What is dissent?

[ProSense]

Seriously. I know dissent is good, but what is it?

I don't consider distortions, hypocritical statements and misinformation as valuable dissent. These are tactics used by disrupters.

Equating Obama's administration with Bush's third term (or Obama with Bush) is not dissent, it's hyperbole.

What good is policy if it's formed not on truthful debate, but instead on distortions and misinformation?

[mkultra]

1. agreed and amazed

at how much distortion is coming out of the DU anti obama crowd.

[ProSense]

17. Gotta stop

Obama from ripping off Americans and destroying the country.

[mkultra]

24. only you have to stop.

[Baikonour]

32. As if distortion isn't coming from the blindingly pro-Obama crowd.

Stop projecting.

[tekisui]

2. I think you hit the right points.

Dissent, imo, is informed disagreement when one feels a policy is wrong.
I tried to approach this question recently:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8278700

[lazer47]

3. The ability to verbally disagree, either in protest, or peaceful demonstration

[Forkboy]

4. When you lower your altitude?

:hide:

[cliffordu]

5. Ding ding ding...We have a winnah!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

6. Hundredth

of de dollar.

[treestar]

7. I would like to know too - why it is "hero worship" if you decide to put

aside your dissent for the good of the country.

[Two Americas]

10. dangerous doctrine

It is never "good for the country" to "put aside dissent." Tyrants throughout history have claimed that, and we just experienced 8 years of Bush supporters saying that.

[avaistheone1]

11. Eloquent.

Thank you!

[mkultra]

25. false, Unity of purpose is what gets things done

Some times people have to put aside PETTY differences and work towards the next step.

[Two Americas]

28. depends

Enforced "unity of purpose" is tyranny.

There are people who will never see torture, illegal wars, the rape of the public by Wall Street, the corruption of our government by big business and finance, full equality for GLBTQ people, the destruction of public education, the rise of the police state as minor issues and will never see the differences of opinion on these issues as "petty." It is never going to happen,m no matter how much you may wish that it would.

Demanding that people "put aside" what you see as "petty" issues, for the sake of some "unity of purpose" in order to "get things done" is trying to enforce unity.

Why are we to assume that it is those for whom these issues are not petty who are he problem? Why must we surrender, or else be accused of being in te way or being the problem? Why must this :unity" require us to abandon our principles and ideals?

What sort of "unity" is it, and what sort of things would we be "getting done" that require people to see their principles and ideals as petty, as superfluous, and that demands that people abandon their principles and ideals?

The only sort of "unity" that you could be talking about is the unity of the tyrannical state, of a people who have surrendered themselves utterly to those in power.

Your doctrine here is reactionary and authoritarian in the extreme, is anti-democratic, and contradicts every principle and ideal of the Democratic party and the political left.


...

[mkultra]

29. yes, unity is a difficult to fathom for some

but bickering will get you no where. Criticism is not your duty.

[Two Americas]

30. did you read my post?

Can you deny or refute any of the points I made?

As a student of history, I can well fathom the "unity" you are calling for, and it is chilling.

Speaking out critically about those in power is our moral obligation, and our civic duty. You may disagree with that. However, the principle of vigilance about those in power is fundamental to self-government and to freedom. Not according to me, but according to those brilliant and courageous people, who fought through the ages for freedom and justice, and upon whose shoulders we stand, and to whom we owe so much.


...

[mkultra]

35. i did read it and i disagree with your philosphy

As a student of history, you should know that the forces of fascism will always walk in lock step and voice blind criticism.

They always take advantage of the internal disparity and apparent chaos that comes from internal derision. They will use our "dissent" against us in the coming election as they always do. We, in turn, will still move at the only pace possible as usually, despite the outrage from our own.

[Two Americas]

36. can't make many sense out of that, sorry

"The forces of fascism will always walk in lock step and voice blind criticism?"

What is "blind criticism?" Who is walking in lockstep?

"Chaos from internal derision?" What does that mean?

"They will use our dissent against us?"

"We will still move at the only pace possible as usually?"

I don't understand any of those sentences in your post. Who is "we?" Who is "they?"


...

[mkultra]

38. im afraid i cant help you with reading comprehension

perhaps you should read it again. Its proper English. If you need help with any specific words, let me know.

[TayTay]

8. Dissent is disagreeing with a stated opinion

You said: "Seriously. I know dissent is good, but what is it?"

In a political argument, it can be someone voicing an opinion that differs from those posed by people in a position of power. In terms of policy making, it can be taking minority positions into consideration before policies are implemented.

You said: I don't consider distortions, hypocritical statements and misinformation as valuable dissent. These are tactics used by disrupters.

It can be. That is a decision that you can make based on your own knowledge and point of view on the issues. The theory of free speech holds that many different views can be expressed. This is hoped to strengthen democracy by letting many voices be heard. However, the other side of that is that decisions will be made based on those offered opinions. You are under no obligation to do adopt those other points of view. The theory of free speech and democracy holds that citizens are smart enough to figure out informed opinions from bad arguments. You will be exposed to many different opinions that you disagree with over time. You sort out who is making a decent argument based on the merits and who is not.

DU makes it easy to get rid of dissenting opinions from people who have irritated you over time. You can choose to ignore them. This is also an exercise of your free speech rights to chose the information you take in.

You said: Equating Obama's administration with Bush's third term (or Obama with Bush) is not dissent, it's hyperbole.

It is colorful writing that is unsupported by the facts. (Facts, as you see them, which is perfectly fine.) It is also dissent. This line indicates that you have no trouble discerning the difference. What is the problem here then? Are you afraid that folks less intelligent might read this and be persuaded to a bad argument? Well, the cure to that is to make your case with a better argument. This has never been a problem for you as you are one of the better informed DU posters.

You said: What good is policy if it's formed not on truthful debate, but instead on distortions and misinformation?

What is truthful debate? There are many folks on DU who disagree with parts of announced policy by the new administration. They have differences of opinion based on informed sources that might differ from your sources. The purpose of a discussion board like DU is to, ahm, discuss them.

The question is whether or not that can be done without the name calling and accusations on all sides. There are people who feel that the President is being attacked without cause or that he should be given a chance to implement his programs without undergoing critical examination. (It is often the degree of critical examination that causes a problem with some folks. There are also people who feel that criticism is somehow inherently disloyal or equate to wishing failure on someone. This is also hyperbole and unsupported by the facts.) There are others who feel that policies that have the monumental consequences that the economic decisions that this new President and his team will make must be scrutinized and that the failure to do so would be unconscionable. Then there are people who like to fight and call others names. (See "ignore function" at DU.)

Democracy, when done right, is not a dictatorship of opinion. It is a loud, raucous discussion. There are people all over who bring their views and opinions based on their life experiences into the talks. It can get loud and quite heated. That is a sign of a healthy, functioning democracy. The Bush years were marked by a bunch of yes men who never questioned authority or policy. That was wrong. The current atmosphere, where dissent can be expressed and heard and where President Obama values it, is the return to sanity. It is also a return to a functioning democracy. That is a messy, loud process.

[ProSense]

9. Sorry don't agree.

It can be. That is a decision that you can make based on your own knowledge and point of view on the issues.

Suchs statements made intentionally are not, and maybe I should have qualified that (although it was implied).

It is colorful writing that is unsupported by the facts.

I didn't say hyperbole wasn't dissent, but not all dissent is valuable. Hyperbole adds nothing to the debate. It may feel good, but it doesn't inform. Smear is dissent, but its value is not constructive.

What is truthful debate?]

That would be debate based "on your own knowledge and point of view on the issues."

[leftofthedial]

12. Comparing does not equal equating.

How would you characterize Obama's position on the PATRIOT Act as compared to Bush's?

How would you characterize the Obama Administrations's actions on the Wall Street bailout as compared to Bush's?

How would you compare the ideological backgrounds of Obama's key economic team members to the equivalent people under Bush?

How would you compare Obama's policy in Afghanistan to that of Bush?

[Jennicut]

13. There are subtle difference on some things and huge differences on others

Does not mean they are the same. However, the hyperbole against each other needs to stop. Hero worshiper or disrupter are both bad. Liking and agreeing with the President as well as constructive criticism of him is fine imo, that is what we are supposed to do. We need to treat each other with respect here. If we can't here there is no hope for the rest of the country!

[ProSense]

16. Point of clarification since you referenced the term in the OP:

Hero worshiper or disrupter are both bad.

Nothing wrong with referring to someone intentionally advancing distortions and misinformation as a disrupter.

And unlike the other term, it wasn't intended to single out any group with valid criticisms of the adminstrations. I doubt anyone here (on either side of the debate) wants to defend disrupters.

[ProSense]

14. This is not comparing:

"Bush's third term." That is equating.

[leftofthedial]

15. I'm not familiar with that quote.

But I've been accused of "equating" nevertheless.

[Clio the Leo]

18. Bush had an Afghanistan policy?

News to me.

[leftofthedial]

22. Seems to be the same as Obama's, except with fewer troops

apparently the policy is be there and get the evil dewars.

[zulchzulu]

19. Dissent includes cluelessness, whining, misrepresenting facts, not understanding issues...

... and everyone has a right to say whatever they want (within some reason)...

Some people like eating insects and consider it a delicacy. I don't. But I won't let it bug me.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. ~~~Let It SInk~~~

:crazy:

[Exilednight]

21. This is dissent as I know it ................

[masuki bance]

23. patriotic

[Barack_America]

26. "We love you Mr. President, but you don't have it right yet..."

"...And we're going to bang on your door until you get it right."--William Greider.

That's effective dissent.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wadeblazingame34/2009/03/hate-krugman-try-william-greid.php?ref=reccafe


Egotistically-driven temper tantrums and the insistence that only you have the right idea is not effective dissent.

[geek tragedy]

27. Dissent can be rancidly stupid hatred.

Not all dissent is good.

Dissent is not a good or an evil.

[Two Americas]

33. true

The quality of what people say is not the issue. The right to dissent is. People have a right to dissent without being subjected to insinuation and speculation about their character or motives.

This idea of "good dissent" and "bad dissent" is just a way to try to get around this issue.

There is no reason to think that the arguments of those defending the rulers are of any higher quality than those of the dissenters. Arguments defending the rulers and the powerful have a built-in advantage - they are aligned with power and wealth, and that has force with people, just as the word of the police and prosecutors has weight with juries. As a free people, in a representative democracy, we give dissenters the benefit of the doubt over those defending the rulers.

Yet we have people here continually defending power. We hear about "reverse racism," and "nuclear gays," and we are told that we shouldn't discriminate against rich people, that the rulers should "be given a chance" while dissenters should be placed under scrutiny and suspicion. We hear claims that white people are persecuted, that hetero people are afflicted, than men are persecuted "because "things go both ways." We see poor people and homeless people blamed for their misfortune. We see misogynist attacks on women. We see homophobia and bigotry. We see white male privilege defended. We see objections to those things characterized as petty, as not a priority, as distributive and unwelcome.

So, yes. Dissent is good - regardless of the quality or accuracy of any particular expression of it - and should always be given the benefit of the doubt, just as an accused person could be the worst criminal in the world yet still is afforded the presumption of innocence and all of the rights that we acknowledge and respect for any accused person. It is the arguments defending the powerful that should be scrutinized and suspect.



...

[Inuca]

31. It's not dissent, it's not hyperbole

it's stupidity. Sorry all, I am trying to keep polite as a rule, but sometimes some of the stuff I read is just too much.

[tomreedtoon]

34. It means "sent from Dis," Dis being Hell.

And like any gift you get from Satan, it's as likely to hurt you as help you, to injure your cause as to promote it. For example, the New Left protests at the Democratic convention in 1968 pretty much insured that Nixon would be President. Those enthusiastic protesters dissolved into cynicism and marijuana smoke, and offered jerks like Limbaugh a perfect bad example with which to beat anyone with any liberal sentiments.

ON EDIT: It just occurred to me that it happens to the other side, too. Remember "Get A Brain! Morans" that gave us that immensely stupid group of right-wingers called the Morans? Those protests gave us a big stick with which to beat right-wingers.

Whenever Satan says he has a gift for you, be it protesting a President or assaulting women who want an abortion, watch out.

[Occam Bandage]

40. Or, rather, from Latin "dis" meaning "differently," + "sentire" meaning "to think."

[Political Heretic]

37. I don't know, but I do know what the role of a responsible Americna citizen is

And that is to be an engaged and active participant in government. It is to make sure that government fears the power and voice of its people. It is to question and think critically. And its to take the role of an advocate for positions of social and economic justice that one feels are critical to our society's forward progress (and rescue from a deep, dark period in our history).

Name some distortions or misinformation that concern you.

No wait, you know what don't. You post some of the most disingenuous bullshit I've ever read, and frankly I'm done wasting my time.

We're done here. You won't hear from me again.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh.