Skip to main content

View Diary: If Defending My Party and President is a Sin... (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what about if it shuts down discourse? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tomjones, Fabian, 3goldens

    Thanks for the diary, its unfortunate that its necessary but I think you make good points. I'm curious about two things you said though; it seems like its impossible to maintain them both with intellectual rigidity at the same time.

    First, you disagree that:

    ...defense of Democrats, if overly zealous and potentially hurtful, is a bad thing.

    And you believe that:

    I'm never a fan of limiting speech in any form

    What about in the case wherein 'overly zealous and potentially hurtful' disagreements serve to limit speech?

    How do you reconcile those two commitments?

    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

    by efraker on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 07:26:10 PM PDT

    •  I believe people have a right to say bad things. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      efraker

      Pretty easily reconcilable for me.

      I can judge someone's behavior or words with personal disapproval, and still tolerate them.

      After all, I haven't killed any Republicans and I pretty much believe they are destroying the country for me and my family.

      When people do stupid things that hurt me or others, it usually motivates me to work harder for justice.

      "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

      by Benintn on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:07:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for taking the time to answer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fabian

        Thanks for replying Benintn. So, you believe that "people have a right to say bad things", even when it limits other's speech.

        So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that when the Tea Party goes to town hall meetings, you believe it is their right to limit other's speech with their vitriol, right? I'm sure you condemn it and wish they wouldn't - but you tolerate their speech because you believe its the responsibility of those they're suppressing to "work harder" to get their own point of view out. Right?

        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

        by efraker on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:23:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  laying my cards down (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv, Fabian, yella dawg, lightshine

        I'm trying to show more good faith and present my perspective to people kind enough to do me the favor of sharing with me theirs. So here's my opinion; both of wmtriallawyer's principles (defending what you believe is correct zealously, and not limiting speech) are important. And I don't believe you can maintain them both with intellectual rigidity; one of those principles must bend to the other... and we always have to be conscientious of not pushing in either direction too far. To speak metaphorically, anything bent too far breaks.

        I try and err on the side of being less zealous and more open to other's speech. I think that some of my opinions could be argued more stridently; sometimes I don't use arguments I think are persuasive because I think they're likely to be perceived as condescending. I think that often the most gentle voices are the wisest, and I know that the sort of robust and combative discourse that some of us are comfortable with will drive them away.

        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

        by efraker on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:35:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site