Some people are so insecure they brook no possible criticism. To criticize is to attack, to reject, to hate.
"Honey, I wish you'd asked me before you accepted that invitation to the Smiths, Saturday."
"YOU DON'T LOVE ME!"
Of course, sometimes it's not insecurity. The demand for uncritical loyalty and approval is sometimes just a way of shutting down criticism, of avoiding questions, of garnering support.
"You're either for us or against us."
You see it all over. It's common in discussions of patriotism; in some circles, any attempt to question what the US does, policy-wise, is seen as disloyalty, even treason, and certainly giving aid and comfort to our enemies. (At least, that is, when it's a policy that the accuser of disloyalty agrees with. A lot of the folks who demanded that Dubya's actions be accepted unanimously and uncritically were the first to attack Obama's actions; unfortunately, the reverse has also too often been true.)
Another area where this has been seen of late is in US policy toward Israel. As some have raised questions about whether absolute and unquestioning support by the US of the State of Israel and everything Israel does is, in fact, either righteous or in our own national best interest, others have tried to short-circuit that discussion by calling any such questions "anti-Semetic." Thus the below article, which attempts to show not only why that's foolish, but also dangerous. #ddtb
Embedded Link
When 'Anti-Semitism' Is Abused
We have all been taught to fight anti-Semitism wherever it exists. That’s why it is so shameful when the label ‘anti-Semitism’ is tossed around for political gain.