Okay, look. Nobody wants to shut down discussion or stifle dissent.

[Danger Mouse]

And I'm sick of seeing that meme thrown around, because it's not true.
Quite simply, we all have opinions. Some opinions aren't very popular. When some opinions are expressed, other people might object to that opinion and offer criticism of that person's opinion.
Basically, if you are going to bash Obama at every turn, don't be surprised if there are a lot of people who object to it. It is your right to dissent, but it is also the right of others to have an objection to that. None of us are above criticism here. That's not stifling dissent, it's part of the discussion.
Nobody is a martyr on the cross of free speech here, so let's not be over dramatic and ridiculous.

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. agreed.

[tekisui]

2. You beat me to it.

I was just about to post something very similar.

Every post, every issue, every opinion will be challenged here. No matter what the subject or the angle. There is NO attempt to shut down discussion, quite the opposite. Anyone who is so threatened by opposing opinions that they feel they are being bullied or shut down, should probably not risk posting. If you can't handle opposing ideas, this is not the place for you.

[Danger Mouse]

3. People who whine about groupthink and lockstep seem to WANT groupthink and lockstep...

as long as it goes along with THEIR opinions.

[BlooInBloo]

37. Just like the Puritans re: religious freedom.

[Two Americas]

71. a debaye tactic, and not a legitimate one

The logic you are using here is all too common in the national political discussion.

The right wing uses this "turn the tables" tactic to great effect.

Some examples -

Those complaining about racism are themselves accused of "reverse racism."

Those objecting to intolerance are themselves accused of intolerance. "Hey! White males are people too!"

Those objecting to the ongoing war on the working people are themselves accused of fomenting "class warfare."

The right wingers also use the "for us or against us" tactic and lump any and all critics into the same group and impugn their loyalty or patriotism. "All of you blame America first people are the same!"

The right wingers also ask us to discount what people say based upon what they presumably "are" - "sure you would say that. You are a liberal and liberals hate America."

I wish we did not see Democrats using these tactics on each other.

Don't generalize about any and all critics, don't make ad hominem attacks, don't question people's loyalty and sincerity, don't question people's motives and character, and there will not be any problem.

[Why Syzygy]

89. And look at all the people pouring

their energy into a thread which stands for NOTHING other than trying to control other's behavior.

:Pitiful:

[sufrommich]

4. I think "shut down discussion" is code for

"Mommy,make them stop disagreeing with me"

[Two Americas]

85. hardly

I for one welcome points of view that disagree with mine. Very much so. The more that people honestly express their opinions, the better the membership can weigh their relative value. I do not welcome unfair and generalized character assasinations and ad hominem attacks. I object to people hiding their true opinions behind invective and name-calling, and seeking to discredit those holding opinions they disgaree with rather than honesty debating those opinions out in the open.

Your post is an example of this. "Mommy" is obviously intended to characterize critics as childish. That is an attack on the messengers, and not on any messages. The fact that the targets of your wrath are intentionally left vague makes it much more suopporessive than it would be otherwise.

We cannot have thoughful and intelligent discussion if we are going to make these slanderous ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with us, as you just did here with your snide "Mommy" remark.

[bunnies]

5. rec'd. nt

[Gman]

6. I'm noticing that the same people that are whining and complaining

about stifling dissent, were some pretty vicious attack dogs for Obama against Hillary supporters. One in particular gets her blog posted on the right side of the home page.

[quickesst]

26. Agreed..

"One in particular gets her blog posted on the right side of the home page."

Hillary fever, no matter how eloquently expressed, is still Hillary fever. Take her out of the equation, and the "concern" would at least sound genuine, even reasonably, and logically tame. Clinton was villified, unjustly in my opinion during the primaries, then praised to high heaven when she was stumping for Obama, and now that she is part of his administration, or "not in her place", the villification is once again regaining it's stature as number one in importance, with support for Obama relegated back to second tier status. I guess the faith expressed in Obama was for some, only half-hearted, and not thought out very well, but the important goal of destroying HRC took precedence, so the extra effort was made to make people believe Obama had more intelligence than what some really thought. That's bullshit, but there is no other conclusion one can make. It's showing up now, and the facade has fallen away, revealing just how vaccuous part of the progressive movement has become. Seems some democrats can't deal with success, and feel the need to eat their own lest that success be too successful. Basic, underlying truth is hard to accept, and great lengths will be taken to avoid it. Thanks.
quickesst

[No Elephants]

41. Why are you making this thread about Hillary?

[Gman]

59. We didn't make this about Hillary

the whining and complaining purists made it about Hillary many months ago.

[Danger Mouse]

65. I for one think Hillary will make a very good SoS, if not fantastic.

[laugle]

90. Don't you know that Hillary

could negotiate a lasting peace agreement (with Bill's help) between the Israelis/Palestinians; help negotiate a safe end to the war without chaos ensuing; get an agreement with Iran to disarm their nukes with regular inspections; and SOME PEOPLE WOULD STILL NOT BE SATISFIED WITH HER!!!

Anyway.....that's my hope, it's a tall order.........I know........

Talk about high expectations.........

[Beacool]

101. You said it!!!!

And the nasty threads don't stop. Some of these people are really vile, wouldn't want to meet them in person.

:scared:

[mtnsnake]

103. But if you ever did

meet them in person, not a one of them would ever act like the same assholes they do here on this forum because the nearest person within hearing distance would give them a swift ass-kicking.

[Beacool]

107. True, very true.

Then again, many people post crap that they would never have the guts to say to someone's face. I don't recall ever writing anything on any board that I would have trouble saying it to anybody in person. There is a difference between policy disagreements and vicious ad hominem attacks.

;)

[LostinVA]

92. Yup -- a point I've been making since the election

VERY interesting. Notice the huge majority of us HRC Primary supporters are in there defending PE O as much as we ever defended HRC from unwarranted bashing and attacks.

[OKNancy]

7. I know.. what's the deal

I see all sorts of opinions on here. I think that as long as someone posts within the rules, no one is shut down EXCEPT if they can't stand the heat.

I think that's part of it. Some people just don't like to have their opinions questioned or they want 100% agreement.

Some of the comments would make one think that they are having their throats slit IN REAL LIFE. It's the same old thing; taking what is said here way too seriously. I love DU, I've been here since 2001, was a mod for a number of years, but the importance given to what goes on here and what is said here is often way over-valued.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Reminds me of this Palin classic: Palin: First Amendment Rights Threatened By Criticism

Palin: First Amendment Rights Threatened By Criticism

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."


Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong:

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html

[cali]

9. yep. bunch of wilting violets too.

pathetically whining about how they're being picked on.
no one but the admin can stifle anything anyway.

[kstewart33]

10. True, but dang it.

I'm tired of the criticism of Obama. The man's is moving at the speed of light - getting his cabinet and staff ready to run at full speed as soon as he takes office.

And that 2.5 million jobs plan - simply WOW. Shades of FDR!

[Danger Mouse]

11. I can't wait to see what he does.

:hi:

[NashVegas]

12. I Don't Believe That's True At All

I believe there is a good handful of people who decided it's their duty to control the information stream that comes out of here, out of fear that MSM or RW media could find some nifty anti-Obama meme.

I don't care if it makes me look paranoid. Some have already more or less confirmed it.

The best way to stifle discussion is to turn it into a flame-fest. It's always the same group that's ready to take charge and turn it into just that.

[cali]

13. lol. I doubt it. Anyone who posts regularly here knows you

can't possibly control the "information stream " here.

but whatever.

[No Elephants]

40. People have tried.

[BeFree]

14. That would be me

And a good handful of others. Besides we do NOT like the way Obama is being treated. It is our opinion that he is not being treated fairly by some posters here and we object when we read that crap. We will not be silenced or censored. Don't like it? Too bad. Its called freedom.

[NashVegas]

15. And How Is Obama Being Treated, Exactly?

Are you sure you aren't confusing Obama's person with his policies?

[BeFree]

22. How?

Haven't been around much, eh?

The lack of trust, the backstabbing, the basesless complaints, have been polluting this board for days now.

[NashVegas]

23. Got Examples?

of someone criticizing Obama's person - as opposed to policies?

[BeFree]

25. Personal policies

You are deflecting. Obama made a personal choice for his COS and you'd a thought he appointed the KKK.

Good for you that you haven't see the tripe. It was quite disgusting. But we good handful have beaten the opposition down so you won't have to be bothered. You owe us!

[NashVegas]

29. Rahm, Cabinet Members, All Are Political Choices

Fair game.

[BeFree]

30. And so are your choices

You may bitch about being nailed to the wall, but everyone here is fair game. If you don't cotton to that, why you'd be an awful hypocrit, eh?

[NashVegas]

33. Circular Logic

Personal attacks on DU users are off limits. Criticizing Democratic leaders' on the issues is protected. Read the rules. And you have yet to post even one example of someone making personal criticisms of Obama or Rahm.

[BeFree]

34. Here's one

On the lead GD:Page right now, I quote:

I was really taken in by all that "change" rhetoric.


The poster claims he was taken in by all that change rhetoric. Implies that Obama was lying and or misleading with bs about change. We heard that from the pubbies, and now we read it here.

Happy?

[NashVegas]

38. Empty Sets

"I was really taken in" is a statement about the poster, themselves.

"by all that "change" rhetoric." is a statement about Obama's campaign rhetoric.

[BeFree]

66. Good spin

"All that change rhetoric" is a negative spin regarding what Obama has promised us. It seems that the poster is personally attacking Obama and his main stance. Spin it how you want but you asked for an example and I gave you one.

[NashVegas]

67. Yours, Not So Much

If you and yours are going to continue trying stifle legitimate criticism by turning threads into a flame fests, people will continue calling out on that shit. You see something that crosses the line from what is stated in the rules, alert the mods.

[BeFree]

70. Your turn

Show me some legitimate criticism.

Most all of what I've seen is criticism just to be critical. So show me some legit criticism.

[NashVegas]

91. You Already Posted It

Above, and said it was out of line. We disagree.

Have a great day.

:hi:

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NashVegas]

94. And Finally, The Ad Hominem Attack

:hi:

[BeFree]

99. It was no pleasure

....having a discussion with you, and why my post was deleted I have no idea, unless I was comparing you to Palin.

[sufrommich]

21. Anybody who thinks posters on DU are wagging the dog

of politics in the real world will be eternally disappointed. It's a freakin' political forum for all stripes of Democrats,with as little moderation as is possible in a forum like this. Paranoia is believing that posters with different,but just as strong,opinions are acting out of "duty" to anything other than their own opinion.

[NashVegas]

24. Nonetheless

There are and they do.

[HughMoran]

47. true

It's all too often those who would want to control discussion who are most likely to complain about those who would disagree with them.

[Danger Mouse]

53. I don't see it that way. I think some of these negative posts are flamebait to begin with...

just begging to have gasoline poured on the fire.
Also, the only ones who can shut down discussion are the admins. People can scream till they are blue in the face, but that's all they can do.

[NashVegas]

62. It's a Personal Choice

Whether or not to respond to what one perceives as flamebait, with a flame. Lord knows there have been plenty of threads that started out reasonably enough but were shut down by people who intentionally turned them into crap fests. Some poster that flamed out last spring made an excellent observation about the difference between free speech and the appearance of free speech, before they went.

[Danger Mouse]

64. It's human nature that negativity tends to attract more of it.

[NashVegas]

68. One Has a Choice

Whether or not to engage in flame fests and personal attacks. It really is that simple.

[Danger Mouse]

75. Right, I'm just saying, if you light a fire...

don't be surprised at what shows up.

[DCBob]

16. The problem is there are some who are ready to give up...

thinking Obama has abandoned change. That is absurd especially since he has not even had one day in office.

[stillcool]

27. I don't think they have anything..

to 'give up'. Obama has done/said nothing that is different from what he has been saying/doing for the last 2 years. The outrage is wonderfully choreographed. Is this a media production?

[No Elephants]

43. So what? they can say what they want and you can argue with them. that's what message boards

are about. Why should anyone refrain from expressing an opinion about Obama simply because it is different from yours? I support Obama, but I also support the right of people to post whatever they want, as long as it does not violate the rules.

[DCBob]

83. Sure but it's downer. I thought we just won the most important election in history,

I cannot understand how some can be so quick to trash it all. It makes no sense.

[treestar]

17. I agree, I can hardly believe the numbers willing to damage

the cause already! Moving this country even slightly to the left was a big accomplishment and just the beginning. So the appearance of trying to sabotage all that is scary. A recipe for handing it all back to the Repukes and what would that accomplish?

The Clinton Adminstration was positively leftist compared to Chimpy and yet we have people complaining that Democrats from that administration are going to be on board to help Obama!

It's enough to make you wonder about trolling. What could be more the dream of the out of favor right wing than this? Already off board even before the inauguration?

[jefferson_dem]

18. You mean DUers may, in good faith, defend Obama against the naysaying "Debbie Downer" handwringers?

Awesome. :)

[Danger Mouse]

44. Why not?

:D

[Starry Messenger]

19. k & r

[rhett o rick]

20. I agree with you. I like a good argument, but too many times people think

they can "have their fun" by getting nasty and calling names like "stupid". There is no room for that.

Also there is at least one group of three that will attack like a pack if they even think you are insulting them. They won't listen, just flame away.

[rosesaylavee]

28. K & R

The handwringing here the last couple of weeks has reached almost comic levels. The man hasn't even taken office yet for crying out loud. Personally, I am willing to give him his 100 days before I weigh in with my critique.

I don't necessarily agree with every thing he's decided on but wasn't expecting to either. I would suppose he has more information guiding him in his decisions than I have access to here at my computer. :P

Thanks for the reasonable post.

[Armstead]

31. Yes some do.

I am worried that Obama is relying too heavily on the same people who some of us believe made serious mistakes in the past.

Doesn't mean I don't like Obama. Doesn't mean I don't hope like hell he succeeds.

But some people forget this is a discussion board, not a propaganda arm.

[Jennicut]

32. I think everyone needs to chillout. Lots of people have PESD

Post Election Stress Disorder. They need to know who is up and who is down. No more polls? Well , lets rate the possible cabinet appts.

[Festivito]

35. YES, there are. Some by stopping, some by stopping the stoppers.

If you do not like that there are unfair persons near you, please attempt jump to a parallel universe, get over it, or find a useless milquetoast site where they don't need to bother you.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Especially when he doesn't even have a job at the moment!

hahahah! It just now occurred to me to say it that way.

[No Elephants]

39. Not true. There are threads started for the express purpose of shutting

down discussion of this topic or that. For example, have you forgotten the many threads started to end discussion of some Palin topic or another? I have not seen that kind of thing on any other message board.

[tekisui]

55. That is funny.

Threads started about Palin, meant to end discussions about Palin.

That is just hilarious.:rofl:

This is a discussion board. Everyone is free to start a thread and reply in a thread about anything they want, within the generous rules. period.

[Danger Mouse]

56. Those threads are stupid, and nobody seriously listens to them.

The only ones who can shut down discussion are the admins. Period.

[AlCzervik]

42. i disagree with you.

[Danger Mouse]

46. please elaborate?

:shrug:

[AlCzervik]

48. can't doing it without calling people out so i'll pass.

[HughMoran]

49. You've effectively just called out all of DU

So, you might as well fill in the details...

[AlCzervik]

50. no i haven't.

[Danger Mouse]

51. Suit yourself.

[HughMoran]

45. Hear! Hear!

If you can't take the heat, put the torch down!

[walldude]

52. I'm with ya...

Call me crazy but I like to have all the information before I judge Obama the way the media wants me to. Funny how DU wasn't buying anything the media said in the run up to the war but one headline about tax cuts and it's the end of the world.

[Danger Mouse]

54. The media is a tool which can be used to shut off one's brain and stop thinking...

because they will be more than happy to tell you what to think.
It is especially convenient in cases where you secretly feel a certain way but need to find a way to justify it to yourself.

[cooolandrew]

57. Exactly for every action there is a positive and negative reaction but it's not a personal attack >

just a differing view. People can post whatever they like if someone disagrees then they should provide a counter argument, that is healthy discussion it need not ever be personal or seen as persecution. Great post from OP.

[cooolandrew]

58. ...

...

[EFerrari]

60. Except for when they do. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

61. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!

[L0oniX]

63. Alerting

:evilgrin:

[Two Americas]

69. self contradictory

Statements such as "nobody is a martyr on the cross of free speech here, so let's not be over dramatic and ridiculous" and "bash Obama at every turn" are precisely the problem.

It is stifling dissent to make ad hominem attacks and generalize in pejorative terms about any and all people who express any opinion you don't like.

[Danger Mouse]

76. When did I say 'any and all people who express an opinion I don't like'?

There are SOME people here with a martyr complex. There are SOME people who would criticize Obama for blowing his nose. Never ONCE did I imply that everybody who is critical of Obama is going to extremes.

[Two Americas]

79. that is not honest

You said that those throwing around the "meme" about stifling dissent were the ones you were addressing. That is quite a few people, and not "some" as you now claim. How is anyone to know who might be "throwing around a mean" and who you are maligning and smearing, and who might be in what you now say is the larger category of people making sincere and honest criticism? Are we to imagine that it was an oversight on your part to not make that distinction originally?

There is no one here who would "criticize Obama for blowing his nose." Using hyperbole like that is a way to sneak some more venom into the thread and further antagonize people.

Your entire OP implies that everybody who is critical of Obama is going to extremes. Perhaps you did not intend that. If you only have a beef with "some" for doing specific things, you can address your complaints to those people when that happens. The only reason to start a thread about this and make general attacks on people is because you did in fact intend to imply that all critics were wrong, or to be discounted and dismissed. There can be no other logical motivation for doing this that I can see.

I think your post here about how people are wrong when they say there is an effort at putting a chill on freedom of speech is itself a transparent yet not very straightforward attempt to do that very thing.

If you have specific complaints about specific posters, this is clearly not the way to handle that. You should not be surprised that people take what you said as a general attack on all critics and dissenters. Am I "throwing around a meme" now and therefore a legitimate target for the spiteful sentiments expressed in your OP?

[Danger Mouse]

80. Wow, so over-dramatic.

Sigh.
Okay, believe what you want.

[Two Americas]

82. irony

Should we not take your posts seriously and respond to them with some thought? If that OP was not overly dramatic, I don't know what would be.

Is this not drama -

"Okay, look."
"And I'm sick of seeing..."
"...if you are going to bash Obama at every turn..."
"Nobody is a martyr on the cross..."
"...let's not be over dramatic and ridiculous..."

I am not "believing" anything, I am reading and analyzing your opening post, and as you said, it is part of the discussion to accept that some will disagree with you. That is what I am doing: disagreeing with you.

I do not think that there are some, if any, who are criticizing Obama at every turn. Even were there, I don't think that is a problem. I do think it is a problem, however, to discourage free and open discussion by characterizing a large group of people in slanderous terms and calling for their thoughts to be dismissed or ignored because of that.

[Coexist]

72. K & R!

[CakeGrrl]

73. What's the operational definition of "bash Obama at every turn"?

It sounds like you're taking the implicit position that anything that fits this criterion will be met with (righteous) bashing in return. Kind of like fair warning if you don't speak favorably of all the choices that appears are being made.

Just curious. Does bashing mean you have an issue with 3 or more cabinet picks? 2 or more? Or is having a concern/issue/opinion about even 1 enough to earn objections?

And wherever that line is drawn, then what does it really mean?

Is the term "delusional" acceptable when one encounters someone deemed as a "bash at every turn" type?

It's interesting; it seems as if there are as many threads decrying the "discussions" - read "disagreements" - as anything else.

[Danger Mouse]

77. I'm not saying there's a hard line, or there's a number associated with it.

There are some people here that are chronic complainers, and others are exercising their right to express an opinion that they think they're full of it.

[Two Americas]

84. well there should be

If you have specific complaints about specific things that specific posters said, there are ways to handle that.

If you do not, then your remarks are in fact a malicious generalization, intentionally left vague and subject to the readers' interpretations intended as a warning shot across the bow of any and all dissenters here. The only reason anyone ever does that is in an attempt to shut down free speech and marginalize those giving opinions that you don't like and do not want to hear or to be heard.

[BlooInBloo]

74. I do.

[mtnsnake]

78. Don't you all know that the season finale of True Blood is coming on now?

:shrug:

[Skittles]

81. of course they do

they get hysterical at any hint of criticism of Obama - they're no better than feepers

[BlooInBloo]

87. Aww! Damn. I wanted to be a nazi!

Sigh.

[sampsonblk]

86. Bull

There are ways to disagree with people without suggesting that they should shut up.

As soon a poster suggesting another group should shut up - for whatever reason, thats an attempt to stifle dissent.

[BeFree]

105. So

We should let freepers have free reign here? Screw the freepers, when they come on here we do tell them to stfu. Freepers dissent, yes? Then freepers go to hell!

[Why Syzygy]

88. Aren't most of your posts aimed at controlling behavior here at DU?

:wtf: Is that all you have to offer? Disciplinarian?

[Forkboy]

95. Disagree. I think there are plenty of people on DU who would love to do just that.

[BeFree]

98. Well you're right

Some of us would like there to be no slamming of Obama. Especially the slams meant to cause disunity or harm to the new administration. I think you'd feel the same way, eh?

[Forkboy]

102. I like people to voice their opinions whether I agree with them or not.

I believe open discussion is healthier for democracy, including Obama's administration, than trying to get everyone to agree with my personal definition of what constitutes a 'slam'. I think you'd feel same the way, eh?

[BeFree]

104. Obviously, no

Slams are slams. I am an expert at slams... I have had many posts deleted, so there goes the 'open discussion' idea. DU is not open to free speech. It can't be, otherwise the freepers would be here raising hell, and none of us want that. So, no, there is no such thing as open discussion here. And I for one am glad there are limits.

Like I've said here for awhile, if someone wants to write Obama and slam him, that's their business, here, it's a whole 'nother story. It becomes my business.

[Forkboy]

108. Well then, carry on with your bad self!

[Orsino]

96. Ah. So the dissenters are the ones who have to learn tolerance.

Gotcha. :eyes:

[BeFree]

97. Yes

If you come on here and act like mcpalin did when they attacked Obama, then be ready.

Not saying all the posters are, but some have an eerie resemblance.

[LWolf]

100. My opinion of Obama has not changed a bit

since I first heard him speak at the '04 convention.

He's simply fulfilling my unpleasant expectations. No surprises.

Bash away, if it makes you happy. It won't change my take on Obama, or prevent me from voicing it.

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

106. In my personal opinion, it's absolutely woo-woo la-la to tear him limb from limb

before he's even inaugurated.

[grantcart]

109. Well that just beats it - I just went out and purchased a new set of long knives

Just because nobody is a martyr doesn't mean that some people don' love playing one.