And you are replying to a partisan user.

Not sure why this is relevant.

The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?

It is relevant, reread it.

Best I can tell, you're indicating that more partisan users post more, as the paper found.

The problem is that "partisan" doesn't automatically mean "wrong".

People wield "the middle" as if it is some magic incantation that makes them correct or immune to criticism. In fact, it is generally the "middle" or, as I prefer to call them, the "inert" that tend to be wrong since they are always behind the curve rather than ahead of it.

In Milgram's experiment, only the most "partisan" refused to deliver the shocks. The "middle" dutifully continued right to the end and delivered the highest voltages even as their own distress mounted.

You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.

I am ok with being called inert. In the context, this would suggest I am less easily swayed than most.

Someone very famous had words for you:

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

... There are layers to your post that need to be properly disassembled to be properly appreciated. And I assure you that I do appreciate it. Deeply. ...

<< That just means you cling to your wrong ideas with the same tenacity as your correct ones.

It is bold of you to assume that your ideas are correct and, consequently, my ideas are not.

It is not just bold, but also kinda well, not smart, to assume what my ideas are. For all you know, I believe circles are, in fact, round. Are you going to argue against roundness of circles now?

But to top of it all off with a quotable quote that seems like it should mean something, and yet manages to mean nothing, because, apart from it being -- lets say -- misapplied in general, it is also ridiculously wrong in the context.

How does work for an outright rejection?

We can stop talking now. We have no useful thoughts to exchange.

There isn't exactly a "curve" to be behind, just as there isn't one single "history" that you can end up "on the wrong side of". Politics is just the constantly shifting borders in a formalised war for power between different groups, long term there is no single direction of "progress".

>You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.

This is the correct view, in the sense that if you don't belong to some kind of tribe, you'll get ripped off by someone who does. The inert group are not wrong, but by participating less than the others in the battle for their collective self interest, they will end up being the ones taken advantage of.

They have the most to win/lose.

The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’

Or, you know, they actually have a point, and framing them as just another partisan is an uncharitable response. Which, ironically, is typical of partisans.

Neither the paper nor the original comment said the most partisan commenters are wrong. It found a strong correlation between how partisan a social media user is and how often they post.

You're being uncharitable by assuming the commenter is disagreeing that with the point that the Overton window has moved. Which, I've heard, is typical of partisans.