'Might as well go for soda, nobody hurts and nobody cries'

[hfojvt]

I see the food stamps soda poll is still on the front page, and I noticed a couple of things about that thread.

First is that this 'progressive community' is about evenly split on this issue. The score now is 58-42, although as with most polls here the vast majority of DU is represented by 'not voting'.

Second, is that the people who vote yes also quite often express severe enmity towards their fellow progressives who vote no. Their vote is not just 'yes, I think they should', but 'yes, and the people who say no are total dillweeds.'

I am not sure if there is the same harsh judgementalism expressed by the people who voted 'no' towards the people who voted yes.

Soda has been on my mind recently. For some reason when I was eating out, I started estimating that I have spent over $3,000 on pop over the last ten years, and that doesn't include the occasional restaurant visit. That's a good chunk of change, almost as much as the cost of the car I recently bought after three or four years of not owning one.

Beyond the expense, it has caused some other problems, first lots of cavities and second I think it aggravates my ulcers and acid reflux. For the last two years I have taken to watering it down. I drink all of my drinks with ice cubes whereas I did not before. So if I am drinking the same amount of liquid, then I am drinking more water and less pop.

But I probably shouldn't have prattled on about that. My main point is to note how those further to the left seem to be steeped in intolerance. Not just about things like racism, sexism, or homophobia where they proudly proclaim to be intolerant of the intolerant, but even about soda pop and food stamps.

[Ron Green]

1. The balance between individual freedom and public health never seems

to go well here on DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. I'm Ashamed At The Numbers Of 'No'. It Isn't That The Progressive Community Is Split.

I don't think it's politics that guides it, but intellect. I think it's split along the lines of those intellectual enough to have an open mind and those who are doomed to narrow minded ignorance rooted in irrational stubbornness.

[Toucano]

9. There is nothing "open-minded" about putting non-food items in a food program.

I find your position interesting.

It is a federal program with a mission of ensuring basic nutritional needs are met.

I think the "yes" vote is much more of a knee-jerk reaction and a basic failure to understand the purpose of the program. Not every restriction on food stamps is an attack on the poor.


We spend money promoting a lot of public issues, like education.

Should I be able to use my educational loans and grants for purposes that have nothing to do with education, like buying a house?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. My Comments Stand Firm.

[hfojvt]

26. forget buying a house

you should be able to use your educational loans to buy season tickets for a football team. That's a closer analogy, because a house is actually quite necessary.

[bikingaz]

53. more sodas = reflux?

why should your choice to drink more sodas force me to pay more in health insurance

[demwing]

69. Yes, among other expenses, Federal education grants and loans should be used to cover housing

whether that means paying rent or paying a mortgage

[hfojvt]

21. I am surprised that you are apparently on 'the left' on this issue

but you do a nice job of summing things up there "whoever disagrees with me on an issue is 'doomed to narrow minded ignorance rooted in irrational stubbornness.'"

Also that the progressive community is not split because those voting no are NOT real progressives. Is that what your second line means?

[RadiationTherapy]

31. I feel that way about all of my positions. I am pretty sure people who disagree with me

are not very smart. I also think soda should not be considered a food.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Pretty Sure? Doesn't Sound All That Confident.

Good reason not to be though, since you're on the wrong end of the equation...

[RadiationTherapy]

50. Meh. 'wrong' / 'right' .

[Marr]

41. *edit*

Oops

[Dora]

93. You're ashamed.

You really need to get a hobby.

[Ian David]

3. Soda contains dihydrogen monoxide. n/t

[Duke Newcombe]

14. I see what you did there... n/t

[hfojvt]

24. I don't. Care to explain?

Because it kinda looks as ridiculous as the people who thought they were being funny and/or clever when they told the guy on the bicycle 'hey, your wheels are turning'.

[Duke Newcombe]

98. Then you do understand what I was getting at. n/t

[haele]

23. It also contains caffine. Someone who can't afford common headache meds

and is suceptible to sinus type or constricted vascular type headaches (where the common remedy is Excedrine)can get through a nasty spell by nursing a two liter cola or 'Dew and a dollar bottle of asprin over a few days. The carbonation helps the caffine and asprin hit the system and provide relief quicker. Same with mildly ADD or ADHD people who are unmedicated or between meds; a 2 liter Coke over the period of a morning can help some of the symptoms. Flat cola is a common "cure" for nausea due to heat or motion sickness; my folks used to keep flat Coca-cola or RC along with the large thermos of ice water in the car when we went on long trips; I used to get horribly carsick after about a half hour on the road, and half a cup of flat cola every 40 minutes or so would be the only thing that would keep me from throwing up once I started getting dizzy.

Of course, with soda, there's going to be some acid issues after long term use, but it's a cheap self-medication source.

Haele

[anigbrowl]

37. So does coffee

"Same with mildly ADD or ADHD people who are unmedicated or between meds; a 2 liter Coke over the period of a morning can help some of the symptoms."

I have non-mild ADD and don't take meds for it. I do look forward to a large cup of coffee each morning, though it's cold by the time I've finished it. But are you seriously suggesting drinking 2 litres of coke a day???! :puke: puke: :puke:

I did go through a period where I was drinking a lot of soda for the energy boost - working 12-16 hour days and happy to take the sugar because it was impractical to eat regularly. At least, I was happy until I got a big old cavity on one of my wisdom teeth and had to have it removed. It sits in front of me in a little jar now to remind me why I don't buy soda.

I'm not 'you must never drink it' or anything, I'm OK with having one occasionally and it can be a good way to rehydrate with an upset stomach. I don't think it's the devil's brew or anything...but 2 liters on a daily basis, YGTBFKM.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. Yeah, but coffee tastes like ashes.

talk about puke!

[haele]

62. It usually isn't at the level you indicate -

When I didn't have enough to buy a bottle of Excedrine and the fall/spring Santanas hit here in SoCal, I used to nurse a 2 Liter Dr. Pepper (my Caffine of choice)for about a week - about 6 oz at a time with two asprin, morning and before I went to bed to keep me from getting up with that nauseous pounding headache or dealing with it during the morning drive. After the sun came up, either Vics Vapo-rub or home-made lavender oil would keep me from going down. As well as remaining hydrated. (Work tap water is f'n nasty, but if it had to do, it had to do...)
The ADD'er in my family used to down a two-liter Mt. Dew over a period of three days.
Coffee and Tea take about a half hour or so to get into the system, and for those of us who don't like to hang around the house for an hour in the morning while we get a caffine fix, a soda can get the same amount of caffine - and yeah, frankensugers, into the system in 10 minutes.
2 liters a day for one person is excessive and will usually make that person sick - and those who do it either need to see a psych or an ENT doc to get the proper meds. But if a person buys a enough 2 liters for a family of 4 or 5 to share during the day as well as for their morning quick caffine fix, that might not be an unreasonable amount.
Of course, we're discussing more of a reason someone might purchase soda instead of tea bags, a jar of coffee, or fruity sugar/sugarfree drink mix packets to mix with their tap water to give it a bit of palatable flavor. Not whether or not soda should be a food stamp item.

I'm of the school that just because someone wants to buy a cheap treat for the kids with their foodstamps, they shouldn't be punished.

Haele

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. So if a politician said, "Hey, if you have a headache, drink SODA," you'd be OK with that?

I think not.

[RadiationTherapy]

32. YAWN. Doesn't this H2O joke get old? It doesn't even make sense.

By calling it a name that few people recognize, doesn't mean they are uninformed alarmists.

[Ian David]

35. Never gets old. Never will. n/t

[REP]

4. It's the need to nanny

Its the paternalistic knee-jerking; after all, poor people are poor because they're stupid, right, and need their hands held when they go shopping, otherwise they'll buy no-no foods. But who's holding the hands of the nannies while they're shopping? Who knows what kind of horrid crap they're eating whilst preaching to the impoverished? Probably something someone would disapprove of, no doubt.

Poor doesn't necessary mean stupid and unable to make good food choices; being poor doesn't mean Person In Need of Nannying. If someone using food stamps wants a soda with gasp!!1! 'my tax dollars,' I hope they enjoy it.

[Toucano]

7. It is not nannying.

Are federal meat inspectors nannies?

A public health initiative (which is what the program is) must, by definition be concerned with promoting health.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. There's a difference between infringing on business freedom and personal freedom

Liberals are pretty much in favor of infringing on business freedom in most cases when it is for the public good (i.e. businesses can't sell rotten meat). When it comes down to personal freedom there is more of a split.

[Toucano]

10. Valid point.

Excluding a non-food item from a nutritional program is not a threat or attack on someone's personal freedom.

The recipients are free to use other funds alloted to them for this (apparently) great need to consume soft drinks.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. No, but it is placing further restrictions on a safety net program

I'm not saying that's necessarily a non-liberal position but it tends to be conservatives who try to place restrictions on how the aid that the poor receive from safety net programs can be used.

[Hannah Bell]

30. pop is food. it's not the "need" to consume soda, it's the presumption that

food stamp recipients are children in need of your superior guidance.

[anigbrowl]

40. Sure,...coke and Pepsi are in the business of selling nutritious beverages. Uhuh.

[Hannah Bell]

59. food = calories first. if you have a blood sugar dip you see pretty quick that coke or

a spoonful of sugar = food.

[hfojvt]

60. I think people do talk about nutirition too much

one of the primary purposes of eating is to ingest calories. Something like 2000 of them a day for an average diet. It's not all about 'nutrients'.

[CTyankee]

95. Well. since I got called an "elitist" for quoting the Preamble of the US Constitution,

on another thread, for quoting the founders' outrageous statement "to promote the public welfare," I can tell you don't waste your time offering logical, reasoned arguments. If you deny someone their god given right buy soda with food stamps, you are an elitist. If you think fresh food is great and tastes wonderful then both you and fresh, whole foods are elitist.

Somebody's been imbibing more than soda I'm guessing...

[Lorien]

78. You can still buy soda, just not with food stamps

food stamps should be for food. You know; that which nourishes the body and maintains health. It doesn't have to PROMOTE health, just maintain it. Soda can lead to diabetes, obesity and other health issues. There is a god bit of debate over the dangers of Nutrasweet too. I personally don't think that our government should subsidize anything that is harmful to a person's health-and this includes big coal, the HFCS industry, industries that pollute excessively or who outsource to companies overseas who pollute excessively. "First do no harm" should be a mantra for the US, but instead we do a LOT of harm. I gave up soda years ago because of the expense and the constant headaches it gave me. I liked the taste of it, but there's no doubt that it was ruining my health.

[rucky]

19. If it's a true public health initiative we're talking about...

then why just target the underclass?

[anigbrowl]

39. 'poor' and 'poorly educated' correlate pretty strongly

I'm basically in favor of this. After all, you can't use food stamps on wine or beer, even though they theoretically have some food and/or medicinal value. To me it's not about whether food stamp recipients are free to make choices, but whether food companies should be able to market complete junk as food and get an indirect government subsidy while ripping off people who don't know any better.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. they correlate pretty strongly?

Are you just guessing, or do you have evidence?

[CTyankee]

88. I don't agree with your first statement but I agree with your last.

Altho I would delete "don't know any better." I don't know everybody who is poor and there are many who are not poor who would fall into the category of "don't know any better."

But you are right about this being a public subsidy to companies who make a bad product.

The real snobs here are those who think that poor people wouldn't use real food, good food for their own refreshment. So I think we should increase the subsidy for whole foods that actually nourish, taste terrific and make you feel great. The real snobs here would like the poor to be shackled to an addiction, IMO, from the way I read some of these amazing posts here an on other posts over the last 24 hours. :shrug:

[surrealAmerican]

49. ... but, in a sense, the fact that food stamps exist ...

... is in and of itself "nannying".
The reasoning goes something like this: "if we simply gave the poor money, some of them might spend it on something other than food and suffer from malnutrition (or perhaps their children would suffer)."

Obviously people who are poor have needs that have nothing to do with food, just like everybody else. Food stamps are not intended to fulfill all of a poor person's needs. Food stamps are intended to keep people from starving.

[CTyankee]

89. The Founders then would be "nannying" since they wrote that one of the reasons for establishing

the U.S. Constitution was "to...promote the general welfare." Welfare sound like your purpose is to do good things for and by the "people," whether it be public education, fire departments and police services, and maintenance of roads. We could go on and on.

[eShirl]

5. Some of us are a little defensive, because it's personal.

For others, it's perhaps more of an abstract issue.

[lildreamer316]

34. +1

[hfojvt]

64. defensive or not

you don't generally make friends and influence people by attacking them.

[eShirl]

84. Exactly.

[Toucano]

6. I find that thread fascinating.

I never realized some people consider soft drinks such a "basic human right".


We don't even have basic medical coverage, universal free education, or a right to descent housing, but some seem to think that the right to a Mountain Dew® is paramount.

Soft drinks must figure big in the American psyche.

[Darth_Kitten]

13. Ah, what's so wrong with a cool Pepsi?

:evilgrin:

[The Straight Story]

16. It's about control

Milk is drink, as is ok, both are at the same stores and are essentially grocery items to most all Americans - except the ones whom we get to control because we are helping them in a tight spot pay for their grocery bill.

Poor person walks into the store and can't shop for some items there - until they can pull themselves up.

Poor? Want my help? Well let me go through the aisles and tell you what you are allowed to but versus what us others are.

The RW has fundie control religious freaks - on the left we push control of the lives of others over the dollar and health care issues. Your body, your choice - except if you want to congregate with like minded people for a beer, etc and so on.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. +10

[hfojvt]

36. it is about control of our money

Yes, if I help, I am only gonna help for some things. Need money for food, then I will help. 'Need' money for cigarettes. Then count me out.

It's not that I want to control your purchases, only the purchases you make with MY money.

Of course, money is fungible too, so by having food stamps to pay for your spuds and rice frees up your cash to buy cigarettes or whatever.

[Bill McBlueState]

48. what fraction of the average food stamp award

is due to your personal contributions to the federal budget? Seems like that's all you should have any say over if your attitude about public funds is the correct one.

[hfojvt]

58. no, that's not a very good standard

since it would give richer people more of a say than poorer people. In theory, in this democracy I have just as much say as you do and we all can vote and lobby for our point of view. In reality I have almost no say because my Republican Senators and Representatives are gonna represent the majority of Republicans in my districts.

I don't think it is fair or accurate to say that I, or anyone else necessarily, is a control freak though just because they want to control their money. I don't really care what they buy with their own money, or about their health.

But I am sorta getting off of my own topic, which is that I am able to tolerate people who see things differently whereas many on the other side go straight from arguing their point of view to attacking the character of people with a different point of view.

[petronius]

54. I really don't think that's it at all - I have no idea where some DUers have come

up with the idea that other DUers get their jollies from controlling (or even making fun of) poor people. I haven't seen any evidence of that, just for a whole bunch of name-calling. Nobody has come within a lightyear of suggesting that poor people should be prevented from consuming soda or anything else, the only question is whether a particular pot of money should be used for such commodities.

The food stamp program is a public policy with specific goals, and it is perfectly reasonable and progressive to question whether there are ways to increase the likelihood of those goals being met...

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. +1

[htuttle]

11. It's better than slander, it's better than lies

Mostly gave up soda years ago, but due to stomach problems, not ideology.

Living on food stamps is really hard. I don't care what people spend them on. People already know that they have to eat. They can eat what they want.

BTW, I'm pretty far to the left (been working at an anarcho-syndicalist cooperative for 17 years), and frankly don't give a damn what other people do most of the time, unless they shovel crap on my (cooperatively shared) piece of the world (or pie). :shrug:

[madinmaryland]

12. I drink at most, three to four mountain dews per year. That's it.

Water or beer for me!

[WCIL]

15. Harsh judgementalism

like the poster who said those of us who think people should be allowed to buy soda are fat, spilled soda all over our keyboards, and never do anything to help the poor?

I guess I just don't see how buying a 2 liter bottle of generic soda once a month is causing that much harm.

[rucky]

17. It's not about pop.

It's about cementing the underclass by dictating choices to them.

I don't drink pop, and I voted yes.

[Caliman73]

20. Great succinct answer

nt

[hfojvt]

28. cementing the underclass? What is cementing?

I sorta look at it as a Marxist. The phrase is "to each according to their needs". If somebody is hungry, then I am willing to feed them. I don't have the same desire to buy soda pop for them. If you want a pepsi you need to pay for it just like everybody else.

One cartoon we love here shows a rich guy saying "I'd rather that you died than have my taxes go up."

In this case though, it's not really inhumane to say "I'd rather that you go without soda than have my taxes go up."

[Pithlet]

43. But where does it stop? For you the sticking point is soda.

For someone else it might be cookies. For yet another it might be anything with sugar in it. Pretty soon the only thing on the list is going to be bread, potatoes and water. Oh, but wait. Too much starch and carbs! Bad! Pretty soon we'll just have to tube feed them. Sorry. It's ridiculous to dictate choice based on judgments like yours. Besides. I'm not going to begrudge my tax dollars going to someone having a soda, and I think it's sad and pathetic to do so, frankly.

[hfojvt]

68. it's ridiculous to take one step because 1,000 steps away is a cliff?

Still seems to me that the one step is a no brainer, and just because it could go too far if it kept going, does not mean the one step shouldn't be taken.

And that's the key. You cannot seem to make your argument without seeing the other side as 'sad and pathetic'.

[ohheckyeah]

44. Yep.

The ignorant poor need us more intellectual nannies to guide their choices. :sarcasm:

[undeterred]

27. Everything depends on context.

I spent a summer in Africa years ago. There were no supermarkets- what we ate was cooked up from dry ingredients and whatever food was grown or killed locally. There was no soda. I loved diet pepsi and was used to drinking it every day. I had stashed 3 bags of m&ms in my suitcase.

A plane brought in supplies twice while I was there. Both times the pilot put on a bottle of coke for us. That's one bottle for 8 people to split. So that little glass of coke was pure heaven.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. I don't care one bit about the issue.

But I'm damn upset that free-loading senior citizens are using social security to buy coffee on my dime.

[JVS]

42. What really gets me is those old people who buy instant coffee instead of fresh ground....

gourmet shit. Maybe if we tax the shit out of Sanka and pop that costs under a buck for two liters, the proles and geezers will finally wise up and start buying the organic free trade coffee beans and fresh fruit to squeeze into decent orange juice.

[Texasgal]

38. I am 100% against anyone dictating

what I can eat or drink... government assistance or not.

Keep your hands out of my uterus and out of my food intake. Period.

[hfojvt]

76. I hate those periods.

When somebody says 'period' they are basically saying 'my mind is made up, don't try to confuse me with facts or logic'.

Thus, there is no point in me saying that keeping food stamps from being used on soda does not dictate what anybody can eat or drink. Not even close.

[Lorien]

80. No food inspectors then?

You sound more like a libertarian.

[demgurl]

45. I love Kim Mitchell.

Off topic, I know, but there it is!!!! I have a photo of when I met him somewhere around here. If you are quoting him then you know that song is not about soda at all. In fact, the alternate title of the song is 'The Karma Song'. It is all about taking the peaceful path and getting along. Ironic considering how the soda debate has divided so many people. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread..........

[hfojvt]

72. not really off topic

since I purposely used his song for my title. He was opening act at a Bryan Adams concert I went to.

And actually I did not know what the song was about. I think MADD used it in commercials and I heard it at the concert but not hearing/understanding more than the chorus 'might as well go for soda'.

So your post here is about the best kind of post that can be made on DU. It provides information and links people together with common musical interests.

Fitting too, because I think my OP is about trying to get people to take a peaceful path. That we should be able to argue over soda without insulting or impugning the motives or character of the people we disagree with.

[Confusious]

46. How much has your car cost you?

How much candy do you eat? How much food do you eat? How much has it cost you just to be alive?

Sugar is in pretty much everything. Tax sugar, not just the soda.

There is a limit to people's tolerance. Would you tolerate a unrepentant child molester? The point is, there is always a line.

[petronius]

51. I've noticed that. The only times I ever get called an "elitist" it's by my far right dad,

or here on DU. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

79. wouldn't that be an attack from a centrist though?

then again somebody, presumably to my left (since even Lieberman is to my left) said I was in an ivory tower.

[petronius]

87. It's kind of hard to tell (at least for me) how some of these topics break down

on the left-right spectrum. However, it seems to me that the DUers throwing around "elitist" and related terms tend to be those who self-describe as far left or even radical. I guess it has become a somewhat catch-all term to try to invalidate someone's opinion on a particular topic...

[donheld]

55. The food and beverage Taliban need to find something else to do.

[hfojvt]

81. another good example

the people on the other side are the Taliban. Always a good addition to the discussion.

Of course, I used a Nazi analogy yesterday as part of a much longer post and it was not so much about Nazis as everyone goose stepping to the beat of the same drummer (instead of being allowed to march to their own and still be considered an ally).

[CTyankee]

97. Funny, I was just saying that to my cavemate, Omar. We were plotting how we could hijack our next

Mountain Dew truck before it could make a delivery to FS recipients...fun being in the Taliban...

[yodoobo]

56. Is this just a DU hang wringing exercise? or is proposed legislation

Sometimes we get a bit carried away with ourselves.

[fishwax]

57. I'm not sure how it is that you're associating "those further to the left" with the "intolerance" in

that particular thread. I hadn't paid much attention to that thread until reading your OP here, so I went back to check it out.

Before going to visit the thread, though, I already had reason to question the assumptions that structure the argument in your OP that those further to the left are steeped in intolerance. First, it's not the case that those who are "further to the left" are inherently more likely to vote yes, nor that those closer to the center are more likely to vote no; second, I see absolutely no correlation between those who would speak out most forcefully against racism, sexism, or homophobia and the "yes" position on that poll.

Reviewing the thread itself only served to confirm the speciousness of the portrait you're trying to sketch of "more progressive" DUers as "steeped in intolerance." First, I don't see more "severe enmity" expressed on that thread than one would expect to find on any thread approaching 400 posts. And while you may be right that there is a fiercer rhetoric coming from those opposing the "no" vote, it certainly doesn't seem to me that all (or most) of the more aggressive rhetoric is coming from posters that fit your profile of those further to the left or as the most vociferous in attacking racism, etc.

So I think you've chosen a pretty counter-productive example to attempt to demonstrate your theory about how lefties are so much more intolerant.

[hfojvt]

63. it is a judgement call to say that the 'yes' vote is coming from the left

but they seem to be adopting the same 'more progressive than thou' attitude which can be seen on other issues. Perhaps the same people, perhaps not, I am not tracking them that closely.

Whether the enmity is severe, or somehow 'normal' is another question. I would not try to say that the food stamp thread is our harshest war, but it is an example of something that is endemic here, that some people argue not just "I am right" and "you are wrong" but often skip straight to the third step "you are contemptible".

Witness the post below as an obvious example. He/she does not just vote 'yes' but needs to label 'no' voters as 'paternalistic nit pickers'. In another context the same person might label people on the other side racists, or homophobes. It's a similar 'proof by name calling'.

Again, this is not necessarily coming from those further on the left, or a characteristic of all people on the left. Some of it may come from group dynamics, with the person on the left in an argument feeling he/she has group support to personally attack the person to his/her right.

[fishwax]

83. that's a stretch

Whether the enmity is severe, or somehow 'normal' is another question. I would not try to say that the food stamp thread is our harshest war, but it is an example of something that is endemic here, that some people argue not just "I am right" and "you are wrong" but often skip straight to the third step "you are contemptible".

Certainly that happens here, but it's not exclusive to the left. I don't think it's even more prominent from those further to the left.

Witness the post below as an obvious example. He/she does not just vote 'yes' but needs to label 'no' voters as 'paternalistic nit pickers'. In another context the same person might label people on the other side racists, or homophobes. It's a similar 'proof by name calling'.

That's a huge stretch. Someone using the term "paternalistic nit pickers" might just as easily, in a conversation about race or gender, label the other side oversensitive, looking to be offended, crybabies, etc. I have no idea why you associate it with one side instead of the other. Perhaps it's simply that you *want* to believe that those "on the other side" from you are more intolerant and prone to enmity than those on your side. I don't know.

Again, this is not necessarily coming from those further on the left, or a characteristic of all people on the left. Some of it may come from group dynamics, with the person on the left in an argument feeling he/she has group support to personally attack the person to his/her right.

Well, in the OP you did say that those "further to the left seem to be steeped in intolerance," so your first sentence here seems like a bit of backtracking. I think you're right about group dynamics, but I think it applies to other sides of most given arguments as well, and certainly those involving racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Just as some of those on the left might feel group support to attack the person to their right (as not progressive enough) so those closer to the center might feel group support to attack the person to their left (as not practical enough, radical/fringe, obsessed with identity, just wanting a pony, etc.).

[hfojvt]

86. I shoulda stuck with my OP then

It may not translate directly to race or any other issue but the argument by name calling does seem to be coming primarily from one side, not only in that thread, but also in this one. And that side does consider itself 'further to the left' as in 'more concerned about the poor' than the other side.

I associate it with one side more than another, because I am typically on one side, asking the other side to be more reasonable, fact based and less prone to ad hominem attacks and blanket hatred. And largely failing.

But I do not have proof that the pro soda are the same people. So I will give you that, but it is the same type of behaviour.

edit: like I said above, I was surprised to find OMC on the pro soda side.

[fishwax]

90. lol -- I often find myself wishing people on the other side would be more reasonable too

but I'm typically on the side that you suggest is steeped in intolerance. :)

It may not translate directly to race or any other issue but the argument by name calling does seem to be coming primarily from one side, not only in that thread, but also in this one. And that side does consider itself 'further to the left' as in 'more concerned about the poor' than the other side.

Oh, I don't know. I don't really see people on this thread hurling the accusation that those who disagree with them aren't real progressives or aren't progressive enough. Rather, the "attacks" seem to be primarily of the "nanny-staters" and "paternalistic" and "control freaks of the left" variety. Those aren't attacks that I associate only (or even primarily) with leftists criticizing moderates.

[Odin2005]

61. us people on food stamps don't want paternalistic nit-pickers choosing what we can and can't buy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Nevertheless, it's the paternalistic nit-pickers who are picking up the tab. n/t

It's perfectly reasonable to place conditions on social programs so that goals can be met.

[demwing]

70. Really? all by yourselves?

Thats really generous of you paternalistic nitpickers! I'm sure the paternalistic "i-don't-give-a-shitters" and the maternalistic nitpickers appreciate all the slack you're picking up.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. Most of the paternalistic nitpickers contribute about a nit's worth of money to the program too. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. As members of society, they have an equal share in developing policy.

Or should only rich folks do that?

[Gormy Cuss]

75. As members of society with that share in developing policy they have an obligation to be informed

on all of the ramifications of that policy decision rather than pronouncing what's best based on a narrow world view.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. You're suggesting that well-informed citizens should know the value of pop in a nutritional program?

The purpose of food stamps is to provide nutrition to those that can't afford it.

It isn't a narrow world view which rejects the idea that soda is an integral part of good nutrition, it is an accurate world view.

[Gormy Cuss]

91. No, I'm suggesting that those who are charged with managing this program have explored this issue

and their conclusions on the ramifications of further restrictions in the nutrition programs are readily available on the internet. I've linked to one such report twice already this week.

The narrow world view isn't about soda, it's about assuming that one knows more than the experts without even consulting the literature.

[hfojvt]

82. there's a slight difference

between 'being informed of the implications of (a) policy decision' and 'being called a "paternalistic nitpicker" or a member of the "food Taliban" or a "nanny control freak" or "pathetic and sad" (but social) or somebody who has a "narrow world view".

That's a distinction I was trying to make. One side of a debate seems to quickly assume (and state) that the other side is composed only of idiots and a$$holes.

Granted, if I am involved in a debate there is at least ONE idiot and a$$hole on one side, but does that one bad apple really spoil the rest of the barrell?

[Gormy Cuss]

94. I don't appreciate the knee-jerk name calling either.

But when someone embraces that "nit-picker" as having an equal share in the policy, I contend that what also comes with that share is the responsibility to look at the whole picture rather than one little portion of it.

None of the FNS employees and contractors that I've known over the years wants people spending money on soda, or candy, or other nutritional empty edibles. It's something that has been discussed and evaluated and the conclusion is that there is no practical way to define fewer foodstuffs without negative consequences for the program. I've posted about it in several "soda" threads already and linked to one recent report on the topic. As best I can tell, no one has bothered to read the link.

[hfojvt]

85. I was gonna say

"don't look a gift horse in the mouth"

I don't think it is fair to characterize the opposition as 'paternalistic nit pickers'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. I agree.

Social programs must be implemented in a beneficial way. All of the arguments against "the food nazis" in support of unrestricted purchases of candy or soda, could equally be used to justify the purchase of alcohol or cigarettes.

Soda is a non-food item, and the purchase of it with finite food stamp dollars cuts into the family's ability to purchase adequate nutrition.

The chronically poor are often poor because they are unskilled money managers. I say this as, by any income standard, a poor person.

I don't see this as an issue of intolerance, but one of irresponsibility. As citizens, it is our job to develop social policy which uses our resources to help, not harm.

I suspect there are few of us who would visit the home of a poor family to deliver a case of coke thinking that was the best way we could help them, yet it's a fundamental attack on the poor to attach any conditions to cash assistance.

[depakid]

92. Ever noticed how the libertairan inclined can sometimes be the most intolerant?

My bet is that many of most vehement soda folks haven't worked on hunger issues or in public health.

[bobbolink]

96. If you want to find out just how deeply intolerance and control is entrenched,

try being poor and having to go to some of these "liberals" for "help".

There is a book I've seen on the shelves titled "Do I Have To Give Up Me To Be Loved By You?"

That title kept grabbing my attention, because it has a ring of truth... we are a controlling society.

But, in my head, I change the title to "Do I Have To Give Up Me To Be HELPED By You?"

"Liberals" want to claim just how caring and open-hearted they are, and refuse to face that they are more LIKE the RW than different.