Reply #752: misrepresentation

[Two Americas]

None of us are arguing that a post that breaks the rules should get a free pass because of the author's past. What I am saying is that a person's loyalty should not be questioned as a tactic to discredit what they are saying.

None of us are arguing that the admin team and mods are not the ones to make decisions about posts.

The reason that I am taking this as a criticism of me personally is quite simple. Vague charges are being made here against some allegedly destructive group of people, with suspicions raised and insinuations made as to the motives and agenda of "them" - the people causing trouble. Since the exact same arguments have been used by the exact same people literally hundreds of times in response to my posts, it is completely reasonable to assume that I must be one of the members of this supposedly evil group doing evil things. There is no way to know, of course, since the attacks are all couched in vague and general terms, using hints and insinuations and implications. But since the same people who frequently post attacking this vaguely defined group of people, and calling for something to be done about them, are also frequently singling me out for the same attacks, I think they are talking about me. Therefore, I ask them to make the charges directly and overtly to me so that some light can be shed on the dark corners and these issues can be discussed honestly and constructively. It violates the rules to call out another member, so I am calling myself out. The purpose for doing that is in the hope of getting some clarity and reaching an understanding between the two factions that could lead to a reconciliation.

When I said that "the presumption is that IF a person is a Democrat - and we have hundreds of members here who have dedicated their lives to the party, yet are being attacked for being 'destructive' - then it is not accurate to accuse them of being destructive" I mean that is my presumption, and I am talking about people being accused of being destructive for merely posting ideas that upset others. Certainly if someone actually breaks the rules, their loyalty does not matter.

But no one is saying "I am loyal to the party, so therefore I can do whatever I want." Quite to the contrary - others are saying "you posted a criticism of the party or a politician, therefore you are not loyal, therefore you do not belong here." That is what I am objecting to and talking about.

In my view, the hyper-partisan demands for rigid standards of loyalty and support are what are most destructive to the party and the administration. I believe that I am the one defending the party from the hyper-partisanship. I don't know if I am right or wrong about that, but I should not be accused of trying to tear the party down or tear a politician down. It is simply not true that one group is the right team and another group is not, that one side has good motives and the other bad motives. There is a disagreement here - some place principles and ideals above party loyalty, others are placing party loyalty above principles and ideals. The first group thinks that adhering to and defending the principles and ideals - the only reason we are Democrats in the first place - is the best way to support and be loyal to the party. The second group thinks that being loyal to the party is the best way to advance the principles and ideals.



...