I know "dogmatism" is definitely loaded towards the negative here but that's really the only way I can think to refer to it.
For a specific example, the idea of shutting down and avoiding all criticism of America's geopolitical enemies. I certainly understand where people are coming from with this, and how even leftists aren't immune to state propaganda, but at the same time I have to fall on the "dogmatism is always bad" side. To me it seems like even within a warped and propagandized discourse, shutting down any line of thought uncritically is both a bad general practice and an ineffective way of opposing that line of thought.
"Dogmatism" is bad unless you're dogmatic about things you're sure are correct. The problem is getting to surety.
So I'm only dogmatic about things I axiomatically assert. Because they're fact-independent assertions, I can be as dogmatic as I like about them, but I can also assert them away when they become an encumbrance.
If you're really sure you're correct why bother with dogma?
How can you be dogmatic about something your uncertain about?
I mean I guess anything you're dogmatic about you're certain about, but if you're dogmatic conditionally depending on the evidence then that's not dogma