From: docorion	Date: June 21st, 2010 10:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Hm. Well, I admit I haven't read *all* of the MassDem platform. I read the bits I was concerned about, and skimmed the rest. As it happens, there's plenty to object to, regardless of your political orientation (let's say there's something for everyone to dislike).

And I know how they're written, also. Last year at the state Dem convention, a "small group of well organized people" came within inches of striking the entire thing and substituting one they liked better (it was broadly similar, but struck some fairly anti-democratic provisions regarding getting on the ballot). Inserting a plank is stone easy for things which are truly non-controversial (trans-equality sailed on by), and more difficult for more controversial issues (which are often governance rules which threaten the status quo). Although as I noted above, there was a near-run governance revolt last year (I predict there will be a successful one next year; the structure is every-other-year "issues" conventions, and in election years there are "nominating" conventions. So next year is the issues convention, and with the cock-up the party has made of recent elections (notably the Coakley debacle), I don't care much for the chances of the current chairman and his cronies.

But I doubt this was about MA state politics. What was it about?

	From: rhonan	Date: June 22nd, 2010 12:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

I trust this is not in response to the Texas Republican party, which, in keeping with their long standing local tradition, has published a platform heavily laced with homophobia, and calls for active harassment of LGBT citizens.

	From: moechus	Date: June 22nd, 2010 04:35 am (UTC)		(Link)

So you think the parties should have a gentleman's agreement along the lines of "We won't attack anything in your party's platform if you don't anything in ours"?

I much prefer the rule, "If we find something silly or stupid in your party's platform, we will use it for whatever advantage we can. If you find something silly or stupid in our platform, go for it--turn about is fair play."

	From: wetdryvac	Date: June 23rd, 2010 02:06 am (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, I propose that I have a right to my opinion whether or not it's informed. The concept that *anyone* could be quashed based on degree of research and understanding is both flawed - free will matters, thank-you - and utterly daft.

Telling someone to shut the fuck up based on your opinion and understanding of what degree of research and understanding they have undertaken and achieved requires that you yourself have both breached their privacy - researched them to a very high degree, or at least to whatever arbitrary bar you've set - and are willing thereafter to revoke their right to think and take a position and speak about it. Taking such a stance yourself implies that you're OK with others taking such a stance - and perhaps even enforcing it - upon you. I'm reasonably sure that you do not wish for anyone, particularly me, to set and enforce an arbitrary bar upon what you may speak of, hold an opinion about, or similar.

It is completely valid to be annoyed with a lack of research, to call a party upon their logical flaws, their lack of evidence, and their failure to connect background information to presentation. It's valid to say, "I'm not interested - please don't talk to *me* about it." Further, where those stances begin to affect your acts of free will, taking a counter-view and fighting where needed is probably a good idea. However, unless you wish to set a standard which arbitrarily revokes rights to opinion and speech, "You do not have the right to an opinion," Is dangerous beyond words.

Are you sure you wish to be doing this? If so, what do you do with someone who will not comply? Do you wish to set consequences for non-compliance, and are you OK with those consequences applying universally?

I'm curious: Do you think, if I am silenced, I have any right whatsoever to stand and fight?