NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to spark discussion of personal politics. What do politics mean to you all, and how far would you take your ideals or beliefs? Feel free to discuss everything and anything, hopefully something interesting shall arise.

Edited: I'd love to see people elaborate on their leanings. I would call myself a rational absolutist. I believe in neither abuse nor disorder. I think that the perfect State would rest in a benevolent Leviathan. This is of course merely a dream; utopias can never be realized in a physical sense. But it doesn't change the fact I am that way. I believe that there should be stronger welfare programs designed to employ people. I think that health care should be free, and I think that it's perfectly fine to be morally objective. After all, we are all humans, and we all have our own opinions. I just think that the only line that should exist is when a person's beliefs cause harm to others, or restricts their freedoms. Some might say that contradicts my "rational absolutist" statement, but the absolutism I am thinking about is purely on a utilitarian, socially-inclined basis.

Well i'm a member of the Conservative Party in Britain and quite right wing. Im not a fascist, nor a racist and im quite supportive of many of our governments more socialist policies. Im also quite patriotic, although I can see why many are not. As a practising Roman Catholic now, I dont really agree with abortion, although I have absolutely no objection to homosexuality. Really, like everyone, I have quite complicated beliefs. I don't like to be compared to the Republicans in America, as I don't think we have quite the same beliefs and I certainly consider us to be more moderate in some areas. Many people on this forum hate the tories, and there is nothing I can do to change that, but it does irritate me when people on the right (not far right) are referrred to as ignorant or portrayed by the left as unintelligent. I don't think people respect each others views enough.

I would say i'm a little bit of a green, little bit of a posthumanist, and perhaps a little bit of a fascist.

I would say Im a moderate Socialist.

I dont hate the tories. I just think that their choice of leaders recently has been unfortunately.
I liked William Hague, but Im not sure he's really PM material. The same goes for Charles Kennedy.

Well i'm a member of the Conservative Party in Britain and quite right wing. Im not a fascist, nor a racist and im quite supportive of many of our governments more socialist policies. Im also quite patriotic, although I can see why many are not. As a practising Roman Catholic now, I dont really agree with abortion, although I have absolutely no objection to homosexuality. Really, like everyone, I have quite complicated beliefs. I don't like to be compared to the Republicans in America, as I don't think we have quite the same beliefs and I certainly consider us to be more moderate in some areas. Many people on this forum hate the tories, and there is nothing I can do to change that, but it does irritate me when people on the right (not far right) are referrred to as ignorant or portrayed by the left as unintelligent. I don't think people respect each others views enough.

Interesting way of putting things. Does your disagreement with abortion mean you would support limiting the freedom (in a judicial sense) of a woman to seek one?

The reason many right-wingers are considered ignorant by the left and moderates is because they often make grossly biased claims without supporting facts. The left does it as well. Both sides do stupid things. It's just a question of who tends to be more informed, and no offense, but right-wingers are often not the brightest, especially in America. But I do understand that conservatives in Britain are different from conservatives in America.

I reckon I'm a reasonably conservative Catholic as Catholics go, and I suppose that means I'm very conservative by normal standards...

I myself am liberal. But I find kind of funny that now if your Catholic or Christian than most likely you are conservative. Before at least Catholics were all for the democrats. How things change.

I'm a real British socialist, not a reconstitiuted new labour thatcherite. :mad:

I agree with Vintovia about the tories. Both Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard are totally unvoteable. However, I can't find much difference between the conservatives and labour in terms of their policies.

Someone bring out the link to the NS political compass..

I've been a member of the UK Labour party since last August (because it seems that every British socialist joined the Labour party on their 16th birthday). Since then, my political position has changed from socialist (quasi-communist, in fact) to free-market capitalist (though I uphold certain areas of the welfare state as being necessary to guarantee personal liberty), and yet I still think the Labour Party best represents these views. I'm just waiting for the time when I can refound the Liberal Party, as they were before they became the Lib Dems.

Someone bring out the link to the NS political compass..

Done (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).

I'm unashamedly liberal, myself. The Enlightenment, constitutional government, social security and the freeing of the slaves are all traditions that I'm proud to follow. Strong believer in separation of religion and government and limited socialist institutions.

What would you describe your political leaning?

Scary. I might fall over. ;)

I am personally extremely morally conservative. However, I would not, for a second, want to impose these views on others through the government. I believe in limited taxation, small government, limited regulation on business and I believe that people should be able to do what ever they want on their private property as long as they do not harm others. I believe “public property” should be kept to an absolute minimum. Conversely, I hold the somewhat fascist belief that not everyone is suited to be involved in politics and that there needs to be a system in place to insure that only informed, honest, hardworking people are allowed to vote and run for office.

Me ... Moderate but left leaning (and heading more that way)
Parents ... Moderate but more right leaning
Grandparent .... Conservative

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415351

By US standards, I am a moderate conservative. On my left, I support social welfare programs...but with limits. In the US we have allowed these programs to become huge and inefficient. While I agree that we have a responsibility to help others, in this country we have multi-generation families that view our welfare program as their sole means of support. They have no ambition or understanding that there are other, and better, ways to provide for themselves. This is an example of government agencies enabling the suppression of a segment of its people.

I believe our courts have been allowed to legislate rather than mediate. In recent months I have watched as my local courts have used their power to intimidate and have demonstrated extreme racial, economical, and religious prejudice. Our courts, on all levels, need to have strict guidelines enforced.

On my right...

Interesting way of putting things. Does your disagreement with abortion mean you would support limiting the freedom (in a judicial sense) of a woman to seek one?

This is assuming that everyone believes that women have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy. I see it in the same light as saying that we have the "right" to kill anyone who agrevates or inconveniences us. That we have the "right" to deny another person their rights in order to escape the responsibilites of our actions. In the same vein, I don't believe that we have the foresight, knowledge, or responsibility to decide who lives or dies based on their actions. We have the responsibility to protect our citizenry, but not to the inclusion of court ordered death.

I believe that people of all faiths should be allowed to embrace their faith in public view rather than hide it like dirty linen. Faith is the foundation of many peoples' lives and to be forced to suppress and deny that influence is a religious suppression. We are endowed with "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

These are the issues of most importance to me.

I'm a very liberal socialist but with a healthy dose of cynicism. I think everyone should be state employed except for teachers and lawyers. I don't think that school children should be taught to follow political or religous teachings so the teachers should be separated fro mthe state, maybe they should elect a council of teachers, the state gives teh wages and funding to the council and they would share it out. I also think that lawyers should be independant as if they were state employed then nobody would be able to question the legality of the state's actions.

I was very indifferent politically until I read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressell. It's both influentilal and brilliantly funny and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Done (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).



I meant the picture that is around which has a huge political compass graph with hundreds of NS members plotted on it.

What do politics mean to you all, and how far would you take your ideals or beliefs?

For myself, although I hold onto my ideals and beliefs, I like to see the other side of issues through another person's viewpoint. On NS I have gained a much better understanding of the thought processes of people who have other opinions, and, a couple of times, have changed my overall opinion. I present my beliefs by explaining the logic, and sometimes life experiences, that have led me to those conclusions. I am not an active political or social advocate, but a common everyday person. I try to present the opinions of myself and others like-minded, in a calm, concise manner. I am, however, greatly disturbed by something I have seen happening here on NS.

A few months ago some NSers left these forums with a scathing and insulting "goodbye" thread. They have returned. Since their return they seem to have devoted a fair amount of time to attacking the character and motives of another NSer with far different views. They have done this with no consideration as to how his past life experiences have shaped his beliefs, ideaology, and personality. It is more than obvious that they have a vendetta for this person and will stoop to any level to destroy his credibility and popularity on NS. They appear to have a small following of politically like-minded individuals that are imitating their lead in prolific attacks against this person. In the past I have held a great deal of respect for these returning NSers, regardless of differing politics. Their intended victim is also close to my heart. I have now lost almost all respect for them. They have proven that they will not tolerate difference in others and have chosen to try to drive out their strongest opposition. THIS is how far SOME people will go for their ideologies and beliefs.

Hurry back Eutrusca. We miss you!!

I meant the picture that is around which has a huge political compass graph with hundreds of NS members plotted on it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415351

Hurry back Eutrusca. We miss you!!

That we do.

NS Political Compass (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg)

I'm socially liberal and economically left-wing (socialist/communist) in general though I don't always fit the typical left-wing mould.

Interesting way of putting things. Does your disagreement with abortion mean you would support limiting the freedom (in a judicial sense) of a woman to seek one?

The reason many right-wingers are considered ignorant by the left and moderates is because they often make grossly biased claims without supporting facts. The left does it as well. Both sides do stupid things. It's just a question of who tends to be more informed, and no offense, but right-wingers are often not the brightest, especially in America. But I do understand that conservatives in Britain are different from conservatives in America.

Greetings Drzhen,
Would that include grossly biased claims without supporting facts such as right wingers are often not the brightest?
I would invite you to visit our welfare rolls and prisons where you will find the clientele is almost 100% liberal. Pleanty of dim bulbs to go around my friend without parroting elitists in acedemia who openly practice discriminatory methods in hiring, promoting and educating our people.
While I am thinking about it, how is it that those not so bright right wingers are able to prevent thoughtful, progressive loving liberals from getting elected anymore? Could it be that our thoughtful progressive liberal population is so enamored with their own image of themeselves they forgot to bother with the details as to whether or not there is a shread of truth in their self image?
This also makes me wonder exactly why it is those right wingers that dominate our corporate climate so decisively while our liberal friends end up populating government jobs of the same equivilant. You know what they say about the government employees don't you. "Those people who failed freshman english"
I really don't think there is even an ounce of credibility in your sterotype my friend. It just doenst hold water.

I'm a very liberal socialist but with a healthy dose of cynicism. I think everyone should be state employed except for teachers and lawyers. I don't think that school children should be taught to follow political or religous teachings so the teachers should be separated fro mthe state, maybe they should elect a council of teachers, the state gives teh wages and funding to the council and they would share it out. I also think that lawyers should be independant as if they were state employed then nobody would be able to question the legality of the state's actions.

I was very indifferent politically until I read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' by Robert Tressell. It's both influentilal and brilliantly funny and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Well I am a conservative capatialist with a healthy dose of cynicism, but, I have to tell you that I cannot think of a greater road to mediocrity than to make everyone a state employee. At least in the United States it is very clear that it is the surest path to failure. If one takes the incentive out of any endevor there is no need to execel and the word, "Progress" takes on the definition of, "ROT".

Liverbreath']Greetings Drzhen,
Would that include grossly biased claims without supporting facts such as right wingers are often not the brightest?
I would invite you to visit our welfare rolls and prisons where you will find the clientele is almost 100% liberal. Pleanty of dim bulbs to go around my friend without parroting elitists in acedemia who openly practice discriminatory methods in hiring, promoting and educating our people.
While I am thinking about it, how is it that those not so bright right wingers are able to prevent thoughtful, progressive loving liberals from getting elected anymore? Could it be that our thoughtful progressive liberal population is so enamored with their own image of themeselves they forgot to bother with the details as to whether or not there is a shread of truth in their self image?
This also makes me wonder exactly why it is those right wingers that dominate our corporate climate so decisively while our liberal friends end up populating government jobs of the same equivilant. You know they say about the government employees don't you. "Those people who failed freshman english"
I really don't think there is even an ounce of credibility in your sterotype my friend. It just doenst hold water.

A little bluntly stated, but engrained with truth. Thanks. (former Lenexa resident)

Moderate bending more conservative.

A little bluntly stated, but engrained with truth. Thanks. (former Lenexa resident)

Yes, I agree after reading it back to myself. I hope he/she doesnt take offense as I didn't mean it to be quite that pointed. I actually kind of like Drzhen. I have to admit though I find that propagandist's tag as the premier killer of all my willingness to work with liberals in any way.

Lenexa huh! It's always great to find someone on here from the same area. Sort of gives a new meaning to the term, "small world".

I would describe myself as economically liberal and socially conservative.

Liverbreath']Well I am a conservative capatialist with a healthy dose of cynicism, but, I have to tell you that I cannot think of a greater road to mediocrity than to make everyone a state employee. At least in the United States it is very clear that it is the surest path to failure. If one takes the incentive out of any endevor there is no need to execel and the word, "Progress" takes on the definition of, "ROT".

While I don't work for a government agency, I do work for an organization that is funded by federal grants. As such, our salaries and benefits are allgined with government standards. My position pays approximately 25-30% less than it would in the private market. When I took it I was one of several hundred accountants left jobless by the closing of a local employer. There is a very limited job market in my area, Little Rock, so any job was better than none. The market has opened up since then, but age, inertia, and an abhorance of changing jobs has led me to not actively seek a position that offers fair compensation. I have found that a majority of government employees are substandard to the requirements of private industry. They hang onto their jobs as it is almost impossible to terminate a government employee and because no one who has other options will take their place. The best and the brightest can't afford to work to our government's benefit, so we are left with the dregs.

I consider myself a conservative although I do not always vote for the Republican candidate. I have voted and even volunteered my time for Independent candidates because I believed they were the best person for the job. I have also volunteered my time for a Republican candidate. I do not hesitate to pick up the phone and call my Congressman or Senators on issues I feel strongly about. I also vote in most elections, even if the only thing on the ballot is a bond issue.

Revolutionary Socialist

...there needs to be a system in place to insure that only informed, honest, hardworking people are allowed to vote and run for office.

If we did that there sure would be a lot of unemployed politicians. :D

I'm a radical socialist. I would fight to the death to oppose world fascism!

Everyone on NS should know my polotics by now :D
and no i wasnt in london at the time so much suprise to some

THIS is how far SOME people will go for their ideologies and beliefs.

Hurry back Eutrusca. We miss you!!
To be fair, giving someone a hard time on an internet forum is not that extreme. I want Eutrusca to come back, but Dobbsworld does have a point on how he routinely gets off without a warning for being a troll, flaming and being extremely partisan.

Liverbreath']This also makes me wonder exactly why it is those right wingers that dominate our corporate climate so decisively while our liberal friends end up populating government jobs of the same equivilant. You know what they say about the government employees don't you. "Those people who failed freshman english"
Not true at all. The American military is mostly conservative. If liberals aren't able to get elected anymore, why don't the Republicans hold a monopoly on the house and senate?

I live in Ireland so maybe it's different but government employees, many of whom I know, are just as intelligent and successful as anyone in the private sector.

It's also quite rich to be attacking Drzhen for using stereotypes when you use so many of them yourself.

I would describe myself as economically liberal and socially conservative.
I thought you said you were a Christian socialist? Which would imply that you were socially conservative and against economic liberalism, rather than for it?

To be fair, giving someone a hard time on an internet forum is not that extreme. I want Eutrusca to come back, but Dobbsworld does have a point on how he routinely gets off without a warning for being a troll, flaming and being extremely partisan.

I'll agree with you there to a point. Several, of varying views, are not disciplined for pushing it as their rhetoric are obvious extensions of their real personality. Given that I am of the same generation as Eutrusca and married to a Nam vet with 12 years in the Marines, I have a fair understanding of the factors that lead these guys to be steadfast in their opinions, and sometimes volatile in their reactions in some situations. This is not to excuse it, but to say I recognize where it comes from.

In recent months I have been absent quite a bit due to real life issues. It wasn't until a few days ago that I noticed that Eutrusca had not been posting for days. In researching this, I found his 2 week forum ban. I also discovered the attacks and unfounded complaints leveled against him by one person in particular (Not Dobbsworld). The mods have dealt with this issue fairly and forcefully in the moderation forum, but the vilification continues in the general forum. The attacks seemed to have died down with his absence, but time will tell if they will arise when he returns. When we use character assassination and question another person's moral and social character as a way to reinforce our own influence and validity, then we are out of line and should be sanctioned for such....on NS and in our every day lives.

EDIT: as for Eutrusca and Iwannabeacowboy, can you say "Old fart curmudgeons"?

Im a 16 year old liberal teenager that believes that Communism is a perfect goverment on PAPER... Im also atheist and have no problem with the homosexual community.. I also hate war and death.. (im starting to sound like a treehugger :))

When we use character assassination and question another person's moral and social character as a way to reinforce our own influence and validity, then we are out of line and should be sanctioned for such....on NS and in our every day lives.
Is this not what we do every time we cry "troll" when some newbie says something stupid?

Is this not what we do every time we cry "troll" when some newbie says something stupid?

Yes, if we knowingly accuse someone of being a troll when we know that they are new and out of line due to ignorance, then we are purposely harrassing someone. It is to our credit if we point out their errors and direct them to the forum rules. But, in this case, none of the parties are newbies, and the complaints leveled have extended beyond "trolling" and "flaming".

EDIT: It is one thing to attack the politics and ideology of a person, quite another to attack the person because of their politics and ideology.

Greetings Drzhen,
Would that include grossly biased claims without supporting facts such as right wingers are often not the brightest?
I would invite you to visit our welfare rolls and prisons where you will find the clientele is almost 100% liberal. Pleanty of dim bulbs to go around my friend without parroting elitists in acedemia who openly practice discriminatory methods in hiring, promoting and educating our people.
While I am thinking about it, how is it that those not so bright right wingers are able to prevent thoughtful, progressive loving liberals from getting elected anymore? Could it be that our thoughtful progressive liberal population is so enamored with their own image of themeselves they forgot to bother with the details as to whether or not there is a shread of truth in their self image?
This also makes me wonder exactly why it is those right wingers that dominate our corporate climate so decisively while our liberal friends end up populating government jobs of the same equivilant. You know what they say about the government employees don't you. "Those people who failed freshman english"
I really don't think there is even an ounce of credibility in your sterotype my friend. It just doenst hold water.

I think that was rather rude. I was expressing my own PERSONAL feelings. We all have our biases and stereotypes. You mentioned that 100% of prison inmates would be liberal. If that's not stereotyping, then we need to change our language. I am not liberal. I am not conservative. And when I said that some conservatives were not very bright, I referred to some policies by conservatives, and the use of religion in politics. I view that breaking the barrier between Church and State is a very stupid one, one that has no place in our society. I also said the blame rests with the left. I didn't go into detail because from my own PERSONAL experience, there are many more conservatives in the mainstream which seem to lack common knowledge and the ability to back up what they say, than some liberals. But there are certainly liberals who haven't a clue on reality. Everyone is to blame, not just one side. But this is all from a personal viewpoint.

Considering Bush was a pot-head, and was once issued a DUI, I would hardly call him intelligent. Considering I hear alot of his speeches, and listen to what he says, I can personally make an opinion on him, that he shouldn't really be in the position of President. But when you assume I am liberal, I view that as character assassination. It was rude, and uncalled for. If you don't like me for some strange reason, then voice what you feel in reasonable terms. Just as I feel I have. Have a good day.

Considering Bush was a pot-head, and was once issued a DUI, I would hardly call him intelligent.

Uh, most of us were pot-heads back then...or do you honestly believe Clinton didn't inhale? Drugs were making their big debut as a popular recreation. Out of that generation of "free spirits" and "hippies", I believe we have produced some pretty amazing and intelligent people.

You're certainly entitled to say what you wish. However Zooke, saying that all of us were pot-heads back then is pretty stereotypical. Feel free to vent your anti-left anger.

You're certainly entitled to say what you wish. However Zooke, saying that all of us were pot-heads back then is pretty stereotypical. Feel free to vent your anti-left anger.

I didn't say "all" of us, but, you have to admit, "most" of us were experimenting with drugs, sex out of marriage, government protest, and just generally being young hot heads. (I admit, I tried pot...twice. Both times I ended up with an awful sore throat. I've not tried other drugs, nor do I drink, mainly because I am a control freak (there...I admitted it...whew...I feel better). I don't like anything that alters or diminishes my perceptions.) That being said, if you, too, are from that era, you know good and well that drugs were passed around and tried out by a majority of the young people. When my husband tells me of some of the dope they took in Nam, it nearly curls my hair. I would say that most of them grew up, got their priorities straight, and put aside their youthful rebelliousness (is that a word?) and got on with a productive adult life.

I didn't realize that I had left-wing anger. As a matter of fact, the stance I take on some issues is considered left-wing opinions. Others are more right-wing opinions. Maybe that's why I consider myself a moderate conservative?

Interesting way of putting things. Does your disagreement with abortion mean you would support limiting the freedom (in a judicial sense) of a woman to seek one?

The reason many right-wingers are considered ignorant by the left and moderates is because they often make grossly biased claims without supporting facts. The left does it as well. Both sides do stupid things. It's just a question of who tends to be more informed, and no offense, but right-wingers are often not the brightest, especially in America. But I do understand that conservatives in Britain are different from conservatives in America.

I find abortion a very hard topic, primarily because I have changed my mind on it many times. It is a balancing act between the rights of the woman and the unborn and I am unsure in which way to swing. The concept, however, does disturb me slightly. This may have been my upbringing. However, I do noe really wish to leap into the great abortion debate here and now.
I think your statement saying that conservatives tend not to be "the brightest" people is rather a poor generalisation. As you have never met them all, you clearly are unqualified to make it. Your attitude is a summary of what I think is wrong with the left. I understand that both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of general ignorance, but I personally have toyed with and looked at many libertarian and socialist idealogies, but have not agreed with many of them. I consider myself to be quite well informed. I feel it is necessary to openly question my beliefs, as I find this is the best way for me to confirm or strengthen my own convictions. I have, in the past, written several papers criticising the Roman Catholic church, much to the disapproval of one of my greatest mentors. Many of my right-wing friends, and most of my friends are ardent socialists, are very intelligent people, and usually more in touch with the world and have a better knowledge of political matters than my more left-wing friends.

Uh, most of us were pot-heads back then...or do you honestly believe Clinton didn't inhale?
Like most Bush supporters you assume that his critics like Clinton. :rolleyes:

Like most Bush supporters you assume that his critics like Clinton. :rolleyes:

Yeah, given the alternative selections, I supported Bush. I also voted for Clinton. Put that into a compartmentalized opinion.

EDIT: I have also noted that many of Bush's most ardent critics, seem to fall all over themselves with praise of Clinton. I think they're both human, make mistakes, and did the best they could of a thankless job.

I would say that most of them grew up, got their priorities straight, and put aside their youthful rebelliousness (is that a word?) and got on with a productive adult life.

Isn't it amazing how much smarter we become as we get older? :D The realities of life seem to bump pretty hard against the idealism of youth.

Yeah, given the alternative selections, I supported Bush. I also voted for Clinton. Put that into a compartmentalized opinion.

It's compartmentalised opinion that I was complaining about. Yes, many Bush critics like Clinton. It's not a universal truth. Some people like one but not the other, some people are against both of them, and some like both of them. I'm just tired of seeing "yeah, well Clinton did this and that..." as a response on this board every time Bush gets criticised.

Isn't it amazing how much smarter we become as we get older? :D The realities of life seem to bump pretty hard against the idealism of youth.
Is it becoming smarter or is it surrender to the status quo? This idealistic youth finds it sad.*

*Not that you oldies are devoid of idealism. You at least believe in the righteousness of spreading democracy globally.

I didn't say "all" of us, but, you have to admit, "most" of us were experimenting with drugs, sex out of marriage, government protest, and just generally being young hot heads. (I admit, I tried pot...twice. Both times I ended up with an awful sore throat. I've not tried other drugs, nor do I drink, mainly because I am a control freak (there...I admitted it...whew...I feel better). I don't like anything that alters or diminishes my perceptions.) That being said, if you, too, are from that era, you know good and well that drugs were passed around and tried out by a majority of the young people. When my husband tells me of some of the dope they took in Nam, it nearly curls my hair. I would say that most of them grew up, got their priorities straight, and put aside their youthful rebelliousness (is that a word?) and got on with a productive adult life.

I didn't realize that I had left-wing anger. As a matter of fact, the stance I take on some issues is considered left-wing opinions. Others are more right-wing opinions. Maybe that's why I consider myself a moderate conservative?

LOL. Aren't you the one that was dead center on the political compass?

Me, my politcal views have changed more times than I could count. When I was younger, I was way, way to the left from where I am now. Part of that was the result of having repeatedly liberal and biased teachers. After I went through that phase, I became pretty conservative. The first time I took the politcal compass I got something like 6.5, and 5. NS however, really made me realize that people have different views on things than I do, And I moved a little to the left, and I was pretty moderate for a while.

But now I've moved to the right economically, and a little left socially. Took politcal compass again and got 5.86 on economic scale, and 1.09 socially. I dunno what to call myself. Not really conservative, but not really libertarian. How about Conservitarian?

Is it becoming smarter or is it surrender to the status quo? This idealistic youth finds it sad.*

*Not that you oldies are devoid of idealism. You at least believe in the righteousness of spreading democracy globally.

No, it isn't surrender to the status quo. You make what changes to society that you can, but soon realize you cannot change everything. Besides, not everyone wants the same society you want. You learn to compromise where compromise is possible and to fight for what you believe is right where compromise is not possible. You learn you cannot win every fight and you learn how to live with and adjust to your mistakes.

Youthful idealism is great as it gives us hope for a better future but that idealism must be balanced by reality.

I will now step down off my soapbox.

I had responded to your post, Zooke, and you seemed to be somewhat rude to me. You seemed to be assuming that I was leftist. So I then judged you were associating me with anger against the left. I don't think I was being unreasonable, I was perplexed by the tone of your post.

I know my statement concerning conservative ignorance was pretty generalized. I could easily go through everyone's posts and point out biased statements made by everyone. It's just, through my experience, not saying that people on the left are intelligent, but I have noticed far many more conservatives say and do utterly idiotic things. I would have hoped people would understand, instead of saying hypocritical critiques to me. I neither support the left nor the right.

Edited:
Quoting Zooke
youthful rebelliousness

In a purely commentative/friendly tone, a dictionary.com check showed that you used the correct term.