How I would describe the division within DU

[Igel]

20. The line between criticism and disrespect is often unclear.

Many on the old left used to sport bumperstickers that said "Question authority." I decided many were hypocritical years ago when what they really meant was "Question authority I don't agree with."

I said "many" on purpose. Many of them in authority reveled in being challenged and critiqued.

In some cases people confuse "criticism" and "critique" with "disrespect". All critical thinking is negative, instead of what it used to mean (and still means in some circles): Examine the facts and their accuracy, look for more facts, see how they fit together, consider alternatives and possible logical flaws or conflicts of interests, and evaluate the conclusion. The conclusion might be flawed, but along the way you've seen other possible solutions and considered them. You go with the least flawed.

As a result you can discuss the actual facts without flying off the handle. You've uncovered varying motivations and made clear the values and their ranking necessary to reach a conclusion. When as a result you see somebody coming up with a different "least flawed" solution you often understand where it came from. Sometimes there are missing facts; sometimes you're the one missing facts. Sometimes there are just differences in how to rank priorities--I may think X is more important than Y, you may think Y is more important than X.

This is all hard and takes time. People like quick, easy, transferred or emotional thinking. Many prefer motivated reasoning to critical thinking. They're also reading an Internet board. I hate ebooks because I don't read much fiction; when you read the kind of non-fiction I do you need to stop a lot, go back, consider every word because it's densely written. We're trained when looking at a computer screen to flit quickly and assume information's given in small bits. Many are trained to try to express what they need to express--often emotion more than logic--in 140 characters or so.

But to defend Obama when he does something indefensible just because he's our Leader and our Authority denies the basic premise of critical thinking and the old left's "Question authority."

Then again, there is a lot of the old-time religion in the cry and response of OWS, or instead of saying things in independent or different ways just speaking in slogans and ambiguous symbols. (In line with the OP, I'd add there's a third group: lemmings.)