General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does the money Hillary raises from corporate donors revert to another candidate if she loses? [View all]True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)The "education" I'm receiving, frankly, is not encouraging. I see visceral hostility to intellectual exploration, antagonism at unconventional thinking, and painfully clear signals that I'm investing a lot more thought into generating ideas than are invested in the replies to them.
I'm repeatedly disappointed in DU lately. This kind of forum is where ideas are supposed to be incubated, not a jacuzzi for exchanging shibboleths ad infinitum.
And I especially would expect more of early adopters of the Sanders campaign. Ideas aren't just about checklists of issue positions, they're about logistics, messaging, strategic alliances, all the many elements that go into achieving anything.
But I feel like every time I bring any of that up, it arouses suspicion - like any response more complex and substantive than just repeating what everyone already thinks, in the dumbest language possible, is morally suspect. That's fucking insane and infuriating.
I shouldn't have to rack my brain for ways to address obviously relevant topics without triggering some spring-loaded ideological viper reaction out of the blue. These topics should be discussed constantly, by everyone with an interest in the outcome: How do we deny the logistical advantages of the other side? How do we turn those advantages against them? How do we uncover false dilemmas and exploit the options that are hidden by them?
This should be a campaign that attracts and harnesses thinkers. I'm really getting tired of dragging its own proponents kicking and screaming into acknowledging even the existence of these topics.