Actually, the sugar-drink flavoring used in mass murder (not suicide) by Jim Jones in Guyana was a Kool-Aid clone called "Flavor-ade"

Kool-Aid, however, was popular with Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters during the early to mid 60s.

I've known many who drank that Kool-aid and few (none that I know personally) of them seem to have been harmed by that experience. In fact, one would have to say that all evidence to me from my (much) younger perspective has been that it was an extremely positive experience for them.

They seem to have a wisdom and a healthy acceptance, and in many cases, even an embrace of life's chaos that carries them through both good times and bad. Most of them escaped the worst aspects of the late 60s with a healthy cynicism and rejection of ALL dogma that seems to give people extreme resilience to misfortune. One would have to conclude that a healthy mistrust of politicians, politics and indeed,
all hierarchy is often a very good thing.

:)

Very true. And yet, they call you the cult members. I think one of the most offensive sig lines I ever saw on this site was one which said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for ... Hale-Bopp take them awaaayyyyy." I think that offensive idiot finally got a well-deserved banning.

I kinda doubt that the side supporting a candidate who lacks even a full term in the Senate has much room to criticize the other side on candidate-leadership issues.  And a candidate getting 90% of his minority race vote really has little room to complain about identity politics...

Examples?  Please provide links.

As a female supporter of Obama, I wholeheartedly agree with this post. I'm so sick of the juvenile name calling. I'd like to think that people who are so into politics that they post on this site and others are smart enough to have a larger vocabulary. When you resort to childish name calling, it only exposes your ignorance.

I support Obama because I think he's the best candidate. As a white woman, that does not make me a racist or a gender traitor. I would support Clinton if she won the nomination, but she hasn't and she won't.

Yes, very true. I'm pretty sure I've seen an Obama supporter or two specifically refer to us as the Clinton/Hillary Cult at some point in the past couple of months. Both candidates have some creepy fans, and the tendency to paint all the supporters of either candidate with the same broad brush is incredibly insulting.

being too sensitive. Why doesn't this person have a right to make his point? So big deal if you don't like his phrasing. To take offense as a Methodist (as if the statement wouldn't apply equally to all Chistians) is a stretch. Are you than insecure that you have to shut someone down because he has a different point of view?

is not civility. I think you're wrong about that.

I have a Don Quixote-like quest to rid Democratic and Progressive blogs from the use of the term "Repuglicans". It is uncivil, and hurts the cause. We need Republicans, Independents to see the light, and it just puts a wall when folks use juvenile name-calling. It's a classic ad hominem attack that brings down the conversation.

With all due respect, I find your "I'm the new civility warden on the black!" first diary here, on your first day of posting, to be very offensive in its presumption and arrogance.  

"civility." And, yes, you're being too sensitive and you're imposing your overly sensitive sensibility on others.

What I'm talking about is something a little different - which is an oversensitivity to language. That is a problem on the left. Indeed sometimes people confuse offensive speech with offensive action.

In this thread, people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Being called a cultist cannot be equated with calling someone a nigger. If someone makes that argument, they've lost perspective. Indeed, being called a cultist, or a KoolAid drinker is, in the great scheme of things, not so bad.

I have no problem whatsoever with calls for civility. In fact, I try to practice that myself. But when people talk about censuring someone because of heated language, I think they go too far. Respect for free speech does include having a bit of a thick skin.

Of course, you are 100% correct, the principal of "freedom of speech" exclusively applies to the ability of the Federal Government to limit speech. It's got nothing to do with speech among individuals.

I nonetheless believe that it is inconsistent with progressive values and the principals fought for by organizations such as the ACLU to shut down speech either because you don't like it's form or content. Progressives should be more tolerant. I, for example, would strongly oppose progressives who try to limit the ability of someone like Anne Coulter so speak on a college campus. These are the tactics of brown shirts and should not have a place in liberal causes (although of course they do).

and other democrats is unacceptable.  I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about what other people view as Democrats faults or weaknesses.  This is a Democratic blog for Democrats and attacking each other for whom we support is totally wrong.

Call me politically fucking correct if you like, but  you are just looking for permission to continue to act like an asshat.

Let's ban the word Gooper too.  It's insensitive to fellow human beings who have an affinity for Republicans.  

I went away this weekend.  What the heck happened here?  It's flooded with new users and a suffocating new "shut up and cheer for the emperor" narrative.  

Well i can say i have never used any of those words for many reasons but mostly i dont like the way they sound. And second i am not sure how to spell them.  

But i guess we can all agree we are more sensitive to demeaning comments about who we are behind they the other candidate.  I can only say to me i feel like there are a lot of FOX news 90's talking points about HRC and i guess i will always feel that way.

david

You're going too far.  You can't just HR people you don't agree with.  I'm an Obama supporter who just posted a snark-laden post that goes:

The difference is that the Democratic primaries are completely unfair!  They disenfranchise millions of voters and are biased toward activists and toward sexist republican states that don't matter because Democrats can never win them.

Of course Hillary will win the General Election, since it's totally different.  It's completely fair and representative.  Since it uses the popular vote as its metric, zero democrats in red states are disenfranchised.

By the way, is anyone else excited to see President Gore's address tonight?  He's commemorating the seventh anniversary of our signing Kyoto by demolishing the last coal-burning power plant.  I actually have a ticket, I'm going to drive one of those new long range electric cars he pushed so hard for.  Isn't it amazing that I can drive from NY to Washington and back without recharging my vehicle?

and you hide rated it for using the word 'sexist' in reference to red states.  Obviously you didn't read the whole post to understand that it was sarcastic and that I agree with you, you just HR'd it once you saw that word.  According to the site guidelines, this is a clear abuse of a HR.  How can you preach moderation when you clearly are willing to break the rules to hide opposing viewpoints?  My point is, even if my post wasn't sarcastic, it fell far short of being even a troll.  HRs are to be used only for the most venomous, content-free posts.  What I wrote (part of it, anyways) represents, in some sense, the opinion of the other 50% of people on this site.  You can't just HR anyone who uses a word you don't like.  It's odd, but now I understand what HRC supporters mean when they complain of being attacked.

you have abused the troll rating system. You should read the guidelines, get a sense of humor, and stop playing God.

because Clinton supporters have pretty much abandoned other sites as they became overrun with Obama supporters.

There are some of us who consider dynasties inherently unhealthy for democracy.  It's principle, not personal.