I think we need to have a discussion on the difference between "attack" and simple criticism

[Ken Burch]

as regards "Democratic public figures".

We seem to be moving towards a standard in which any critical comment about anything any Democratic incumbent does is now taken as "attack", and even, in some cases, seen as intrinsically "suspicious".

This is the DEMOCRATIC Party.

That name implies at least some committment to free speech and some level of internal democracy.

While some unfair and malicious things have been said by Democrats about Democrats in the past, how does it help us to move towards, as we currently seem to be moving towards, a view that any disagreement of, any critique of, any dissent from anything a sitting Democratic politician says or does is going to be taken as not only "attack" on that figure but, apparently, disloyalty to the party itself?

How does moving towards that leave us with anything like a healthy internal dynamic in this party?

Sometimes, there NEEDS to be the ability to say "this person is wrong about this, and here's why", or "this person has taken a stance on this that goes against what we are supposed to be about", or "this person has gone to far and it's not healthy for us to renominate this person".

And sometimes, it needs to be possible to critique the choices the party as an institution makes on something without that critique being taken as "an attack on public figures". The party as an institution needs to be accountable to those who work for and vote for it.

It simply doesn't help us to try to turn the Democratic Party into the political equivalent of the "Cone of Silence".

We need discussion and debate to be ALIVE as a party-to be able to grow and to be able to learn from the past and change, where we need to change for the future.

Shutting most of that down as "attack" does nothing to help this party gain the votes it needs to gain to end the T___p era and, as important as that, to defeat the ideas of that era as well as the man.

The accusation of attack should be limited, in my view, to things clearly said out of malice and things said dishonestly.

It should not be lodged against things simply said as critique or defense, or said with the intent of HELPING the party.

[hlthe2b]

1. I agree... There have been a lot of jury alerts being sent out based on mere criticism--it seems

But, criticize policies, votes, actions taken. No ad hominem. The latter ARE attacks.

[NCTraveler]

2. I think I will use examples from some previous posts about Kamala Harris in order to work this out.

Would you be willing to tell me if they are attacks or criticism, if I provide you with links and text? That way we can really draw a baseline between criticism and attacks.

[Ken Burch]

6. I'll address that...those were things I said over a year and a half ago.

The handful of things I said, I've repeatedly admitted wrong for, repeatedly taken ownership for, repeatedly apologized for.

After which, I said nothing again about the Senator for a very, very long time. Nothing at all.

In the last few months, I have repeatedly and sincerely praised Senator Harris-a person who I would gladly support if nominated.

And after reflecting on what I said, my entire way of communicating on this board has totally changed.

What I said was wrong then, and in hindsight it might be seen as "attack".

I apologize again and hope that at SOME point you can finally accept that that has been put to rest.

[NCTraveler]

12. Might be seen as an attack

[Ken Burch]

15. I admitted I was wrong to say those things and apologized. I no longer post like that.

What I said was said in the heat of the moment and I totally acknowledge I was completely wrong to say it.

What more do you need to hear me say before you consider this settled?

I could understand you still bearing a grudge about this if it had done Senator Harris' career any lasting damage, but she's doing fine and I just said again that I might even support her in the primary.

[NCTraveler]

17. Its a clear trend.

You still haven’t called them attacks.

[Ken Burch]

18. What difference does it make what I call them?

They were things I posted stupidly in the heat of the moment, without thinking.

I apologized for them and admit they were wrong, that I should never have posted them.

And I don't communicate like that here anymore, which is the most important thing I could do to address that.

Since I don't post like that anymore, why does it still matter that I posted like that THEN?

I don't HATE Kamala Harris-I kind of like her now, actually-and I've said more recently that I might support her in the primaries.

Why does what I said almost two years ago now matter more to you than THAT?

[NCTraveler]

19. The trend matters.

We will just call those comments “content free criticism”. I can meet you there. Compromise. Such a beautiful thing sometimes.

[Ken Burch]

21. There IS no trend.

I don't post anything like that now. I listened, learned, admitted wrong, and changed.

What you're calling me out for here is something I don't do anymore.

Have YOU never posted anything here, in the heat of the moment, that you later regretted?

Have YOU never said anything, at any point in your life, that you later saw as wrong and admitted was wrong and ceased to do?

I made a handful of stupid mistakes in what I posted that year and committed to ceasing to repeat them.

As to Kamala Harris...why doesn't it matter to you that I now speak favorably of her and that I condemned the online hate sites that attacked her viciously last year?

You showed up to derail this thread for no valid reason.

[sheshe2]

25. Well...

Star Member Ken Burch (50,184 posts)
18. What difference does it make what I call them?

Perhaps because of your OP title.

[NurseJackie]

37. Boom!

This. Excellent.

[sheshe2]

40. Hey!

[NurseJackie]

61. Some things never change.

[betsuni]

42. Ouch!

[sheshe2]

44. betsuni!!!

[betsuni]

47. This is a fun party.

[sheshe2]

48. Thanks for bringing the beer

Here is the

So good to see you again.

[betsuni]

50. Thanks, always good to see you, too!

[LanternWaste]

14. Maybe we need a discussion on what the word "might" means as well.

"it might be seen as "attack".

Maybe we need a discussion on what the word "might" means as well. As there is a huge difference between "might" and "Yes, it was. I can't argue otherwise..."

[Hortensis]

32. If an attack is wrapped up in enough verbiage,

should it no longer be considered an attack? And how many words would be required to evade the TOS? That should be discussed.

We know "Hillary's a corrupt corporatist and so are you" is an attack. Does it become mere criticism of that's the theme of a dense eight-paragraph post?

[NurseJackie]

39. Excellent observation and analysis...

... looks like you've figured it out and solved the mystery.

[Hortensis]

51. Lol. Lack of transparency has never been an issue,

of course.

[uppityperson]

3. Acknowledging imperfections to work to betterment is different than attacking

K&R

[Ken Burch]

9. Yes, but that distinction seems to be lost on a lot of people.

n/t.

[Sophia4]

4. We need to ask questions and expect well considered answers.

If we don't we simply create a cocoon in which we roll ourselves up in slogans and swallowed ideas and opinions.

I don't watch Fox News precisely because they are the ignorant cocoon of the conservatives.

It is possible to be too comfortable, too acquiescent, too afraid to challenge.

But challenges can be made on a level that deals with ideas, sometimes to some extent personalities, but more ideas and as little as possible on a personal level causing personal insult.

It's hard to get the right balance, but a website on which people agree too much is worthless.

We are all Democrats here. That includes a wide range of opinion and diversity.

And we are all entitled to change our minds upon reflection and new information. So we should aim to persuade, not to offend. It is not always easy.

[Demsrule86]

30. To all that are opining this...I suggest a reading of TOS...it is not permissible to discuss it.

But it is spelled out clearly.

[Atticus]

7. Thank you for raising this issue. It is long overdue for discussion.

I will withhold my comments, at least for now, as I have previously urged almost exactly the same policy as you suggest: constructive criticism should not be equated with "attack". For my audacity, I was "attacked". I hope you fare better.

[Demsrule86]

29. No such thing as constructive criticism in my opinion...and I fail to understand why Democrats want

to turn on their own party.

[Atticus]

38. Thank you for proving our point. It may genuinely surprise you,

but many would consider "No such thing as constructive criticism" a patently ridiculous statement.

You will likely not be surprised that many would consider equating constructive criticism with "turning on our own party" to be an insult and, in it's own way, an "attack" on a fellow Democrat, which is, supposedly, what you find offensive.

Please proceed.

[Demsrule86]

46. Everyone has an opinion ...and you ca constructively criticize the progressive movement out of

existence... we need a win...and what you are talking about drives voters away. Republicans should be your targets not Democrats.

[Atticus]

49. You have a lot less confidence in the "progressive movement" than I do. Most of us

have been disgusted with, pissed at, disappointed in and embarrassed by some in OUR party and some in our families. But, we still vote straight Democratic and we still love and support our kin.

[Demsrule86]

52. I completely disagree. I am not embarrassed by Democrats...and turn my fire on Republicans... I

always vote a straight Democratic ticket...but some didn't in 2000 2010 or in 2016 ( there are other years but these are in my opinion the most important years). You and others posting on this thread expect purity and perfection ....it is not attainable...and we are losing important progressive policy since Roosevelt trying to force every Democrat into some sort of ideological mold...when no one even agrees what it should be.

We need a big tent for a majority and without a majority we can do nothing...if some had voted for Hillary instead of Princess Jill (or stayed home), the dreamers would not be in danger. Consider that. Also, Trump would not have been able to rescind the EO that allowed the Florida shooter to buy a gun-17 kids might still be alive...Gorsuch would not be on the Supreme court. I could site example all night of the horrors Trump has unleashed...the horrors any Republican unleashes on this country if they win a presidential election.

I have no interest in purifying the Democratic Party. I am only interested in driving the evil Republicans out of power. What small imperfections the Democratic party is afflicted with ( nothing is perfect) pale in comparison to the true evil of the Republicans. They endanger our very Republic with their pernicious policy objectives. So I have no interest in constructive criticism...which I don't believe in as I stated before. Also, despite what you wish, the fact is we do have TOS...I know we can not discuss it, but perhaps I can give some friendly advice...read it.

Have a nice evening.

[Atticus]

54. I don't know why you find it necessary to construct strawmen upon which to

base your responses. You clearly imply t hat I said Democrats embarrass me. What I actually said was that I, like any thoughtful Democrat, HAD at times been embarrassed by SOME in OUR party.

I also said not one word that could be stretched into my wish that we had no TOS, yet you accuse me of that very thing.

These tactics simply do not merit further response. I will trust other readers to judge whatever else you might add.

[True Blue American]

62. You can disagree

With a member of your party in a constructive way.

“ Spineless Dems,” is not construtive criticism. It is just name calling,like Trump.

[Ken Burch]

10. BTW...could somebody pm me with whatever was said in the posts that were "removed"?

It got taken out before I could see it.

[oberliner]

11. Are you talking about Al Franken and Kristen Gillibrand?

[Ken Burch]

16. It's not about any one or two Dem public figures.

I'm not personalizing it at all here.

[SidDithers]

20. Oh FFS...

Maybe you should schedule a conference.call.



Sid

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Thank you. Totally agree.

This change in climate at DU is why I mostly just lurk now rather than post.

I hope you don't get too severely flamed.

[shanny]

24. I have been informed on this board

that "there is no such thing as constructive criticism." And that's a quote.

So I think your point is well taken.

[Thomas Hurt]

26. If you don't completely agree with a winger, you are attacking them. Its the way many of them roll.

2nd Amendment
Abortion
religious "freedom"
fake news

etc. etc.

[mcar]

27. ...

[Demsrule86]

28. I completely disagree and reasonable criticism is allowed...you want more than that, there are other

sites. We support Democrats and elect Democrats. Criticism drives voters away and we need to save our criticism for Republicans. I like the new rules and completely support them. I never want to hear a Democratic president called 'a used car salesmen' again by a supposed Democrat.

[Sophia4]

55. So, please explain.

What point of view is acceptable in your opinion to be expressed on this website?

Because California is a blue state, but we have a lot of different shades of blue represented in our state.

What shade of blue is acceptable on this website in your opinion.

What do you think about single payer health insurance?

How about free tuition to state colleges, universities and trade schools?

How about regulations on chemical plants?

How about trade restrictions?

How about alternative energy?

How about public vs. privately run education?

How about marijuana laws?

How about our military policies?

What is the correct stand to take on these and other issues on DU in your opinion?

[Hortensis]

58. +1000.

Sure. There are literally thousands of other places to badmouth Democrats.

As for when criticism becomes badmouthing, this reminds me of the basic liberal test for morality: One man's rights end where another's nose begins. I think punchers know when they're hoping to land a hit. Those one the receiving end certainly know.

[betsuni]

31. Example: the other day you said Hillary Clinton co-founded the DLC.

That she nurtured the perception of being seen as "a person who no longer held any particularly strong social, economic or political values ... by co-founding the Democratic Leadership Council." Since this is not true, it's an attack, not criticism. You're welcome.

[Cha]

34. Mahalo, betsuni! Exactly! Not only

not constructive but Not true.

[betsuni]

35. So many examples, so little time.

[NurseJackie]

43. Enough to fill a book.

[sheshe2]

41. Ding ding ding!

++++++++++++++++

Boom!

[regnaD kciN]

33. It's simple, really...

If my side goes after yours, it's "simple criticism" and completely permissible. If your side goes after mine, by contrast, it's an "attack"...and probably the result of Russian manipulation.

See how easy it is?

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Never use the word "wrong" about a Dem. That is a start.

Also discuss the pros and cons in terms of election results--votes and turn out and also the broader effects like campaign contributions, party image stuff like that. This is supposed to be a political message board, right? So talk politics. Not "morals." One persons "morals" is another persons "repression." Talk the law. Talk economics. Talk justice. Stay away from "morals". Stay away from adjectives that don't really mean anything and are just a more grown up version of "poo head." If you want to claim some one went "too far" you need to be able to define what is "far enough." And be sure that you are qualified to tell the rest of us what "we are supposed to be about."

You will never go wrong by giving suggestions about how a politician could improve him or herself. And I don't mean "Drop out of the race."

[Sophia4]

56. In my view, a person's morals educate his or her views on policy.

What do you mean by "morals"?

I think we ascribe different meanings to the word.

My idea of morals is right from wrong.

What is yours?

[BoneyardDem]

45. That is a fine line. Bots don't care about that fine line.

They realize how easy it is to direct a conversation/ debate. Haven't we started recognizing those posters that 85% of the time are Debbie Downers or a fucking black hole of negativity and fake concern? After it's all said and done it really doesn't matter of it criticism, attack or concern. Either way, it's not constructive.

[TexasTowelie]

53. Ken,

This post is about forum moderation which in itself is a violation of the revised TOS. Everyone here takes their chances that their posts will be hidden, particularly if they are stirring the pot.

Jurors have limited ability to discern whether comments are made out of malice or if they are dishonest. If I see an attack on Democratic public figures then I'm going to vote to hide that comment without having to jump through hoops to determine if it is a legitimate critique or a malicious (and possibly dishonest) comment. Since the comments are anonymous to jury members they can't discern whether other posters are helping the party or behaving like a troll.

If anyone climbs too far out on the tree limb and the branch snaps don't blame other DU members because they did something foolish. Most likely there is plenty of blame to share which usually starts with oneself.

[NurseJackie]

60. Excellent insight.

[left-of-center2012]

57. I firmly believe ...

Some people read posts with their finger poised above the "Alert" button.

Just my humble opinion

[Skittles]

59. JURY FOLK NEED TO KNOW THAT