I get the idea, but I also feel like this approaches the nanny state type situation / likely not worth it and is maybe a little dehumanizing.
Someone drinking way too much soda and on food aid programs isn't going to stop drinking soda because of this I don't think, and I hate the idea of government stopping by to say "you shouldn't drink soda" to every poor citizen.
This is a weird intersection of nanny state, and finger wagging at the poor, and I don't like either.
Something I find odd about pluralism - and maybe this isn’t strictly left/right but issue dependent.
Is it seems like the left is more sensitive to the paradox of tolerance. Like, well broadly speaking try to include everyone, but at your core, you also have to respect everyone else / abide by certain values.
Whereas as in this case, on the right, you get both a condemnation and a glorification of the nanny state in the same administration.
I think the core issue with political parties, even concepts like left and right, and most humans is they don't have principles that they stop and consider and test or would abide by if they didn't like the result ... they have sentiment.
4 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 19.6 ms ] threadSomeone drinking way too much soda and on food aid programs isn't going to stop drinking soda because of this I don't think, and I hate the idea of government stopping by to say "you shouldn't drink soda" to every poor citizen.
This is a weird intersection of nanny state, and finger wagging at the poor, and I don't like either.
Is it seems like the left is more sensitive to the paradox of tolerance. Like, well broadly speaking try to include everyone, but at your core, you also have to respect everyone else / abide by certain values.
Whereas as in this case, on the right, you get both a condemnation and a glorification of the nanny state in the same administration.