentially COMES FROM the second definition. The heirarchy of the listing is not based on origin.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 3:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn I think my point was missed. Yes, the first definition is MORE widely used. BUT, the first definition essentially COMES FROM the second definition. The heirarchy of the listing is not based on origin. No, I didn't miss the point. You are talking origins. I am talking meanings. That's why my post was in reply to julia. FirmKY

Vendaval -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 3:32:49 PM)
julia, That is a very profound insight to share. And yes, cult of personality and image do not lend to credibility. Stick to the principles and the issues. What interests me is that in the context of everyday conversation and news reports, the term is most often used as the 3rd definition. adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics. I often agree with the policies of the Green Party and do vote for their candidates in local elections. But the big elections are still an either/or choice. It is my understanding that in several other countries, the congress or parliament has representatives from the the less powerful political parties in a percentage relative to the amount of votes they receive in an election. Most likely some of you have information to share about that practice and its effectiveness. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not consider myself a partisan because I will not defend the actions of others based upon political affiliations There was something that my former dominant said that was extremely wise when it came to politics. He was/is an activist. It that stuck with me strongly. He often would say that it weakens one's positions to belong to cults of personality, and that when the politician becomes more than the issue then one has compromised their issues. People attack the position by attacking the person instead of the position. People are often fallible, if their position is sound it does not matter how fallible they are. He thought we set ourselves up for disillusionment when we put anyone on a pedestal.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 3:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval julia, That is a very profound insight to share. And yes, cult of personality and image do not lend to credibility. Stick to the principles and the issues. What interests me is that in the context of everyday conversation and news reports, the term is most often used as the 3rd definition. adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics. I often agree with the policies of the Green Party and do vote for their candidates in local elections. But the big elections are still an either/or choice. It is my understanding that in several other countries, the congress or parliament has representatives from the the less powerful political parties in a percentage relative to the amount of votes they receive in an election. Most likely some of you have information to share about that practice and its effectiveness. [:)] What I often hear is that Republicans and "conservatives" are "partisan", "regressive" and "restrictive". Democrats, "liberals" and "progressives" are simply "open", "far-seeing" and "non-partisan". [:D] (notice the smiley, please) FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 4:31:44 PM)
quote: julia, That is a very profound insight to share. And yes, cult of personality and image do not lend to credibility. Stick to the principles and the issues. What interests me is that in the context of everyday conversation and news reports, the term is most often used as the 3rd definition. When it comes to news that is the only way I hear the word used. I never hear it in any other context. There are multiple definitions to any word, but specifically when speaking of political views in this country I bet most would think of partisan as belonging to and owing blind allegiance to a political party. It is the definition I hear most often.. that does not negate other uses of the word I believe there was such a discussion over the word "entitlement" on the gen discussion forum long ago... we were all thinking different things when we use that word... none of us was technically wrong, but words do have multiple meanings that are really obvious when one looks at the context they are used in. In this country when one uses the word "partisan", I would bet most people are thinking about party affiliation... take Bill Schneider (spelling) used the word just today in a way that denoted the democrat and republican split on the issue of Iraq. He called it a partisan division... most people I know of use the word this way. edited because I write badly some days[;)] Edited to add, lately I have heard the word applied to people that are just doing their jobs, and because they donated money to a politician this supposedly makes them too partisan to do their jobs because they support liberal causes. It is kinda amusing that some people believe that partisanship only blinds democrats and never blinds republicans... very amusing indeed, it kinda shows how partisan that those who say things like this really are[:D]

Sinergy -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We are SORELY in need of third, fourth, and fifth Partys in this country to keep the Dems and Repubs in check! Despite frequently being attacked as a liberal or a democrat, I have a very strong anarchist bent that runs through my political views. On the other hand, I studied political and social movements, as well as group control in college, and most anarchist views fail to accept the reality of human strivings. People are a pack animal. They either want to be the Alpha, or they are perfectly happy being the beta. When two Alphas collide in a group, what ends up happening is the group has a tendency to splinter off into opposing cliques and do battle to put their Alpha in charge of everybody else. It is a classic case of my Alpha is bigger than your Alpha. The reason I quoted your statement, popeye1250, is when you look at the political system in India in the 1980s, they had a Congress made up of almost 653 political parties. None of these political parties had a majority, and they could seldom find enough common cause to vote anything meaningful into existence. What ended up happening was whoever was President of their country, or whatever they called the Alpha, had no balancing force to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. This actually relates somewhat to the last 6 years, where we had Braindead Man Walking in charge and a traumatized Congress happily giving away their power to this person. Anybody reading a newspaper, following financial reports, reading about the nuttiness in Iraq, pondering what happened to the Big Easy, etc., can easily see how dangerous it is to not have the checks and balances our governmental system was originally designed with. I am not sure having 2 or 4 or 6 or 23 or 653 political parties will really change things all that much. What I imagine would go a long way towards fixing things would be the groups learning how to work within the political system envisioned and put into place by our founding fathers. This involves people learning how to go to the mat and compromise to do the right thing, as opposed to the current nuttiness involving every Congressperson out for themselves and their earmarks and perks and interns. Andrew Jackson was correct when he said that allowing corporations to exist would create a soulless, self-absorbed, ruthless organism that existed for nothing but it's own survival. Now we have a situation where these same corporations control whoever holds power. Sinergy

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:02:35 PM)
quote: lately I have heard the word applied to people that are just doing their jobs, and because they donated money to a politician 1.an adherent or supporter of ... You can attempt to redefine the word to mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn't change the fact that the use you are attempting to give it isn't the only, or even accurate, commonly-held definition of the word. It seems as if you are attempting to blacken the reputation of anyone who uses the word in any way that you don't agree with. If someone uses a word that you don't understand, or understand incorrectly, then the onus of false understanding lies with the person who is mistaken, or less familiar with the word, not the other way around. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:11:44 PM)
"commonly-held definition of the word." The Social-Constructivists would argue that there is no "Commonly-held" definition of a word, aside from the individuals involved in the instant usage, and their agreed upon context.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:17:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "commonly-held definition of the word." The Social-Constructivists would argue that there is no "Commonly-held" definition of a word, aside from the individuals involved in the instant usage, and their agreed upon context. "Commonly held definitions" is what a dictionary gives, FB. FirmKY

juliaoceania -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:18:16 PM)
KY, You can try to engage me in discussion in any way you like, I have nothing to say to you. I do not care for your posts and I have no intention of discussing with you. Go on attacking me and my posts in any way you like, you demonstrate who you are every time you do. I will say your assertions that I am saying that any other use of the word is not right are incorrect and you are basically incorrect, so you have either not read my words or you are intentionally misrepresenting them just to be nasty (which is something that I am used to when I read you), but in either case in post 13 I stated this quote: I believe there was such a discussion over the word "entitlement" on the gen discussion forum long ago... we were all thinking different things when we use that word... none of us was technically wrong, but words do have multiple meanings that are really obvious when one looks at the context they are used in. Now go on following me around attacking me all day and all night... I will go back to ignoring you and skipping your posts like I normally do because frankly I do not get much out of them.

farglebargle -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:25:19 PM)
You had used the singular tense in your original post, indicating a single commonly-held definition. If that wasn't your intent, the imprecision prevented me from understanding the broader context.

FirmhandKY -> RE: How do you define "partisan"? (3/19/2007 5:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You had used the singular tense in your original post, indicating a single commonly-held definition. If that wasn't your intent, the imprecision prevented me from understanding the broader context. Pardon my imprecision, FB. [:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625