Reply #13: Perhaps we're aruging about what "support" means

[DirkGently]

I think support of, say, President Obama or the Democratic Party (if one is so inclined) INCLUDES accurate harsh criticism.

I see you saying that no one need remain silent, but I'm still reading a suggestion that it might be wise or practical to "pretend" that a leader or group is all good for the purpose of the fight.

That's not the case.

I think casting things as Repubicans vs. Dems plays into the false zero-sum game idea. Criticizing one does not equal support for the other. We need not agree with a bad Democratic idea or leader on the theory that a Republican idea or leader is worse.

We not only can, but must argue at all times for the actual truth and the actual best result, not the nearest Democratic or Republican approximation *available without a fight*. Support your party or your leader, if you think it gives you the best chance of a good result.

But *responsible support* includes gigantic, loud, relentless criticism and argument for what that party and that leader should be doing.

Which leads back to the related issue of conflating criticism with an all-out rejection or attack, which seems to be a big part of the discussion, I'm not reading you clearly. Do you acknowledge that gigantic, loud, harsh, relentless criticism is a responsible mode of support? That a party or leader's supporters have an absolute duty to distinguish, at ALL times, between the good and bad, right and wrong that those leaders or parties do?

Do you agree that there can be NO "lie agree upon" in which we pretend, to any degree, to accept or admire anything short of that which is acceptable or admirable, regardless of the belief that one party or leader, no matter how bad, is the better alternative?