Hacker News Reader

Comment by geremiiah | Hacker News Reader

The article uses the word "partisan", the opposite of which I think is "independent", not "centrist" or "middle", but to be fair the article seems to conflate the two as well and never uses the word "independent". However to me there is a big difference between being a centrist and being independent. One could be independent with views that are at times deemed extreme right and at times extreme left. Similarly, some people are "centrist" yet somehow deeply partisan in the sense that their party can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the other party.

View on HN

It is a valid question. I looked at the author's profile and while he is not from US ( Amsterdam ), his studies focus[1] appears to be on subjects that would suggest he should be relatively well acquainted with politics in US along with how they differ in terms of terminology from EU or UK. Sadly, I can't seem to say for sure how term was intended in the article itself. That said, the author does seem to reference individual US parties.

[1]https://www.uva.nl/en/profile/t/o/p.tornberg/k.p.tornberg.ht...

[removed]

Can you elaborate? Do you mean that the final version is not approved by the author/s for publication?

[removed as I don't wish to tank this guy's career. he knows what he's done though]

My point was a little more subtle. Does the human at the end of the process that presses 'submit'/'publish'/'do this thing' bear a responsibility for verbiage, claims and everything in the paper that bears his name regardless of whether or not he wrote it.

Your entire argument is a personal vibe.

Maybe your literacy is not as great as you think it is and unfamiliar written tones are difficult for you. The result is personal discomfort and it's easier to blame external reality rather than your own ignorance and inexperience.

I noticed that ZeroGPT has a high false positive rate. Put the same document in other checkers and it's says zero AI.

The problem with this is that people are particularly bad at judging their own 'independence' of thought, regardless of their political views.

I would say the opposite of partisan would be someone who actively seeks to understand and relate to the views of those who they disagree with, or who are from their out-group. This would also imply independence of thought.

Insisting that truth is always in the middle is a radical ideology on itself.

This. Partisanship is going along party lines (agreeing with the Party) where independence is thinking of your own free will. We desperately need more of those people in charge.

Why would the party support them?

For the team? For the influence? There used to be a time when people could work across the aisle.

You can have beliefs, but you also must have heart and a brain to open your world view to other perspectives. This is what being an adult is all about. Not this crap that we see today.

I would suggest that at those times it's when the structure of achieving the same common goal was at stake.

Disagreements on the best day to provide services to the public are still attempting the same common objective.

Disagreements on which people will have their rights removed are not a "let's agree to disagree" sort of thing.

Those are the people who do the nost work for the party. People who 'toe the line' are also those who tend not to do the work that gets people elected. People who care enough to think also knock of doors and the other work that gets someone elected. You won't find a thinking person you 100% agree with, but a mostly agree is better than a mostly disagree - and by doing that work you also get to talk to people and perhaps change minds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com