Overmoralistic:

On the one hand I experienced the whiny neoliberalism that took away my city's choice whether have plastic or paper grocery bags and forced everyone to use reusable cloth sacks (and instituted a sintax on if you chose paper, not a large tax but a bit of an annoyance) but at the same time on aesthetic grounds opposes people hanging their laundry out to dry on account of it looking tacky and how nobody else wants to see somebody else's sundries hanging out to dry.  On the other I see Neocon hardliners sticking their noses in where they don't belong trying to pass moralistic based legislation that criminalizes certain shady but previously ambiguous behaviors or practices because the idea of an even sometimes shades of gray world that isn't entirely just black and white is to be found appalling.  I find it ironic that some of the same people who would complain about taxes and large government feel it so imperative to spend large sums of money on task forces to police and micromanage the behavior of others in society.  I am also sick of liberal whining.  I don't like how every time I go onto a certain public web encyclopedia (which I am avoiding naming because I'm unsure of its copyright status) I get shown ads with mugshots of the owner imploring people to donate money.  When it isn't doing that it's trying to redirect me to vote for or against certain pieces of legislation (while I do agree that some of those proposed laws are terribad and should be petitioned against I don't like being told to do so by something I go to for looking up information on various errata).

It bothers me how racist and xenophobic some of the right wing groups are too and [I] do feel like this fearmongering hysteria about this, that or the other moral-thing-to-be-upset-about of-the-week ^TM is going to be a great excuse to have another sort of a red scare -like witchhunt with HUAC-esque committees to bully and interrogate dissidents or rivals into shutting up. Stick to your guns (sorry for the crappy figurative pun there people!). If you say you are for less taxes and smaller government then don't waste gobs of cash micromanaging and trying to police the moral behavior of the rest of society at large.

Every historical instance of implementing such moralistic kinds of laws I can think of has correlated in an increase in organized crime (look at prohibition, and the war-on-drugs).
Also, hypocritically some substances which are fairly bad for you are made okay because the consumer must pay a sin tax for purchasing them whereas other things (also bad for you) are contraband. If you over-regulate the hell out of everything I think businesses and the economy are to suffer the most bluntly from it in addition to this becoming a much less fun place to live.

Though I will not express support of piracy I do have a want to take the piss out of big media for their current moralistic war on online file sharing, use of torrents and crusade against anonymity by which they are attempting to forcefully tame the untamed frontier that is the Internet. It is this: "I am led to believe that record executives are upset they will get to have cocaine (+expensive champagne and exotic hookers) a day or so (a few days) less a week than they currently do."

The lie perpetrated on the general public that digital online distribution through a large online content distributor (of which there are sadly only a handful, & of those - perhaps somebody ought to look into that with some antitrust or to see about if it otherwise encourages anticompetitive practices, which if their lobbying groups weren't so large perhaps some legislators might have the backbone to do) benefits anyone other than the content distributor has been so thoroughly touted by advertisers that most consumers don't even bother to question it anymore. The fact of the matter is artists and musicians make less money per sale of MP3s than they do or did with albums and the bulk of any profits go to the vendor. This remains sadly true with authors trying to electronically publish (for the most part) & it's not a pretty picture.

This excessive mollycoddling toward offended people by increasingly censoring things is worrisome to me too. If people are never previously exposed to something "bad" or upsetting, you are increasingly ensuring the likelihood that they will be very shocked and not know how to cope (instead of being able to ask questions about it and in doing so, learn something valuable!) the very first time they are exposed to it. I say there needs to be some controversy and decent things for people to get angry about or be upset with... otherwise it's just a bunch of silly stupid little mindless things that don't deal with the real issues and we as a whole as a culture are not going to mature or progress past the puritan colonial days, McCarthyism, and dark age superstitions.

Not knowing about something doesn't make you safe from it. On the contrary, it leaves you ill-informed to deal with it later on when it does rear its unpleasant head. But not knowing about things makes people feel content instead of ill-at-ease so they'd rather purposefully be unsafe than rationally approach problems to acknowledge they exist. Fighting superficial problems gives the satisfying appearance of doing something about things without dealing with the larger underlying issues plaguing people which could be sticky and unpleasant or involve being self-critical just a tad. The illusion that we are all good people most especially when we do bad things is something that groups have used for centuries to keep their padded ego (although psychologically what we call the ego in informal day to day use usually is what they call the id) intact*. When will somebody propose a different and novel set of tactics to deal with unusual situations?


*Social psychologists call the phenomenon of behaviors being used to do that cognitive dissonance reduction.