As a child of the 80s, I vividly remember the moralistic crusade against rock music led by Tipper Gore.
This whole thing, start to finish, has been about puritanical nanny-statism. A nanny-state is a state that passes laws to prevent people from choosing to do things that might harm themselves. Further, if those laws are driven by a strong set of moral beliefs such as nudity is bad, smoking is bad, cursing is bad then you could accurately describe it as puritanical nanny-statism.
Puritanical nanny-statism has nothing to do with how effective it is. It has have to do with morality inherently. What is it that you are disagreeing with here?
Your claim or agreement that Democrats are a puritanical nanny state. A claim you have yet to back up. Passing a law or two doesn't make them a puritanical nanny state either.
I guess when you spew so much bullshit its easy to forget what you were arguing about.
I'm anxious for glenn to come back and explain himself, rather than his pedant surrogates.
Sure can. You are axiomatic to the last.Him doing that would only establish his view on if that type of thing is inherent to Democrats or Republicans. Which has nothing to do with if puritanical was used correctly. Puritanical can be used to describe Republicans or Democrats.
Sure can. You are axiomatic to the last.
But as I said, I'll wait for glenn. You can power down.
Shhhh.Then I'm double confused as to what you have been disagreeing with. If you think puritanical can be used to describe any side, how would it be wrong to say puritanical nanny-statism?
This entire discussion is pedantic, but not for the reasons you assertI'm anxious for glenn to come back and explain himself, rather than his pedant surrogates.
Cool.This entire discussion is pedantic, but not for the reasons you assert
It's not, to assert it's a left wing phenomenon in the USA is where you're going to find arguments, as that's clearly not the case.Then I'm double confused as to what you have been disagreeing with. If you think puritanical can be used to describe any side, how would it be wrong to say puritanical nanny-statism?
It's not, to assert it's a left wing phenomenon in the USA is where you're going to find arguments, as that's clearly not the case.
Depends on the context, like we've discussed.So do you agree that there is nothing wrong with using puritanical nanny-statism?
Depends on the context, like we've discussed.
I can't believe this dead horse is still getting beat.
In the context in which is was presented.Well, it was the very thing I had been discussing the entire time. There are still people trying to argue that the term puritanical nanny-statism was somehow flawed.
In the context in which is was presented.
But please, we're waiting for glenn to come back and expound.
Remember how you jumped in and answered for someone else?Oh shut it. Post #169, #174, #215, and #221. All of those are posts where you were questioning how something could be puritanical and nanny-statism at the same time. Did you know that you can go back and see your previous posts in this thread? Or maybe you talked yourself into circles and forgot what you said?
Remember how you jumped in and answered for someone else?
Good times.
As for my posting history, I'm good with it.
I am not a communist, I am an Eisenhower conservative who appreciates the merits of well architected democratic socialism and recognized Sanders as a unique voice amongst a field of uninspired candidates.
You still haven't measurably contributed to the conversation other than to demonstrate the worst impulses of the American left.
Him doing that would only establish his view on if that type of thing is inherent to Democrats or Republicans. Which has nothing to do with if puritanical was used correctly. Puritanical can be used to describe Republicans or Democrats.
And that's the point. I've yet to encounter any liberals or lefties in my travels that are for restricting the rights of others based on some kind of moral superiority.
The basics, don't infringe on the rights of others, and you're doing fine.
Cons or righties on the other hand...
This is the context of Glenn's post.
I agree with this. Republicans pass a lot of puritanical laws as well and abortion restrictions are a prime example. The primary difference seems to be the GOP favors fewer but more intrusive/paternalistic laws that typically involve "sin" acts (previously mentioned abortion and drugs being another) while progressives seem to be more prone to more frequent but small scale "thoughtcrime" type nanny state laws. Large soda bans were what I mentioned but there's plenty more, from plastic shopping bag restrictions, Happy Meal restrictions, legal enforcement of "preferred pronoun" usage, restricting otherwise harmless commerce (like lemonade stands or sale of individual cigarettes to the point of police killing those who do it), fines if you don't recycle correctly, there's plenty to choose from.
Basically puritanical rightists treat you like you're a depraved sinner who needs to be saved from hell, and puritanical leftists infantilize you and treat you like an idiot that needs to be constantly told what to do by their betters (enlightened progressives in positions of political power of course). My entire point was that such nanny-state behavior from the left in Europe (or right for that matter) is much less common with a few surprising exceptions such as the burqua ban in France, etc.
The context of my post was focused on progressive behavior because that's the premise of the thread; "European left vs. American left."
I would have responded to clarify earlier but was enjoying a vacation with family in the real. Please resume arguing now that I have issued the requested clarification.
Basically puritanical rightists treat you like you're a depraved sinner who needs to be saved from hell, and puritanical leftists infantilize you and treat you like an idiot that needs to be constantly told what to do by their betters
Blah blah blah. I can't hear you. You must be a moron. WhataboutTrump.The context of my post was focused on progressive behavior because that's the premise of the thread; "European left vs. American left."
Okay, so now that there is this post, @jackstar7 will you respond?
Just one point - the burqa ban in France is not particularly 'left wing'. It stems from the particular French version of 'secularism', itself a concequence of the history of conflict with the Catholic church. I think that's a very idiosyncratically French thing rather than being a left/right issue, and is at least as much pushed by the right as the left there.
And on reflection, I think maybe there _is_ a little bit more nannying from what passes for 'the left' in the US, but that's in good part because the US isn't all that left. , the US goes in more for 'nannying' precisely because the left is not as strong. The actual left tend to be less inclined to impose restrictions on recipients of welfare, for example. The US, for that reason, tends to have things like food-stamps, where assistance is given with the idea that it can't be spent on things the majority don't approve of. In other countries welfare-recipients are free to spend it on booze and cigarettes.
Likewise you get restrictions on contraception or abortion, where as in the UK both are free at the point of use on the NHS (hmmm, free-at-the-point-of-use is the usual term for paid for out of taxation, but it sounds a bit odd with regard to condoms)
Of course there are constant pushes for restrictions on such things in Europe, but that push comes from the right, or the centre-left at best, usually in order to placate the right.