PDA

View Full Version : I Have a Pledge to Make. Who Will Join Me?



SarasotaRepub
12-20-2011, 05:59 PM
YOU VILL SIGN!!!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100246467):D








The Doctor. (15,295 posts) Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:02 AM


I Have a Pledge to Make. Who Will Join Me?

If we want to elevate the discourse, some things need to change... from everyone. I'd Like to Give Everyone a Chance to be Clear.

I have been seeing a higher level of dishonesty here than ever before on DU. That includes the '08 primaries. I'm not whining about DU, it's a fine place with plenty of fine people. The thing is that we've crossed a line too many times and that lowers us.

I know that I come down more on one side of this issue than the other. I know that I'm going to be roundly and unreasonably lambasted for speaking my mind... as usual. I accept that as part of discourse, but the level of dishonesty that goes with it is very disheartening and robs me of my faith in what should otherwise be a body of intelligent and thoughtful individuals.

First, I'll address the Obama supporters:

Yes, I'm with you. We will have two viable choices for President and anyone who says otherwise is not living in reality. I've heard that we are 'authoritarian' and in pursuit of censorship. I have not seen direct examples of this, but I'd like to make something perfectly, abundantly, and crystal clear: Telling people that they shall not criticize the President is NEVER appropriate. To quote Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Again, I honestly have not seen examples of people telling Obama's critics that they are not allowed to voice their opinions, but that does not mean such examples do not exist. Therefore I will say without reservation that to state anything of the sort is reprehensible. It also plays into the contrived narrative that Obama supporters are 'authoritarian' and 'intolerant'.

To be an Obama supporter means listening to criticism, understanding it, expanding on the context where possible, or admitting to the faults or failures where they have no reasonable explanation.

It is dishonest to deal with criticism otherwise.

But speaking of 'dishonesty'...

This has become something of a problem lately among many that are highly critical of Obama. It has been made very, very clear that taking exception to criticism is intolerable to many who wish to air their outrage over Obama, his administration, and the policies that the two have enacted. This intolerance should have no place in discourse.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you choose to be critical of Obama on a Democratic discussion board, expect people to take exception to that criticism. We Get It: You Don't Like Your Criticism of Obama Being Challenged. Now this aversion to criticism of Obama being challenged wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't for the way it is so often handled:

Dishonestly.

This is very telling. It means that Obama's critics (not all of them, of course, but there are plenty) want to shut down any challenge to their criticism by deliberately mischaracterizing it as 'authoritarian', 'censorship', or otherwise impertinent to the criticism itself. Unless you are actually told that you should shut up, that you have to 'fall in line', that you must vote for Obama, or that you are 'with us or against us', to claim anyone has instructed you so is a LIE.

It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you.

This is one of the most poisonous practices in discourse these days. It is exactly how Fox 'News' and Rush who-is-not-necessarily-a-sex-tourist Limbaugh program their brainwashed audience. It is uncivil, impolite, and ultimately dishonest to pretend someone has said what they did not. We are all guilty of this at some level, but those of us who are aware of it have the responsibility to keep it in check.

IF you are not certain what someone's intentions are from a given post, then ask them a simple yes/no question such as: "Are you telling me to stop criticizing Obama?"

That way they have an opportunity to clarify their intentions and discussion can continue on without devolving into a kindergarden playground fight.

Too many times people have made such claims about my own posts or those of other DUers without a single shred of evidence. We know why; it is because engaging in earnest on the nitty-gritty of the issues can be work and it's so much easier to end the exchange and walk away feeling righteous by lying about the other poster's intentions.

Let me be perfectly clear, again; To resort to such a tactic is both transparent and childish. I know that many people don't want to hear that and will likely throw a tantrum about it, but I would like to think we're all adults and anyone who reflects on their use of this tactic will eschew it from here on out.


...




And the idiot hasn't even gotten to his "Pledge" yet!!!! :eek::D

Janice
12-20-2011, 06:12 PM
Wait ... lemme see if my lobotomy meds are up to date ...

JB
12-20-2011, 06:25 PM
The Doctor is getting murdered in that thread. All those words...wasted. Pitt probably gave him an A though.

Hey Doc, DU doesn't like pledges. Pledging to charity, pledging to one's spouse and especially the one that starts with "I pledge allegiance to the flag...".

DumbAss Tanker
12-20-2011, 07:35 PM
Hey Doctor...STFU, you're wasting even the DUmmies' time on that one.

txradioguy
12-21-2011, 05:30 AM
YOU VILL SIGN!!!!! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100246467):D

And the idiot hasn't even gotten to his "Pledge" yet!!!! :eek::D

Looks like Bridget is ghost writing for him.

Lanie
12-21-2011, 09:41 AM
Looks like Bridget is ghost writing for him.

I'm really wanting to come up with a long answer to that.

txradioguy
12-21-2011, 09:43 AM
I'm really wanting to come up with a long answer to that.

And I'm sure it will make as much sense as the OP

DumbAss Tanker
12-21-2011, 12:12 PM
I'm really wanting to come up with a long answer to that.

Clever riposte!

:D

michaelsean
12-21-2011, 01:58 PM
comipinko (185 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. Ooooo....A "Pledge".....how , how republican !

Good Democrats do NOT take pledges. Instead, they THINK.

Whenever they talk about how "they think" I always picture them looking like a guy sitting on a toilet trying to overcome his constipation.

txradioguy
12-21-2011, 02:00 PM
Whenever they talk about how "they think" I always picture them looking like a guy sitting on a toilet trying to overcome his constipation.


Dems don't think...they just follow the mob to the latest outrage.

DumbAss Tanker
12-21-2011, 02:26 PM
We often say that people who overthink things are "Caught in a Do Loop." Democrats, on the other hand, are "Caught in a Don't Loop."