Reply #148: DU has lost its objectivity.

[OnyxCollie]

It is no longer a place to have a rational discussion about policy. Criticism of policy now means:

You hate the President.
You want Sarah Palin to win.
You aren't "pragmatic" and you lack understanding of what it takes to "win".

This board has taken the course of becoming an echo chamber for those with closed belief systems, as if prohibiting any undesirable opinion will somehow make everything better.

Step 1. Prohibit undesirable opinion.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit!

It's a waste of time to discuss anything anymore; Cogent arguments are met with snark, condescension, and fallacies.

Were you actually expecting someone (and by someone, I mean those who understand issues and not those whose only concern is a mark in the "win" column), in these trying financial times, to pay for that? Really?

You wrote that you are considering "safe havens" for partisans. Look around you, Skinner. Your entire board has become a safe haven for a particular viewpoint. When you brought out your "new rules" a while back, I wrote that we can't discuss a way to achieve the best goals for the country if we can't even settle on a definition for constructive criticism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8676607

Marx, F. M. (1935). Propaganda and dictatorship. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 179, 211-218.

"It is to no avail," Dr. Goebbels reminded his partisans as early as in the fall of 1933, "that we merely make
speeches; we must try to convince through our accomplishments."26

~snip~

Obviously the citizen will not be able to judge these accomplishments with the desirable measure of
appreciation so long as he remains under the influence of any kind of counter-propaganda. His mind must be
"set right." Nothing may enter it that "contradicts" the purport of the officially sponsored ideology,27 so that
ultimately there will be "only one public opinion." 28 Such a commanding scheme requires governmental
primacy if not monopoly over all instrumentalities of opinion dissemination, particularly the press.

~snip~

Hitler himself felt impelled to complain: "It is no pleasure to read fifteen papers which have an almost identical
text." 38 And as recently as in January 1935, the Frankfurter Zeitung editorialized: "Indeed, what one misses most in
Germany is a serious objective discussion." 39

The reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs are patent. Nowhere has the government authoritatively
set forth to what extent it is actually interested in a "serious objective discussion" outside the waterproof
compartments of the party.

~snip~

How, then, can the "happy mean between destructive criticism and lapdog servility"45 be attained? What Dr.
Goebbels has to to say about it does not sound encouraging. "The right to criticize," he states, "belongs to the
National Socialist Party. I deny anybody else such a right. The right to criticize is exercised by the National
Socialist Party to a sufficient extent." 46 (p. 214 - 216).

Dismissing the point of the post by declaring Godwin's law hasn't helped, has it?

Those you counted on to give money can read between the lines. It's up to you to do something about it.