Skip to main content

View Diary: Invitation To Respectful And Honest Discussion Between Party Loyalists And Progressives (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's no my intention, thus I'm not suggesting (0+ / 0-)

    it.  That's your interpretation.

    But either way, I do see it as food for thought.

    So I guess that you object to the term "Democratic Party Loyalists?"

    If that's your objection, then now that you bring it up I see your point.

    It wasn't my intention; I thought I was just referring to a factual condition.

    Either way, your input is useful.

    •  Labeling it as a one side or the other (0+ / 0-)

      disagreement, and using charged terms such as "loyalists" and further suggesting that if said "loyalists" don't agree with you, they can't be considered a "Progressive", which is clearly the preferred group, makes it automatically antagonistic. I know good Progressives who aren't on the same side of this issue as you are. But by your metric, they would be considered "No true Scotsman".

      Because of that, I find the discussion neither respectful nor honest.

      I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

      by second gen on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 09:36:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's a simple test (I would hope) as to the (0+ / 0-)

        issue of respect and honesty in an argument.

        As you can clearly see, I already stated that I see your point regarding the title of the diary.  And I clarify it wasn't my intention for it to be interpreted as antagonistic.

        So, I've giving you that in an attempt to show that I'm able to engage in an honest argument.  Also, I've always said that I'm only interested in the truth about any given subject, and that if someone presents me with an argument stronger than mine, I would readily admit it.

        In this interaction you presented your points, I read them, thought about them, and admitted you have a point.

        I'm not sure if that's enough, or if you would expect something more...

        Now, moving on from that, is it your position that there are not such thing as Democratic party loyalist?

        Here are the definitions I presented:

        Democratic Party Loyalists: Reliable Democrats who see themselves as pragmatic, and who believe in working within the system, with the intention of electing more and better Democrats.  They understand that politics is about compromise, and believe in incremental achievements.

        Progressives: Progressives are mainly interested in social justice and in stamping out government corruption and abuse.  They don't necessarily go along with the notion of accepting the "lesser of two" evils when it comes to politics, seeing that approach as counterproductive to democracy.

        Do you think my attempt at even-handedness in trying to describe these two (very broad) categories is somehow dishonest or disrespectful?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site