Your Garage Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning Landline Landline Landline  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

What exactly do people have against hippies/liberals?

Discussion moved to this forum by Amazon on Jul 26, 2012, 7:09:31 AM PDT.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 11, 2011, 4:21:33 PM PDT
R Monroe says:
When Tammy Aaberg's son Justin was a 13-year-old student attending public school in Michele Bachmann's congressional district, he came out to his friends and family. What Tammy didn't know was the extent to which her son was being bullied at school. Not once was she notified by school officials of the harassment he faced.

Just a few weeks after finishing his freshman year in high school, Justin hung himself in his bedroom, and was later found by his mother and two brothers.

Now Tammy wants to take Justin's story directly to Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has been silent on the issue of anti-gay bullying in schools despite a string of nine recent teen suicides in her district.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 6:12:02 PM PDT
You missed the whole POINT of the sixties, Diana. They did drugs for a REASON, and that reason was to find a way to see what the "other side" of what they'd been TOLD about the world really was. Rebellion against the worldview the establishment was set on selling them, was their whole purpose. Of course it went this way and that, and sometimes in a circle, but that was because POINT of it was simply to find new ways to be; ways outside of the programmed cultural package we are all expected to adhere to.

They knew the old way of doing things would only lead to more of the same. MORE Vietnams. MORE pregnant and barefoot. MORE ownership of blacks and women by rich white men. MORE owning the land and denying others access to it simply for that reason. MORE repression of harmless frickin' long hair on men! There were LOTS of experiments to find new ways to do things. Some of them continue to this day. There was a LOT more to the sixties than you think.

And yes, bathing (or not) was one of the new roads, and yes, it DID offend some people who don't want to smell other people -- our cultural norm is scentless, because we live so packed together that the smell of others is intolerable. But (a "hippy" question) what if that is the PURPOSE of our body scents -- to drive us into lower density lives? We now know that our skins are thriving metropolises of biological organisms whose interactions with each other and with our internal biomes keeps us healthy. If we get out of balance in that regard, we get things like "flesh-eating" disease, which is when one of our harmless skin bacteria is not countered and controlled by the proper other bacteria and goes crazy. That was OUR fault, for trying to be TOO CLEAN.

Of course there are limits to any concept, but you never FIND those limits if you don't explore them. What the hippies didn't know, is that "culture" cannot change "overnight" in one or two generations. Culture is an inherently self-correcting social structure. When something gets out on the fringes, culture backlashes, and pulls it back toward (NOT fully "to") the way it was (as you did, in reacting against the hippies' excesses). Many of the same sort of excursions have a cumulative effect, but culture always mitigates against change.

You and the hippies are thus parts of the same machine, Diana. We are all one.

We learned THAT from the hippies, too.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 6:20:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 11, 2011, 6:25:13 PM PDT
And I shouldn't have to point this out Violet, but -- well, maybe I DO have to point it out...

According to YOU, you will not believe what someone with the name Sunny says. What about River? What about Rose?

What about Violet?

ALL of those names, YOURS included, were once given to someone for the very first time. And in the fulness of time, they are now common. Why on EARTH name someone after a flower? Maybe for the same reason a mother might name her daughter after the Light of the World.

When you object to someone's name being different, you are objecting to change itself. And in the end, objecting to change will do you no good. Change happens regardless, whether or not someone objects. You can either bloody your heels by dragging them, or let the wagon go down the hill. You can yell your head off, but it won't stop change.

Posted on Sep 11, 2011, 7:54:02 PM PDT
Jim Fowler says:
WOW... culture war eh? We never learn our lessons.... remember Germany in 1930s? The Grand Old Party of the rightwing hate... alive and well in 2011 america. Lets all rally around our FLAG and pretend we do god`s work... all the while celebrating our troops killing millions of innocent women and children around the world since 9/11.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 7:59:40 PM PDT
Exactly. And a culture war's MAIN weapon is the assertion that the other side is not a legitimate facet of the culture, is it not? Hence the painting of hippies/liberals as not really American, smelly, dirty, lazy, too polite, arrogant -- in short, ANYTHING "we" are not.

Same old, same old. It never gets old, does it?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 8:04:01 PM PDT
Making NO sense, here Moudy. What happened to that ol' FAUX line about the liberals who run the colleges? How do you square that, with your current lie here, that liberals are uneducated?

Oh, you DON'T bother, trying to square all your various lies into a coherent thread? No wonder you can't think straight...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 8:06:08 PM PDT
Pretty glib with the lies, aren't you, Moudy? Why do you think we liberals pay our taxes, eh? NOTHING we get from the government is "free." We pay for it. With our taxes.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2011, 8:20:22 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Sep 11, 2011, 8:22:23 PM PDT]

Posted on Sep 11, 2011, 8:23:19 PM PDT
I'm kind of a hippie, but not a liberal. Hmmm.

Posted on Sep 12, 2011, 7:13:44 AM PDT
If I may?

The whole use of the term "liberal" began to be used as a dirty word in the 80's. When the conservative movement was strong and visible. It advocated that greed is good and government too big.

This mantra was taken up by "conservative" pundits like Limbaugh who found that it was easy to vilify anything as long as you referred to it as "liberal"

Look up the word in the dictionary and then ask yourself, "Is liberal REALLY a bad thing to be?"

Of course, this is just a way for to get ordinary people divided by words.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 7:29:19 AM PDT
D. Hartley says:
I appreciate your sensitivity toward the verbal attacks made by others... Though; I confess, I find your question very confusing, as "liberals" and "hippies" are stereotypically opposites... A true "hippie" is much more likely to associate themselves with "libertarians", not "liberals"...

Be at peace and spread the love :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 7:44:34 AM PDT
Love your comments. Liberal by definition means liberty. Aren't we looking for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Gotta go hang up my wet tie-dyes now!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 8:42:46 AM PDT
"A true "hippie" is much more likely to associate themselves with "libertarians", not "liberals"..."

Finally, I am explained!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 11:22:56 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 11:29:13 AM PDT
No one should be given a free ride.

But corporate welfare is no better than personal welfare...

And legacies are no better than affirmative action....

But thee are very "conservative" views.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 11:36:55 AM PDT
"Legacies are no better than affirmative action..."

But they are different in ONE way only -- its not our government doing them, but the heir's parents. So WE aren't paying for it. But that is NO reason to give tax breaks (inheritance tax breaks) for them. Inheriting has very little to do with personal achievement...

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 11:53:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 12, 2011, 11:57:29 AM PDT
Another example of culture correcting itself, through individuals being set against the changes. You taught high school in the sixties? Oh, horrors, what a zoo! Any self-respecting ESTABLISHMENT teacher would have a cow, and it seems you did. The guys came in burning off their drugs, and your excellent info on life did not get a hearing ...

Note what I'm doing, here, I'm AGREEING with you as to what you saw, but I'm putting it in terms slightly more relevant to the sleepers. Culture is composed of individuals, and THOSE individuals were going through a Revolution -- of COURSE they slept through class! Class was boring, class was the establishment doing its best to inculcate them back, class was NOT their life! Hence the consequences, but again note: it takes YOU (with all your bitter notions about what you saw in HS), in your second-life position, to actually do the "dirty" work. YOU are the agent of cultural back-lash.

Note also that I am a liberal. I slept through some math classes (NOT for the Rebellion/drugs reasons you and I cite, however -- mostly because the teachers were SOOOO boring, and I had to do Mom's work at home with a large family, because she was bedridden. I did it badly, but there it is...). But while I do not have the job level you do, I also do not want to be working in a machine, even if I WERE head of a department of that machine.

The sixties changed people, Moudy. You no longer understand those who grew up then. That's no reason to look down on them.

And yes, the government IS supposed to be for our protection -- in this case, against the depredations of those who would take every penny from our pockets for as little return as they can manage -- a business skill that's achieved high art through the years, as you well know. We don't want to live free. We understand the trade of our resources, like our labor. But we also want to live FAIR, not stolen blind at every turn, by corporations like the one you work for.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 12:12:45 PM PDT
IMHO, Yes and no, Panthor.

Yes, because the Hippy's ideal is freedom of action, as is the PAPER-promise of the Libertarians.

No, because Libertarians commonly get there by valuing their own selves and possessions above those of all others -- to the point that they consider illegitimate ANY limits put on them by the government.

Hippies wouldn't do this. They would look at what those limits were meant for. Hippies also have a loose concept of everyone being obligated to support everyone else. Love and co-support is a Hippy ideal, opposite to that of a Libertarian. Those "hippies" who opted for Ron or Rand Paul didn't think it through.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 12:23:10 PM PDT
Hm, I see today's "liberalism" as very similar to today's "conservatism" -- SSDD, meet the new boss...etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 1:14:39 PM PDT
Cali Kat says:
There is nothing wrong with it. However, there is something wrong with people who resort to name calling no matter what the situation. Liberals and hippies tend to want this world to be a nicer place for everyone, even if they themselves have to make some sacrifices. This can mean anything from paying higher taxes to carrying reusable bags to the market.

Posted on Sep 12, 2011, 1:21:47 PM PDT
meremaiden says:
So what I have gathered thus far from those who dislike /hate hippies or "liberals"
The reasons (in no particular order):

1. They smell bad
2. They slept through class when the rest of us were working hard
3. They want things for free. Like health care.
4. They are uneducated
5. They lead the universities (as liberal professors).
6. They dress bad.
7. They are against god.
8. They walk in half naked and stinky to Walmart and interrupt an otherwise pleasant shopping experience.
9. They are judgemental.
10. They are obnoxious.
11. They have too much hubris.
12. They started the Lesbian movement.
13. They have ridiculous names like Sunny, Violet, Peacefairy, Rainbowheartsky, Bob.
14. They are angry (maybe because they have ridiculous names).

None of these reasons seem logical, fact-based, or grounded in any sort of reality besides hate and fear of that which is not understood, that which we do not identify with. They remind me of the names people call each other in high school-- the mean kids to the geeks.
Perhaps we should be more open in our labels of other people, and when we hear people using the term, ask ourselves "what does it really mean?" "Are ALL people that have liberal beliefs so bad?"

At the end of the day, all people want to be healthy, they all want a safe place for their children, they all want to feel and be loved.
I know a atheist republican named "Rainbow", born to hippie parents. There are ALL sorts.

I am an American living in New Zealand. We pay a lot of taxes here, but not really much more than the US. We have healthcare for our children (I can take my kid to the doctor, any time, for "free"). No one can sue me for a ridiculous reason such as their kid falling on my driveway, because all accidents are covered by governmental insurance fund. We have much lower unemployment than the US. We have had a liberal "president" (PM) and now we have one who is not so liberal. New Zealand is a secular country, and our last Prime Minister was known to be non-religious, an atheist.

My point is, just because the govt might take care of New Zealanders better than in the US, it doesn't mean people don't want to work, or that people just sit back and do nothing. Most people want to contribute something to society or to each other. Because we live in such a country, it doesn't mean it is a country full of hippies or liberals who meet the above list. Because people might not believe in god or have a religious foundation doesn't make them any less valuable, or any more of a hippie/liberal.
The words are used to divide and conquer, and cause more hate.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 1:25:17 PM PDT
meremaiden says:
D. Hartley-- thanks you for the clarification-- I asked because I often hear them used together.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 1:29:50 PM PDT
meremaiden says:
Diana I have been to a rainbow gathering-- in New Mexico in 1995. What I saw there were some of what you describe but I also saw the majority of 30,000 people taking car of each other, creating kitchens to feed each other, and in general, having a very peaceful gathering.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 1:30:52 PM PDT
meremaiden says:
Also Diana, a lot of people came BACK from Vietnam as hippies, after the experience realized that their politics needed to change, that they weren't interested in fighting for a govt that didn't care about them.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2011, 4:40:44 PM PDT
lol, most liberal hippies would not shop at Walmart if it was the last store anywhere. Because of the way it treats people and because you would be hard put to find anything there which was "Made in America." Instead they would promote individual and community gardens, organic non-genetically-engineered foods, composting, recycling, re-purposing, and neighborliness, and they would support local small businesses over big-box stores. Most are college-educated, employed, physically active, very spiritually-minded and yes - gentle and respectful to the earth and other people, believing we are all interconnected - like a global ecosystem. The hype against them, IMO, is initiated by those who think there are shortcuts to good health and happiness to be found in places like Walmart.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
4493 4 days ago
Trump at war with his own Attorney General. Says he might fire Sessions and then replace him with a recess appointment so that the Senate can't refuse his next appointment. 5 1 second ago
Cleric of liberals' favorite religion calls to annihilate Jews in Davis, CA mosque 53 22 seconds ago
more kids are slaughtered in the name of the second amendment 26 1 minute ago
Fascist Trump 16 2 minutes ago
Republican disinsurance bill implodes as Senate votes 57-43 AGAINST repeal of ACA. 4 7 minutes ago
Why hasn't Trump been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yet? 96 9 minutes ago
What is Trump after? 1 9 minutes ago
Trump’s Incoherence On Full Display in New York Times Interview 4 14 minutes ago
Trump announces total ban on transgender service members. 69 25 minutes ago
The military spends five times as much money on Viagra as it would on medical care for transgender soldiers. 12 1 hour ago
a thread for those who don't believe the 9/11 Official Version 205 2 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  324
Total posts:  1483
Initial post:  Sep 10, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 22 customers