One of the core beliefs underlying progressive politics is that life is inherently political -- "the personal is political" as the saying goes. Even the most seemingly mundane choices --what clothes to wear and how to dress, where to live, what to eat, what/how/where/if to consume, what language to use, what constitutes proper aesthetic taste, what to photograph or document, what to read, whether to have pets, whom to befriend, what leisure activities to enjoy (or even if leisure is acceptable in a world where things are so dire that any activity other than sustained political action is morally wrong)--are filled with political significance and ramifications.
Some political movements see a very large space for autonomous human behavior; other forms of politics are genuinely hostile to the notion that there is a personal sphere beyond the reach of political considerations and the need to enforce 'correct' standards of how to live one's life. Indeed, the term 'correct' was used from the thirties onward by Progressives and progressive states (the USSR first and eventually, Cuba, China, Cambodia) to judge personal behavior and attitude.
Certain fundamentalist religions take a similar, prescriptive view of human choice-making. The Mutaawa (Saudi religious police) have recently outlawed the sale of certain pets, for example, as leading to immoral behavior. (Flirting while dog-walking). The adherents of religious and political totalism are often genuinely distressed that others have ability to make choices with which they disagree.
So, for this reason, any forum whose members do not exhibit a similarly passionate attachment to correct behavior (as exhibited here by a photo of an automobile or a model) is fair game for unasked for condemnation, re-education and hectoring about what is moral, responsible and appropriate.
For some, the world is always in such dire straights that any activity selfishly not focused on the amelioration of horrific near-term catastrophe or sacrifice for the Common Good is morally unacceptable. Helen Caldecott's impending nuclear catastrophe--for her, it was always "eight minutes to midnight," the imminence of global famine, the SARS epidemic and other pandemics, other Malthusian crises too numerous to mention, the existence of global inequality... the list goes on. Yet, somehow, we manage to muddle through by being pragmatic, inventive and experimental. It is our very ability to 'think different', outside of regimented and prescriptive norms, that enables us to weather these storms, just as we will weather global warming without the need to condemn those who photograph automobiles or banish those who use medium format cameras to make the world appear a beautiful (nor not) place.
I will remain an interested member of this forum so long as postings are judged by relevance to the purposes for which LL forums were created rather than by adherence to some Higher Cause or someone else's political principles (of whatever stripe).
I would if I thought we had the time. I'm reminded of David Suzuki's analogy of the frog in warm water that's slowly heated. The frog's response to the rising temperature is slower than the rise in temperature.
By the time the temperature is too hot, the frog's in delay mode and doesn't feel it.
When it eventually feels it, it's too late to escape. It's fried.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
