as my mother in law, who tries to convince ants on front steps not to enter, lest they force her to use ant poison. (She tried baking soda.) However, it is, for me, most definitely a matter of conscience. I would take a bullet for you, but I will not fire one for you. The only exception I might make is defending a child I brought into this world, because I would feel responsible for that life.

I will not fault you for the choice you made. I assume--and, for your sake, hope--it was a difficult one. But don't diss me or anyone for opposing war, for not wanting to hurt anyone deliberately, even to save his or her own life. And don't diss anyone for refusing to kill people and cripple a nation in a war they considered immoral, as with Muhammed Ali. He gave up a lot to be in prison, rather than report for the draft. That was conscience and principle, walking and living the talk, not self righteousness.

Many people who opposed all wars or that war fought and died in Vietnam despite their strongly held beliefs anyway, because they did not want to leave the country or become fugitives here. Others came back addicts and otherwise damaged for life because they could never face what they had done while believing it was wrong. Your post, in my opinion, is disrespectful in that respect. And perhaps even somewhat self righteous about not being self righteous.

I'm a white male raised solidly working class. I suppose I could use my education as a pass if I confess to white privilege loudly and often. But that wouldn't work for my friends growing up. The only role available to them is villain.

Even on the Left, there's disdain for "safe spaces" either b/c the concept has been misused and twisted to attack people unfairly for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.--a really horrible co-optation of those fights against prejudice has been the establishment's strongest weapon lately--or else because "safe spaces" are identified with "echo chambers." Where a lot of people see "echo chambers" I see us taking a tiny bit of territory in a terrible culture war in which we've been shelled for over a generation, and which is remarkably asymmetrical. I think we need more spaces like that, not fewer. I don't think we're in danger of too much self-confirmation--I think our points of view tend to be attacked every time we look at a television or go most places online, or turn on the radio. And I'm not just talking as a sexual minority or as a woman. This isn't just about those fights. Lately, I think I've been attacked most of all for being a non-billionaire human being who attempts to maintain an independent judgement!

I think we need more counterculture, not less, and we won't get that by seeking out everybody who disagrees with us in a troll-infested, sockpuppet-manipulated, mentirocracia like the one the establishment has created, where it's difficult to find any place where you're not being trolled, bullied, or smeared.

are primarily responsible for defeating the Nazis. Lost 20-30 million people doing it too. For every horrific battle the Brits and Americans fought (Normandy, Battle of the Bulge) the Russians fought ten times as many and with far greater losses.

I know, pointing out the myth of "the Greatest Generation" defeating Hitler isn't very popular, but they were not the prime reason Hitler lost, pure and simple. And my Uncle fought in the Battle of the Bulge and I don't believe he ever bragged that his generation was vastly superior to all others.

The people who want to end Social Security, including aid to the disabled, and Medicare have really been trying to stir hatred in Millennials and Gens X and Y of their moms and grandmoms whose "selfishness" about Medicare and Social Security is stealing their money and their futures. The idea is that you're paying for selfish Grannie's seat the gravy train, but, when you time to collect arrives, those programs will be out of business. So, no soup for you! It's painted as really really unfair, with, of course, no mention that granny contributed to Social Security all her life, too.

Sure, there have always been generation wars in terms of respect--oldsters not liking, and perhaps even feeling discredited by, the innovations and preferences of the youth and the youth thinking the oldsters are out of it. That, I think is normal human interaction, especially for teens who are in the development stage of differentiating from their elders so that they can become independent adults.

What's new now: the idea of actually purposefully stoking inter-generational resentment, maybe hate, of convincing the young that it's better for Grannie to die of starvation or a treatable illness than to steal money for Social Security from Gens X and Y and Millennials. And its being done because billionaires like Pete Peterson resent the insignificant (to them) fraction of their annual income that goes to Social Security. They want push back from younger generations when they finally succeed in ending Social Security and Medicare, like they succeeded in getting Bill Clinton ended "welfare as we know it."

The real goal, IMO, is not so much to kick Granny off welfare. When they finally pull the plug, those who are no longer able to work will be grandfathered (no pun intended).(Though I am not sure what they will do with the disabled. Welfare, I guess.) IMO, the real goal is to get the younger ones used to the ideas that they will not be able to count on Social Security when they retire. And if, to do that, they have to make them see their parents and grandparents as greedy, oh, well.

Before the "welfare queens" of Reagan and Atwater, many people felt sorry for those who needed welfare and wanted to donate things to them, to try to make their lives more bearable. While Atwater admitted that "welfare queens" was intended as a racist dog whistle, it also had the side effect of helping reduce or eliminate removing compassion for and empathy with the poor, regardless of race and regardless of the reason for their poverty. Portraying people as getting rich on welfare paved the way for Clinton to end "welfare as we know it."

Bill Clinton, of course, was caught by a hot mike offering to help Paul Ryan with Ryan's Medicare distruptio and Hillary Clinton, of course, met with Pete Peterson during her Presidential primary campaign.

even if the "idol" is a leftist.

Many people don't seem to want to give up idolatory; they just keep hoping for better idols. So, if Obama disappoints, it's on to Sanders and/or Stein. And, if the current idol disappoints, too, it must be because of circumstances beyond his or her control. Or somehow justified.