Huh? Poll Finds Majority Approves Of “Angry Attacks,” But Disapproves Of “Shouting Down”

[ProSense]

Huh? Poll Finds Majority Approves Of “Angry Attacks,” But Disapproves Of “Shouting Down”


I'm confused.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Check out the wording

It is angry attacks against a bill -- nothing personal about.

Shouting down others is personal and rude.

So people can understand angry attacks against a thing but not rude angry attacks directed at other people.

Wording makes all the difference.

[ProSense]

4. You're probably right. Still, given

the results of the last two questions, I say start arresting them. They'll become more belligerent.

[Orangepeel]

2. Democracy to make an angry attack when it is your turn to speak but not to stop others from speaking

:shrug:

[ProSense]

5. It's disingenuous manipulation of wording to spin the results. Hence,

The findings are bad news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to town halls marked by aggressive questions and noisy demonstrations by those opposed to plans to overhaul the health care system.

link

How is bad news for the President when more people believe booing Congress and his supporters are an abuse of democracy?

[karynnj]

10. I agree - the latter two questions, especially the last

show a BIG threat of backlash if people see this as what is happening.

Probably the only caution is that our elected leaders probably should not be leading the effort to call those disrupting out - as they risk lookin like the ones stifling discussion.

[Eric J in MN]

3. A man can wait for his turn to speak and then make "angry attacks" on a policy.

It's different from "shouting down" others when it isn't his turn to speak.

[theothersnippywshrub]

6. How many approve of "Death to Obama" signs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6287438

[Cali_Democrat]

7. What a strange poll. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

8. We have angry attacks on issues we disagree with. It is the shouting down

of discussion that creates a problem with effectively hashing out the issue. Certainly, civil discourse is preferred but it is shouting down and killing discussion that is an abuse of democracy.

The tactic of disrupting the conversation is an attack on our basic principles.

[karynnj]

9. It kind of makes sense to me

It depends on how you interpret "angry attacks". That includes many forms of dissent that I would agree with - as well as some I strongly disagree with. The ones I strongly disagree with include those in the later question.

The problem with the first question is that it is too vague. As it could include an angry question or protest that does not step on the rights of others, it is hard to answer that it is an abuse. It is inconsistent to support that dissent is a form of patriotism and then rule out dissent when it is something you support.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. it is encouraging that 58% of Republicans disapprove of shouting down those who speak in favor of

healthcare reform.

I have suspected all along that those sorts are not the majority of people who vote Republican. But they most definitely are the majority of the hardcore base of the party activist. I wonder what will happen when all those people who tend to vote Republican realize that their beloved party is now dominated by a base of crazies, extremist, conspiracy nuts and racist.