Skip to main content

View Diary: The following statements do not constitute "STFU", 'Get In Line', or 'Hippie-Punching' (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Since we're into clearing up misperceptions, (14+ / 0-)

    how about we clear up exactly why Party Leadership doesn't seem to be proffering more than one candidate to a given primary lately? It's not solely up to voters to come up with other candidates.

    I don't know where that nonsense got started, but it's a zombie lie at this point, IMO. I hear that a lot lately, and it's bullshit:

    You want to beat Candidate So-and-So? Then find someone to primary them!
    Uh, I'm free to do that if I want--I can even run myself if I qualify--but this is not up to me, in order that I may then feel free to criticize Candidate So-and-So.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

    •  What you wrote is not/should not be an 'if, then' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, poco

      proposition:

      Uh, I'm free to do that if I want--I can even run myself if I qualify--but this is not up to me, in order that I may then feel free to criticize Candidate So-and-So
      and because of that, I would reject the notion should it ever be stated clearly that it's what they are proposing.

      However, while helping along more progressive nominees and candidates may be more time-consuming and difficult than simply publicly critiquing the current ones, ultimately the former is more constructive long-term than the latter, wouldn't you agree?

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:01:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not an either-or (10+ / 0-)

        concept. It's not a matter of "is it more constructive?". It's a matter of "telling someone in so many words to STFU in the immediate aftermath of a comment critiquing Candidate So-and-So" is  no more 'constructive' than that which you posit in your comment:

        while helping along more progressive nominees and candidates may be more time-consuming and difficult than simply publicly critiquing the current ones
        I reserve the right to publicly critique nominees or candidates, whether I've "helped them along" or not. Suggesting otherwise IS a form of STFU.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:07:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see where we're disagreeing. (4+ / 0-)

          Suggesting to someone that they broaden their efforts to achieve their goals, or change paths to achieve their goals, is not the same thing as saying STFU.

          The 'in so many words' thing requires a lot of context to justify, whereas it seems more often here it's just leapt to immediately because people posting on public forums apparently don't appreciate critiques or suggestions based on those public posts.

          While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:14:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, come on! (8+ / 0-)

            You're disagreeing with me right here! :)

            Suggesting to someone that they broaden their efforts to achieve their goals, or change paths to achieve their goals, is not the same thing as saying STFU.

            It IS a STFU, at least in the majority of cases right on this here blog. You need look no further than critiques of Hillary The Inevitable. Many are responded to in such a way, and they are NOT responses which are in any way politely "suggesting to someone that they broaden their efforts". They are essentially saying "If you don't like it, find someone who can beat her or STFU".

            Not a lot of context is necessary in all cases. Some, certainly, but it's definitely used as a club more often than not.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:21:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am disagreeing with you on that; I was hoping (3+ / 0-)

              that you weren't just assuming when people make suggestions or disagree on the best path forward, they're telling you to STFU. They're not most often and one can tell the difference, depending on how they phrased it, whether or not they're implying that.

              Do you take critiques/suggestions the same way IRL too?

              While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Context is everything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                in the example I've just laid out, it is far more often than not a STFU moment on this blog.

                IRL is not at issue here, really--but since you asked, IRL also depends on "context" and is far easier to discern than "on this blog".

                And "on this blog" is what you're referring to "in this diary", unless your contextualization needs some additional fine-tuning:

                'This is a reality-based site and what you're claiming is the case does not have ample evidence to support it.'

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My diary does relate to this blog, correct. (5+ / 0-)

                  I would suggest hardly ever assuming they mean 'STFU' because it puts them on the defensive immediately if they did not mean it that way, and virtually guarantees no consensus. And this suggestion does not mean you cannot voice your current opinion on the matter or should STFU ;)

                  While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:46:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, that's (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jrooth, Johnny Q

                    certainly a suggestion, and I commend you for taking the time to make it. It is clear you're at least coming at this in good faith.

                    I would suggest hardly ever assuming they mean 'STFU'
                    Whether I assume the worst or whether you assume the best however, again, is not really the point. The point is, this kind of thing is very often utilized as a STFU moment, and should be pointed out as such in this teachable moment you have put forth in this diary.

                    That kind of thing is absolutely unacceptable as a STFU and people need to understand the context behind it IS exactly that. Sometimes it isn't, but when it is, it's bullshit. Full stop. Again, we all reserve the right to criticize any candidate, One does not have to "earn' that right by direct participation in "offering or placing another candidate on a ballot for consideration" or not.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:03:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I see... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sewaneepat, Shawn87

                  we are either with you or against you... We either agree with you, or at the least don't vocalize any disagreement on anything you might decide is contextually important, or we are telling you to STFU.

                  Someone is telling someone else to STFU but I don't think it is who you think it is.

                  A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                  by Tempus Figits on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:07:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I'm trying to remember any election (0+ / 0-)

      where the Party Leadership offered candidates at all. Sure, I've seen, in districts dominated by Republicans where the DNC or some other group has tried to recruit someone, anyone, to run but in my memory the vast majority of candidates are self selected.

      •  This is true (0+ / 0-)

        but if their most ardent supporters are going to club people over the head with "self-selecting" as the only justification to permit others' ability to critique current candidates, then they need to step it up.

        Whether they've done it in the past or not isn't relevant to the idea that if--say, the DNC--is that good and that organized, then they sure as hell should be doing it a lot more than they do now anyway.

         

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 09:52:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no. The DNC's job is not to select (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shawn87

          a bunch of candidates for us to critique and choose amongst. I have a feeling that we'd be even more unhappy if that were the case.

          You don't need anyone's permission to critique current candidates. No one here says that that I've ever read. Critiquing your criticism however, is not telling you to STFU.

          •  Depends on how you do it (0+ / 0-)
            Critiquing your criticism however, is not telling you to STFU.
            Telling me that if I haven't run myself or if I haven't sufficiently worked at proffering another candidate for consideration, then I really shouldn't have anything to say about it is not a critique in any way of my criticism. It's a demand that I earn the right to critique, period. And that is, essentially, a form of STFU, ie. "put up or shut up".

            If you don't agree with my criticism, that's perfectly fine--but you don't get to attach conditions to my ability to critique to begin with. I already have that right. I don't have to further earn it from you or anybody else.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:09:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If there's a progressive non-incumbent running (6+ / 0-)

        the DCCC almost always finds a centrist to challenge him or her.

        •  That's my recollection (0+ / 0-)

          as well, though that in and of itself demands a separate diary--and has probably had more than a few already  ;)

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:27:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site