LIBERAL FUNDAMENTALISM is still fundamentalism

[nashville_brook]

In the past few days I've seen enough socially regressive threads here in GD to make me think I made a wrong turn on my way to DU and wound up on any number of boards that will go unnamed.

It's too easy to say, for instance, those crowing to restrict a woman's reproductive choice signifies their TROLL-dom. "Oh, they're just stirring up trouble," blah blah blah.

But that's not what's going on.

Some who call themselves "liberal" are lately waxing authoritarian in ways that would make James Dobson blush.

Non-smoker? That makes you righteous in all areas pertaining to health.
No kids? Then everyone else is killing the planet with overpopulation.
Drive a hybrid? Then everyone driving an SUV is morally equal to Dick Cheney.

I thought that being a liberal meant respecting other people's privacy and freedom of choice. Some of the worst liberal stereotypes used against us are being demonstrated right here, right now. Just because you don't smoke, don't have kids and maintain a fuel-efficient lifestyle doesn't make you BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. It doesn't give you the right to pass judgment on everyone else. You can do so -- but that doesn't make you morally superior. It makes you self-righteous -- and that's no way to bring people to your side of the fence.

Support your causes, educate others and live your life the way you see fit. But you're hurting the *democratic* cause in toto when you reach into the private lives of others as if someone died and made you KING.

At root we are all supposed to be here to support something called The Democratic Underground -- which to me intimates respect for privacy and freedom.

FUNDAMENTALISM is undemocratic, whether its liberal or conservative.

[jgraz]

1. ATTENTION: From now on, all posts must be approved by nashville_brook

Now, that's not regressive at all!

[nashville_brook]

2. you have the right to be as judgemental as you want to be

it's just disappointing.

[jgraz]

5. I'm just pointing out the irony

of someone complaining about advocacy against SUVs, smoking and overlarge families by ADVOCATING THAT WE LIMIT OUR FREE SPEECH.

Does that not strike you as kind of ridiculous?

[nashville_brook]

8. i'm not saying you can't be a fundamentalist

but, people should realize that's the deal.

[jgraz]

11. OK, one more time

You react to my calling someone with nine children irresponsible by calling me a FUNDAMENTALIST. Gee, that's totally different, not judgemental at all.

Actually, it is different. I'm pointing out that someone may actually be hurting society through their actions. You're complaining about someone posting their point of view on a DEMOCRATIC FORUM!

:banghead:

[nashville_brook]

12. just calling it how i see it -- it's fundamentalism. deal with it.

[jgraz]

14. Do you even know what that word means?

Cuz clearly you don't know what "irony" means.

Edit: Imagining Jeopardy theme playing while she furiously googles "fundamentalism"...do do do do do do doooo do do do do DO dododododo...

[nashville_brook]

19. wow -- THAT was condescending

truth must be hurting a little.

[jgraz]

21. And yet...

we still don't have a definition. I'm guessing it didn't mean what you thought it did.

do do do do do do doooo do do do do DO dododododo....:rofl:

[Trajan]

3. There is no perfect solution ...

for perfect agreement ....

And if you expected everyone to be in perfect agreement with you here, then you DID take a wrong turn ....

[nashville_brook]

4. you don't have to agree.

i'm just pointing out what is going on.

those who live to slag on smokers, breeders and SUV-drivers are "liberal fundamentalists."

[Trajan]

7. Did you expect complete unanimity ? ....

Did you expect liberals to PRAISE smoking ? .... high energy use ? ....

Cmon ... get real .... Perhaps you are projecting here ...

[nashville_brook]

9. i'm showing you the ugly side of these actions.

[Trajan]

16. You are showing me ...

You may not understand people .... and that it frustrates you ....

Personally, I come here expecting disagreements like this .. I am rarely disappointed ...

It would be VERY weird if none of these debates occurred .... I would be very concerned then ...

[nashville_brook]

18. you misunderestimate me. i'm not frustrated with you -- just holding up the mirror

[Trajan]

20. You are rolling over the substance of my comments ...

and generally ignoring them ....

Shrugs ... nothing I can do about that, or your frustration ....

This is your disgusted awakening, not mine ....

[nashville_brook]

23. such venom -- i'm fine with your disagreement

this thread isn't *for* you, and your condescension is very telling. it's the fundamentalist's default mode.

[Trajan]

25. Venom ? .... WHAT venom ! ...

SHEEESH Louise !

I am simply (and gently) stating facts .... there is no venom there ....

[kestrel91316]

15. I can't stand thoughtless smokers, clueless breeders, or

discourteous SUV drivers. Guess that makes me a liberal fundamentalist.

Which is certainly my perogative.

[BlackVelvet04]

39. And how does that make you different from rightwingers who

can't stand those who have abortions, support gay marriage and are immigrants taking "their" jobs?

[jgraz]

44. Oh sweet Jeebus, this thread has gone round the bend

I'm just guessing, but I don't think she's picketing cancer clinics with gory picture of smoker's lungs, and she's probably not holding up GOD HATES ESCALADES at soldiers funerals.

Get a freaking grip. There are some liberal causes you don't agree with, that's fine. But can you not see that SUVs, overlarge families and smoking have a tangible effect on SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, while abortions, gay marriage and xenophobia are fantasy issues driven by racists and religious zealots? Are you really trying to draw a moral equivalency between these issues?

[BlackVelvet04]

55. What I'm saying is they believe they are doing it for the good

of society....in fact are as firmly convinced as any liberal is of his cause. When you are dogmatic and completely convinced that everyone else is totally wrong then you are in fact no different in how you deal with others. They are equally convinced that global warming is a fantasy, that gays can choose and that smoking is no worse than many other things many people do. Obviously you haven't seen some of the nastier posts here...posts stating a hope that smokers die painful deaths, posts that are every bit as full of hate as posts pulled from FR.

I don't need to get a grip, thank you, I am quite calm. Obviously you aren't.

[jgraz]

65. OK, let's try this

If I say we should talk about the morality of driving gas guzzlers, and someone says "Fuck you, I'll drive whatever I want", who's being dogmatic?

If I suggest that we should have a real discussion about birthrates and large families, and someone says "You're obviously against women's reproductive rights," who's completely convinced that everyone else is wrong?

My point, which I've been trying to make all along, is that ALL of these topics are valid subjects for discussion. Simply bringing up the subject does not make you a fundamentalist or an authoritarian, as the OP has been suggesting.


And I'm calm, too. I just type loud. ;)

[BlackVelvet04]

and I agree....

I have no problem with discussion and the sharing of ideas. I believe in compromise and striving to understand the other person. I'm not opposed to disagreement, I'm opposed to the "my way or the highway" mentality.

[jgraz]

80. And after all the fireworks...

we're in total agreement. Another productive night on DU. :rofl:

[nashville_brook]

53. for me, this is most apparent in reproductive rights dialog...

it's not enough to support a right to choose to have an abortion. lots of women who have abortions would much rather have the child, but CAN'T because they don't have the means. all that to say... it's not all one-way. champion the "liberal" cause, but understand the whole issue.

a family that has 7 or 8 kids are not killing the planet (no one family has that power), but it's easy for people to feed their hate based on the image of those families.

in the end, it's the hate that kills humanity to take hold, and where there's no humanity, what's the point?

[Crandor]

66. Of course a single excessively large family can't "kill the planet"...

One shoplifter won't put a store out of business either, but try explaining that to security.

[jgraz]

85. I dunno...the Bushes are doing a pretty good job of it

[lyonn]

92. Gotta a question, what's a clueless breeder?

[hfojvt]

95. it's not what we live for

but if the topic comes up, we may express an opinion about it. Huffpo (and whoever linked the article) seems to have re-kindled the smoking war, but most of what I have seen on DU is SMOKERS starting threads that say "yeah, I smoke, so the fu$% what!" In fact, somebody has been doing that for quite some time, well before Huffpo, although it is not 'legal' for me to call him/her out.

It will settle down, someday, like all the other flame-wars, when the M$M moves on and we follow and find another issue-du-jour to goto war over, and get back to slagging on people who shop at Wal-mart, use credit cards, or goto church.

[MazeRat7]

6. Unfortunately, all social groups have "fundamentalists"... dems included. -nt

[nashville_brook]

10. in the words of Andre 3000 -- "some think their shit don't stink"

[mondo joe]

13. There are authoritarian liberals and authoritarian cons. Personally, I find nothing

more depressing than authoritarian liberals.

[nashville_brook]

17. totally agree. and... i hate it when non-liberals refer to all of us as righteous weenies

it's only a handful who are weenies, but they attract ALL the attention.

and all us non-fundamentalist types have to deal with the stereotype.

[Buzz Clik]

36. Interesting point.

We all recognize that people with faults exist across the political spectrum. The warts often seem bigger when they're on the good guys.

[nashville_brook]

48. it's not about people being warts -- it's the behavior, which can change

that's prolly not exactly what you were thinking, but i want to make that clear.

when people think they "have god on their side," they do things and say things they wouldn't normally do or say.

make no mistake, i believe that the warts are much bigger on the other side. i rarely engage in liberal-flagellation.

true friends, tho, tell you when your fly is open.

[mondo joe]

51. I think there are two spectrums: liberal con, authoritarian libertarian

When I was younger I didn't get that so I was constantly disturbed by "liberals" who were also authoritarian. I've run into it often enough that I don't get as upset.

[stillcool]

22. It teaches us tolerance...

and for me, that is never an easy lesson to learn. Mostly I want to reach through my monitor and throttle someone. I like to think that I have always been a compassionate, empathetic person. But my buttons get pushed at certain posts..and the fingers fly before the brain is consulted. We are all teachers, and we are all students.

[nashville_brook]

26. it's smarter to use tolerance as a tool than intolerance

takes time. it's wisdom. we aren't born with it. it's the diploma we earn it in the school of hard knocks.

[lyonn]

94. After you have "stepped in it" a time or two you do get more

humble. Another variety of school of hard knocks!

[Swamp Rat]

24. LIBERAL + FUNDAMENTALISM = an oxymoronic juxtaposition

I prefer mondo joe's "authoritarian liberals."

[nashville_brook]

27. like most oxymorons, it informs as it confuses.

[Moochy]

56. Peace through war!

I vote for less cognitive dissonance, not more! Fundamentalism implies some adherence to some doctrine, which I don't feel exists in the cases the OP cites.

:hi: Swamp Rat! Joyeux Noël

[Swamp Rat]

60. Feliz natal e um prospero ano novo cheio de paz

:hi:

[Pithlet]

28. You'll probably get flamed, but I think you have a good point.

It will be totally lost on a lot of people, but what can you do?

[nashville_brook]

29. it's not for everyone. some people aren't ready to hear it.

i wrote this for those who have felt pushed aside lately. i wrote it demonstrate how we aren't immune from some of humanity's sour notes.

[BlackVelvet04]

30. I think the only difference in

the authoritarian liberals and authoritarian conservatives is in what they fear, what they judge and what they are willing to use the government to do away with.

Neither group is very pleasant and neither have any respect for real freedom.

Both groups grasping at control while convincing themselves it's for the good of society. What it's really about is fearful little souls trying to control everyone else so they can somehow feel safe and secure. I have equally little respect for both groups.

[nashville_brook]

33. well said.

i think fear is very evident in the "breeder" threads. overpopulation is a scary thing. "Limits To Growth" gave me nightmares. but we can't let our fear drive us to hate.

[Trajan]

37. So those who oppose smoking in public places ....

Are 'authoritarian' ?

They HATE freedom ? ...

Does one hate freedom when we promote in the community the reduction of the burning of hydrocarbons carbons for the sake of our planet ? .... and THIS is the hating of freedom you are referring to ? ....

Sheeesh .... dont know where to go with that .... It is as if ANY Liberal effort in the community, from keeping public places free of carcinogens to reducing global warming is killing freedom somehow .....

Isnt there a word for this worldview ?

Dont we call that Libertarianism ? ...

Tell ya what: I am all for eliminating smoking in the public buildings AND for reducing the overall use of hydrocarbon-buring devices, in a reasonable and practicable way .... If THAT means I am 'Authoritarian', and that I 'hate freedom', then so be it ....

[eridani]

97. Authoritarian conservatives tell you who to have sex with

Authoritarian liberals tell you you can't shit in the reservoir.

[nashville_brook]

110. "poop in the resevoir" isn't a comparison i'd use...

of course we don't want people pooping in the resevoir and of course we applaud standing up for the health of common waters.

it's the PRIVATE waters that define fundamentalism as you suggest regarding conservatives. check some of the {link:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2961685|recent threads regarding family size] and you'll see the difference.

[Crandor]

31. Was MLK a fundamentalist for opposing racism?

Really, you need to face up to the fact that some things people do are bad, and sometimes "fundamentalism" is just what we need.

[jgraz]

32. Only if he told people about it

Wait...he did? The BASTARD!

[nashville_brook]

34. MLK opposed racism, but he didn't *hate* those who weren't yet on his page.

that was his brillance and power.

[jgraz]

38. Where the HELL are you getting HATE from?

What forum are you reading? Someone who suggests that maybe driving an SUV is less than the best choice for the environment is not preaching HATE. If someone is advocating that we shoot smokers or jail overbreeders then, yeah, call them on it. But you're objecting to someone simply saying they have a problem with it.

I'd say it smacks of PC Fundamentalism, but that wouldn't be a correct use of the word.

[Dr.Phool]

47. Well, we had one guy on here yesterday, a 1,000+ poster

Sincerely wishing that all smokers lose their health insurance, and wished they'd all die of lung cancer.

I'd call that hate.

[jgraz]

52. And because of one asshole we now have to avoid certain topics?

Saying that public smoking is rude is a far cry from wishing that smokers would die. Certainly you can see the distinction.

[Dr.Phool]

63. Sure I do

I quit smoking 8 months ago. So did my wife. And I like to drink just as much, if not more than the next guy. I've got my little imperfections, as does everyone.

We had an overnight guest last week, and we wanted to make sure she felt welcome. We were driving into Tampa to hear Cindy Sheehan. We dumped all the potpouri out of the cars ashtray, and put ashtrays out in the house for her.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

93. You obviously don't get sick from having someone smoke in your house.

I cannot be friends with smokers, or go to bars where smoking is allowed, so I can hear bands I like, because of the secondhand smoke, causing allergic asthma, stinkosis of the clothing, bod and hair, inflammation and irritation, and making a nice warm inviting place for some bacterium to have a party and make me ill with a sinus infection, possibly snowballing into bronchitis/pneumonia.

If I am in the house of a smoker, I will be sicker than a constantly puking dog in TWO DAYS. No shit.

Your situation does NOT impinge on my life.

Knock yourself out with the ashtrays. For gawd's sake, staple gun 'em to the walls, ceilings and every surface.

[nashville_brook]

61. great example.

[jgraz]

76. Except your OP wasn't referring to individual psychotic whack-jobs

If you had said "a few posts", I'd agree with you. But when you condemn entire discussions because you think they're too "judgemental", you're saying something completely different. In one case, you're advocating against extreme, hurtful, inflammatory posts; in another, you're telling people that simply discussing certain subjects makes you a "fundamentalist".

[Dr.Phool]

84. I agree

Anything can be open to discussion. But, we do seem to be running into the nanny syndrome a bit more, lately. And I think it gives us all a bad name.

[BlackVelvet04]

35. But he didn't try to take away rights....

he helped to gain rights. He didn't try to limit freedom, he promoted freedom. Big difference from what the OP was talking about.

[jgraz]

41. Tell that to white southerners...

I'm betting you'd find a few who disagree with you.

[BlackVelvet04]

43. I AM a white southerner.....

and he didn't take away any rights from white southerners. Abusive behavior is NOT a right.

[nashville_brook]

67. reducto ad absurdum

[Trajan]

42. The south considered segregation their 'right' ....

based on the 'right' to freely associate, or not, with those of their choosing ....

Jim Crow laws, polltax laws, were their 'right' ... and MLK helped to eradicate those supposed 'rights' (for which we are ever thankful in our 'authoritarian righteousness')....

It is obvious there is confusion about what is a right, and what is just a possibility ....

[BlackVelvet04]

58. I don't know that they considered it their "rigiht".....

it was what many southerners desired and it was what always had been. I grew up in a small southern town and blacks and whites always interacted and intermingled as far back as I can remember. Segregation met little opposition....it was just the very verbal abusive few who had a problem with it. And the point is white people didn't lose any rights...they were free to go where they chose to go and blacks gained the same right.

[Trajan]

83. Segregation existed .... that is not in dispute ....

Jim Crow laws were in use ... that is not in dispute ...

Plessy vs. Fergusen ruled 'separate but equal' was constitionally valid .. that is not in dispute ...

ONLY after Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education did the legal basis for laws enforcing segregation in this country become invalid, and did we begin dismantling the system of local and state laws that were written to create the Jim Crow environment that DID in fact exist ....

Many considered the ability to legislate laws that formed the basis of segregation their 'right' .... and the catchphrase 'States Rights' was utilized time after time after time ... and is STILL used today by racial extremists and others ....

I believe it is clear: supporters of segregation believed it was their 'right' to implement those laws ....

I am quite pleased that MLK and the NAACP, and any others that contributed to this effort, were able to strike down this system of unfair legislation that permitted the segregation of citizens based on race ...

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Got an example you want to float?

Which ideas currently, in your mind, require a "fundamentalist" approach?

[rinsd]

116. I don't know what's worse

The claim that MLK was somehow a fundamentalist or that you are comparing your desire to limit people's choice in procreation to ending racism.

[NashVegas]

120. How Many of MLK's Foes Did He Publicly Condemn?

Would he have stood on a soapbox and called George Wallace a pig?

I just can't see it.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. So this is how it works...

..."You have a right to your opinion as long as it agrees with mine."?

I am not going to sit-back and not say anything about issues I stongly oppose, I can not sink to the level of the NeoCon view of things.

I can be an Atheist, I just can not say that I am an Atheist. Is that the kind of point being made?

Usually or as I have believed, when some post a topic people are allowed to comment on it as they feel to do so. Whether or not the agree or disagree with it...

[Buzz Clik]

46. That isn't the point.

The point is that it's possible to disagree without condemning one's "opponent" for embracing a given point of view.

[jgraz]

50. Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP?

Cuz at this point, it's hard to tell the difference.

[Buzz Clik]

57. I agree with the underlying sentiment of the OP, ...

... but I don't like the label of "liberal fundamentalism" he pasted up.

[nashville_brook]

77. she, actually -- and you are free to amend. liberal fundamentalism works for me

-- strict, dogmatic adherence to a set of principles.

i'm sure there's a dozen other ways of putting it, but this is the one that came to mind given the tone of things here lately.

[nashville_brook]

88. "liberal militantism"

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

121. No, The "Authoritarian" Is a Better Description

At its root, authoritarian is what it is.

[nashville_brook]

70. well said.

[BlackVelvet04]

49. That's not what the OP said at all.

People can disagree all they want, but the fact of the matter is being dogmatic is being dogmatic no matter the issue.

[nashville_brook]

73. eggsactly -- their dogma just ran over my karma

[Moochy]

45. Rude Know-It-All Posters or "LIBERAL FUNDAMENTALISM"

I'm not sure if the behavior you are citing is really fundamentalism, or even authoritarian. I think that it's just rude and presumptive posters. If you think that "political fundamentalism" as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary applies here, then what are the principles of these pushy posters, other than to make themselves feel superior?

"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles." ...
< political fundamentalism > from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamentalist

I think that in order for a poster to be "authoritarian" they would need to have some real authority, or appeal to authority. A DU poster can be an opinionated twit and be simply raving on about their pet issues that define their vision of a democrat, a liberal, or a progressive or all three. If posters are appealing to authority, "there should be a law against X" then I guess you could call them authoritarian.

But the next time that zero-child, hybrid-driving, soy-latte-sipping, marin-county, hot-tubbing, über-progressive, arch-fundamentalist poster says you must stop smoking, go vegan raw foodist, and recycle the whales, just hit ignore. :-)

[nashville_brook]

59. "strict adherence to a set of principles" pretty much sums it up

:)

"authoritarianism" doesn't imply being an authority... it's about "APPEALING to authority." that authority can be über-progressivism just as easily as anything else.

i like your assessment, though. to paraphrase the big dawg... "it's the rudeness, stupid."

[chefgirl]

123. Exactly right, NB.

It's really not about what opinion someone holds, because, Lord only knows, I hold some rather low opinions of some so called 'liberal' posters on DU.
It's about the entitlement, that some here feel they have, to hold forth on certain topics (abortion, smoking, breeding)as though THEY are the TRUE progressives.
The rest of us are just not progressive enough, not liberal enough, not fighting for the 'correct' causes enough, not giving enough money to the 'correct' groups, etc... and we're probably trolls too.

If I decide to drive to the clinic in my gas guzzling SUV and have an abortion with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth, and my 12 other children in the back of the car, a person is entitled ONLY to their opinion of me.

When they think they have some say in MY right to live my life the way I choose, thats when they cross the line. Unfortunately, I've seen too many folks here on DU advocating for what they think is THEIR right to do exactly that.

I DO happen to agree with your term 'liberal fundamentalism', also. It's every bit as ugly and intolerant as RW fundamentalism, just with a 'supposedly' different set of values.

If only more people paid attention to their own shortcomings, they wouldn't find the time to pass judgement against the rest of us.

And I ask...Who are the REAL liberals?

-chef-

:Edited for clarity:

[nashville_brook]

124. "real liberals" are tolerant and fundamentalist alike

it behooves us point out boorish behavior on the part of our folks.

one of the cool things about forum-posting is that it levels people. we have no idea if the people we post with are young or old -- we only have their words to bounce off of.

having been there once, i believe young people tend toward authoritarian extremes. when you're young you get to be all "punk rock" about your ideas because they haven't been road-tested yet.

it's easy to believe it's your way or the highway with very little experience under your belt.

on the other hand, i don't think that everyone expousing liberal authoritarianism. young and old alike can adopt the "holier than thou" swagger.

but, all are part of the team. that's why i felt it was important to call "foul" on this. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

72. You know, I used to live in Marin. I DO like lattes. And Hot Tubs.

Beyond that, your stereotype is fuckin' lame, man. :hippie:

[Moochy]

78. Sorry I left out the sarcasm tag

RAW FOODS 4 LIFE!! :)

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I'm a breatharian, maaaaaaaaaaan.

I don't even murder oranges, bra.

[Moochy]

82. These Meta-Rant threads are confusing

Off topic sub-threads at every turn! :) hey where am i?

[lyonn]

96. Uh, I'd like to live in Marin County -

Really like Starbucks coffee, no hot tubs, smoke, and just a damn bored Okie. Partied there a million years ago. Oh, and like beer, had a few already, makes me smarter.

[ElboRuum]

90. Best reply all day...

Very nice.

[flaminbats]

54. fundamentalism...how is that liberal?

correct me if I'm wrong, but fundamentalism is to take religious statements or those found in the bible literally.

I agree that liberal fundamentalism is still fundamentalism, but how is criticizing the personal actions or a person's lifestyle another form fundamentalism? I thought criticism and freedom of speech were inseparable.

[BlackVelvet04]

62. And I will leave you to fight the flames on your own.

Have a good night. I'm off to bed.

[nashville_brook]

81. thanks BV!

your imput was quite valuable and spot-on. you made me smile. :)

[BlackVelvet04]

102. You're welcome....

and your OP made me smile. I've said this in a bit different way many times. You said it better.

[nam78_two]

64. Are you merely criticizing the tone or the content?

I agree that saying someone who drives an SUV is the moral equivalent of Dick Cheney is wrong and not conducive to productive debate.

Saying that someone who is driving an SUV isn't making the best choice for the planet (based on all the scientific evidence out there supporting this -increasing by the day)is just a statement of fact. And I do think some things don't come down just to "personal choice", when it affects a lot of people and creatures other than yourself and I think educating others (non-judgementally) about consumer choices that are harmful to the earth as a whole is essential.

Smoking -I couldn't care less one way or the other, but if people are indeed hoping people die painful deaths due to it etc.... well....thats not just not being liberal, its borderline sociopathic.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I lean towards the libertarian side of the personal choice spectrum.

Authoritarians, be they "left" or right, tend to piss me off immeasurably.

In my mind, consenting adults should have the right to make their own damn choices about their lives and bodies- be that if they want to smoke, watch consenting adult porn, screw other consenting adults, drive what they want, use birth control or otherwise exercise reproductive choice (as it applies to having kids OR not having kids) use drugs or choose a dignified, pain free exit if terminally ill. As long as people aren't endangering or interfering with others, I'm pretty much of the opinion that their business should be their own.

That said, I also don't think that it's unreasonable for states and municipalities to say that if people want to smoke, they can do so- but that they can't do it in certain indoor, public places. I don't think asking folks to step out to the curb is an undue burden on their right to smoke. And yes, if pot was legal I would expect it could be regulated in just the same fashion. And as far as SUVs go; your right to drive whatever you want doesn't, in my book, entitle you to endless free sympathy when gas (an environmentally destructive, limited resource) prices continue to go up. And although this should go without saying, the right to drive an SUV or a massively oversized truck doesn't come with a blank check to drive like an aggressive ass, overcompensating for whatever by ramming one's big, honkin, extra-elevated headlights up the rear of smaller, saner cars.

But I agree in full with the concept of the OP. I find authoritarianism and second-guessing of other people's personal choices irritating as shit, no matter which side of the ideological spectrum it comes from.

[benEzra]

111. Me, too. Well said. (n/t)

[Jcrowley]

69. There's a problem

with political abstractions. Ultimately what matters is how much of the world one colonizes with their daily habits not what stance one takes on some issue. If one is using copious amounts of energy and strikes a pose as a progressive there is a very deep disconnect somewhere in that arrangement.

People are always passing judgment on situations and on others. this is necessary and healthy just as it is often a misjudgment. It is only called "being judge mental" when a negative judgment is put forth. You rarely if ever hear someone say "Jane is being judge mental" after Jane states what a sweet person Charles is, but that too is a judgment.

[nam78_two]

74. Great post as always.nt

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Judge Mental?

You mean this guy?



Or maybe this guy:

[rucky]

86. Funny thing is, all the nannies have some valid points...

they're just so darn obnoxious about it that it makes me want to blow smoke in their faces while I poke holes in their condoms.

[nashville_brook]

87. that's hilarious -- and very true

you catch more flies with honey. honestly, i agree with some of the nanny-points too. guess that's why i wanted to point this out. being too aggressive, too militant on these issues, weakens the position.

[cynatnite]

89. I think you've made a good point...

It's the absolutism of those positions. The anti-choicers are like that. They are absolute with no shades of grey and no understanding at all. There is no other way but their way.

[On the Road]

91. How Many Times Have I Heard People Wonder

"How can people vote Republican? How can Democrats be a minority in this country? How stupid can people be?"

Well, half of politics is identification with one side and alienation with the other. And in one way or another, what you refer to as liberal fundamentalism has driven away at least the people in this country one by one.

It's one thing to work for an upopular political cause in order to change something. But it's amazing how often people here seem to try to antagonize to no higher purpose and on a wide variety of subjects.

In the long run, it's not confined to DU. Word gets out. People feel disresepcted and like they don't belong. It changes elections.

The only good thing about it is that first, Democrats have been forced to pull back and Republicans have gotten better at turning people off.

[BlackVelvet04]

101. Good point....

there are many days I feel I don't fit into the Democratic Party any better than I did the Republican Party. I don't seem to fit in with any party which shouldn't surprise me. I've never been much of a group person.

[nashville_brook]

104. right on. what i see happening is a "rolling-up" of the welcome mat...

...militant Dems are conveying the message that there's a new boss in town and here's an ad hoc list of the things we won't be tolerating, because, naturally, we have staked out the highest ground and planted our flag. "respect our authoritaaay."

if i can't dance, i don't want to be part of your revolution.

[Pushed To The Left]

98. Excellent points! To me, a big part of liberalism is tolerance for people who are different

and make different choices in how they live their lives.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

99. K&R very cool approach nashville_brook, I consider it an honor to post along-side you...

thanks for putting this out there.

[nashville_brook]

108. thanks very much! here's a confession -- i HAD to post this, b/c...

i found myself becoming reactionary to some of the "anti" threads... and... that's not who i want to be, here.

for weeks i'd been ignoring the smoking/rescuing/circumcision threads, but when the discussion turned to reproductive freedom, the issue became clear -- we could very well tear each other apart with the holier-than-thou territorial pissing. working backwards from there... i wondered how this atmosphere would seem to a newcomer. if i were a newbie, would i not feel less than welcome? and hey, isn't that what liberals are faulted with on the broad, cultural sense?

i formed the image that GD was turning into a charicature of liberalism. i imagined the Six Feet Under character Lisa Kimmel Fisher played by Lili Taylor:

http://imdb.com/rg/name-headshot/top_center/?path=pgallery&path_key=Taylor,%20Lili%20(I)

they did such a good job of showing that her liberal militancy was born of feelings of fear and inadequacy -- and turning an otherwise beautiful woman into a shrew.

that's what GD is becoming -- an otherwise beautiful woman, turned shrew.

[BoneDaddy]

100. You were the person

who called me sexist because I thought multiple abortions for birth control purposes was stupid irresponsible behavior, so I am not too sure you are the best person to comment on fundamentalism.

I find the extreme wing of the liberal movement can be just as fundamentalist as the right wing. YOu may be in that camp.

[nashville_brook]

105. you have mischaracterized what i said -- and, 4 other women called you out on this

i said, "smell the sexism." that's a far cry from calling YOU a SEXIST. and at last count, 4 other women chimed-in to point out the sexism inherent in your assertions.

the whole point of reproductive freedom is that no one gets to tell women how many kids they have to have or NOT have. it's a privacy issue, because -- as your posts point out, as soon as others get to have a say, the woman's body becomes a political football.

so no, in a culture of reproductive freedom, you don't get to say how many abortions are too many, nor how many children are too many. that doesn't mean you don't get to hold the opinion AND claim the status of "pro-choice." you are going to have to CHOOSE on this one -- either you are for "choice," and you accept that some women will have more abortions than you would choose for yourself... or you stand for something not-exactly-choice. rather it's choice up to (what? 2 or 3 abortions?) and then you renege on "choice" and require women to embrace "the culture of life" because obviously, they have been irresponsible either in their sexual practice or their use of birth control.

see, it's the meddling in womens' lives that puts you outside of the "choice" column on this.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

109. okay -- The Retard STILL says your position smacks of sexism.

but hey -- i'm a retard -- what do i know.

[uppityperson]

114. There is a difference between promotion and acceptance.

"the promotion of multiple abortions as the primary form of birth control." Who is promoting this? There is a difference between accepting the right of people to do this and promoting it. Did you know 1st trimester abortions usually don't use anesthesia, especially not a general, so why do you keep saying this is a risk? And calling women insane who chose an abortion rather than "making" their partner use a condom (how does one make a man use a condom?) or can't/won't use a diaphram strikes me as rather judgemental on your part.

[omega minimo]

117. and learn to separate his opinion and life from the rights and lives of others

even (or especially) in online "discussion."

:thumbsup:

[FredStembottom]

103. Oh sure! Liberals can be as dogmatic as anyone!

I experienced this back in the 70's when liberals were in control of everything - with me in support - and I dared to say: Don't, don't, don't hate on the hunters and fishermen. That that would be a terrible mistake. That sportsmen aren't the problem. That I knew many Democratic hunters and fishermen who worried about the environment in the most personal way - (even way back then). That if the hunters and fishermen were doing well - so is the environment. That they are the best "canaries in the coal mine" imaginable. That they wanted to help.

But, instead, dogmatic Liberalism won out - Hunters and fishermen were stigmatized, demonized and hounded and ALL the ones I know have just spent 26 years being rabid Republicans.

Let's pick our enemies more carefully.

Truth in Advertising statement: I am not a hunter myself. Don't enjoy it at all - but I do go fishing every once and awhile.

[nashville_brook]

106. that's the root problem -- people are using "subjective" measures to determine one's liberal cred

so, an urbanite isn't going to understand the life of a rural Dem, and thhe urban dem demands that EVERYONE live as they do.

there's a comparison to be drawn here in gender struggles too -- where men and women have a difficult time coming to agreement because of our particular subjective positions.

and what about, "it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" -- which turned the tables on this dialectic; playing offense instead of defense. some white people responded with anger b/c this didn't square with their internal sense of "liberal cred." but hey, as a white person -- i probably *can't* understand.

that's why we built this country under the constitutional framework -- so the dominant group doesn't rule with an iron fist.

yikes -- i don't want to live in an authoritarian culture whether it's liberal or conservative. it's the authoritarianism that scares and disappoints me.

[benEzra]

112. Yeah, go post in GD that you own a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out...

and a lot of people will say, "yeah, me too," but you also get a group that compares you to the KKK and says you can't POSSIBLY be anything other than a freeper if you have the temerity to own (gasp!) nonhunting-style guns.

I don't smoke (can't stand it), but the "let's dogpile smokers" threads bother me, too. Especially when the people doing the dogpiling are drinkers or french fry eaters.

I'm not an atheist. Sorry if that makes me persona non grata to some. To those who are, I respect your beliefs and choices; please don't call me a dumbass for not agreeing with you.

[depakid]

113. As to fuel efficient cars

and wasteful (non-negotiable?) American lifestyles, the economics the economics of peak oil is going go sort that out soon enough. And it won't be pretty.

As to smoking, about all I see are debates about smoking indoors- especially at restaurants or bars- or recently, exposing foster kids to secondhand smoke. As far as I'm concerned, many smoker ARE selfish and inconsiderate. If you want a smoke (and play the odds with cancer and emphysema) be my guest- but how about stepping outside. No big deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm reading between the lines sounds like thinly veiled libertarianism.

Don't know about the "no kids" deal -but overpopulation is a problem, no denying that, and there's an argument to be made that having say 6 or 7 kids IS irresponsible. Not that anyone's inclined to take the Chinese approach to the problem- yet. But there may come a day when that will be necessary. Maybe not so far from now, which is what makes womens' rights to birth control (including affordability and access issues) and abortions when necessary so important.

[omega minimo]

115. We could discuss the same things affirmatively

[LWolf]

118. I hear you.

I also recognize the irony here:

Support your causes, educate others and live your life the way you see fit. But you're hurting the *democratic* cause in toto when you reach into the private lives of others as if someone died and made you KING.

At root we are all supposed to be here to support something called The Democratic Underground -- which to me intimates respect for privacy and freedom.

This statement runs smack into the tension trying to balance rights and responsibilities, doesn't it?

Where do rights end, and responsibilities begin? When your right to do something causes harm. In other words, your rights end at the end of your nose, but don't extend into the personal space of others. That's respect for privacy and freedom.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

so by being liberal one should have no standards?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

119. so by being liberal one should have no standards?

i will not legislate on a womans body but i do think humans have an environmental responsibility

same thing with SUV's

[Unvanguard]

122. Freedom of choice and privacy are important, yes.

But they do not extend to actions that harm others.

There is nothing illiberal about opposing practices that pollute the environment or waste scarce resources, because such consequences affect everyone, not merely the people who engage in the practices.