criticism is not hate

[SwampG8r]

Hatred or hate is a word that describes intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects to hatred of other people.

Criticism in terms of expectations means democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will, thus not open for debate.

Criticism is the activity of judgement or informed interpretation and, in many cases, can be synonymous with "analysis." In literary and academic contexts, the term most frequently refers to literary criticism, art criticism, or other such fields, and to scholars' attempts to understand the aesthetic object in depth. In these contexts the term "critic," used without qualification, most frequently refers to a scholar of literature or another art form. In other contexts, the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism. Sometimes context, and the contentiousness of the subject, are the only differentiating factors between these two approaches. In politics, for instance (as in the phrase "criticism of U.S. foreign policy"), criticism almost exclusively refers to disagreement—while in an academic, artistic, or literary context (as in "criticism of Romantic poetry") it usually refers to the activity of subtle interpretation or analysis.

they are not the same
if i feel hillary clinton to be an over rated liar who has an overdeveloped sense of entitlement
its not me hating her
it is my opinion
its me criticising her
i do not know her personally so i cannot hate hillary
only what she represents

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Remember that when Obama is criticized. nt

[SwampG8r]

4. i will

but i seldom see obama supporters saying that criticism of the party nominee is hate speech
i do see failed supporters of one failed candidate throwing the word around several times a day

[polichick]

2. Good luck - Clinton apologists conveniently don't get that.

[IndianaJones]

3. didn't get any again, huh? nt.

[SwampG8r]

5. is your job

to go from thread to thread making personal statements?
your comments on my marriage were over the top
but no alert from me

[IndianaJones]

10. no discord and locked threads from you either sunshine. nt.

[SwampG8r]

20. i have not used my ignore before

i have been at it with the best of the hillary people
most are good people who get carried away as do we all
i have fought with maddiemcall monkeyfunk and tyler durden
and never ignored them
not once did they sink so low as to make issue of my wife as you have now several times
you want to know bout my wife?
she works as a midwife in south florida serving exclusively the undocumented immigrant communities
she speaks spanish french creole quiche and conjubal
she is a u of florida grad with honors
she works with the maya center in west palm
she has been with me since she was 15 years old and we wed when she was 18
she deepsea fishes and has taken dolphin wahoo and sharks
she captains our boat
now ill tell you about me
i am a grill chef
i have worked to put my wife and all 3 of our kids through college
i speak spanish and creole in the kitchen
i have been with one woman since i was 19 years old and i married her right after my 23 birthday
we both volunteer in our community and to the local dem party
i love my wife
i feel sorry for you
so im gonna test drive my ignore on you

[IndianaJones]

21. hillalujah. nt.

[paulk]

6. well, your definition is pretty subjective

most people would find that calling someone an

"over rated liar who has an overdeveloped sense of entitlement"

kind of oversteps the bounds of what they consider "criticism".

of course, here on DU, it fits right in

and also - your idea of what she "represents" is also subjective

and tends to overlook anything that doesn't fit into your preconcieved notions

notions that lean toward a certain style of "criticism"

that others might define as "hate".

[SwampG8r]

9. clearly stated as my opinion

not a criticism
just my opinion

[paulk]

17. the point is -

a critic is supposed to analyze without bias.

your "criticisms", as I note above, come from a preconcieved bias as to HRC.

I would define that bias as "hate".

Therefore your criticisms aren't valid, or, at the very least, have to be taken with a knowledge of your bias.


---

ps - they will get you lots of friends here on DU, though.

[Igel]

29. Yes.

It confuses technique and process with emotion and motive.

[DarkTirade]

32. ... isn't that the definition of a politician?

:P

[LostinVA]

7. Criticism doesn't mean you're voting for McCain

[countingbluecars]

8. This makes sense,

but it really doesn't matter with some. I got called a Hillary hater here last night, and I don't believe I've ever really even criticized her. I am basically a benign poster. Go figure.

[SwampG8r]

12. with them

its total devotion and love or its hate

[ampad]

31. I witnessed that and noticed

that I did not recognize your screen name during the ugly primaries. It seems that some of them just go after those who criticize her and call them haters because that is all they have left.

[countingbluecars]

34. Thanks.

I had hoped the divisiveness would lessen after the primaries. Now I am hoping for after the VP selection.

[SeaLyons]

11. That's cool....

but would you be okay with the same type of name calling criticism being made toward Obama. I don't think so.

IBTL

:hide: :popcorn:

[SwampG8r]

16. no i would not

but he isnt any of those things

and i have yet to hear an obama supporter say it is hate speech to say anything about him
i can find clinton supporters calling people hateful in any hillary thread i pull up

[SeaLyons]

19. neither is she....

you don't like her. That is all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. There's no reason why you can't do both.

C'mon.

It's Hillary Clinton.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

14. However, My Friend, Criticism Of A Democrat Must Keep These Bounds Here

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

"Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."

When criticism of any Democrat meets the 'highly imflammatory or divisive' standard, or constitutes a 'broad-brush smear', it violates the rules here, and when it comes to our attention we have to act against it. You would surely agree, on reflection, that some of what is said here certainly meets these standards, and violates the rules..

[SwampG8r]

18. i would agree it does sir

and i would add that there seems to be a one way street going on as to what and who can say what.
i had my wife and marriage attacked by one of these people and i may not yet be thinking clearly.
but it seems that we have been inundated these last few days by posts about how obama cannot survive without the "help"of a certain candidate.
these are not constructive criticism by any means yet because they have been worded correctly they are allowed to stay up.
if i say nothing i am complicite by silence
if i speak out rashly i am locked
i am tired of being labeled as hateful by those who do not know me
i think the accusation of hate is a tired childrens rhetorical trick and am made vomitous by its use

[The Magistrate]

23. Did You Alert On Those Posts That Attacked You Personally, Sir?

If they are still there, do so now, and we will look into the matter.

For the rest, as you say yourself, they 'have been worded correctly' and do not violate the rules. Posts which come to our attention, and which violate the rules, we deal with, regardless of where they lie in the spectrum of debate here.

Regarding debate over the choice for Vice-President, we are no more here to shut down one side or another than we were during the primaries, where all sides got their say and then some, till the process had concluded with a clear winner. This will conclude with a clear choice soon enough, made by Sen. Obama, the Party's nominee. Till then, people are going to have to encounter posts that they disagree with, and do not much like. Items which people think violate the rules cited above, they should alert on. That is much better than replying in kind, and violating the rules yourself.

Trust me, Sir: we would much rather have nothing to do....

[SwampG8r]

24. others in the thread alerted on them

and they were deleted from this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6682221&mesg_id=6682221
starting at number 7
it was deleted as soon as others rose to defend my wife
i truly dont expect anything to be done now and frankly expected nothing to be done at the time

[The Magistrate]

25. The Timing, My Friend, Had Nothing To Do With People Coming To Your Defense

We received the first alert on that post eleven minutes after it was put up; processing it took eight minutes. That is not too bad, especially on a busy night when alerts are coming in at a rapid clip. We did a sub-thread deletion to put the whole thing quiet and prevent any future flaring up of embers.

Expectations can be self-fulfilling: if you expect we will do nothing, you can probably count on it, but if you expect we will do something, chances are pretty good we will, and if a real violation has ocurred, we almost certainly will do something, and as quickly as we can manage to.

[SwampG8r]

26. i apologize if i sound cranky

and i thank you for your quick actions
i am very upset still over this
especially since it continued from the same person today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6682221&mesg_id=6682221
in the same vein
starts at reply 3

the best part of a message board is that i cant get my hands on anyone

[The Magistrate]

27. No Apology Necessary, Sir

Please alert on anything new: that link goes back to the same locked thread, and its No. 3 does not seem what you are talking about.

"What a world, what a world...."

[SwampG8r]

28. wrong link sir

sorry again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6685176&mesg_id=6685589
i already took care of the problem as far as this person and myself are concerned

[Chloroplast]

15. Apparently, Democrats aren't allowed to disagree with the 'importance' of the Clintons.

Criticism is different from being a 'hater' but some people whip themselves into a foam whenever you speak out against the Clintons and the problems bring to the table. It's really just sad.

[Balderdash]

22. This has to be the funniest

thread I've read on DU in a while. Pull the log out of your own eye and then you can complain about hate vs legitimate criticism. Amazing hypocracy.

[polmaven]

33. Thank you!

:toast:

[ampad]

30. I woldn't worry about some of them

It's a right wing tool that has been used against liberals for the past eight years. I criticize Bush because he is the worst president ever therefore I hate America. I criticize this war because it was unnecessary therefore I hate the military even though I have served and my husband is currently serving. I do not like nor trust Senator Clinton therefore I hate her even though I have no hate for her whatsoever; I just don't trust her. It's old and pathetic but it looks like some here have learned from the best.

[RedShoes]

35. The primaries are over and Hillary shares a 95% voting record with Obama. There's not much to hate.

or...er...criticize (read: hate) this visceral, inappropriate HATE you try to cloak as outrage or indignation.