fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3022 ]

[ SECRET POST #3022 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3022 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Angel]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Steven Moffat]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Harry Potter]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Trailer Park Boys]

__________________________________________________

06.

(The Little Flying Bears)

__________________________________________________

07.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Felicia Day]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Doctor Who]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.]

__________________________________________________

12.

[The Simpsons - Tapped Out]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Red Dwarf]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Kyuhyun/Super Junior]

__________________________________________________

15.

[X-Files]

__________________________________________________

16.

[Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy]

__________________________________________________

17.

[Madame Secretary]

__________________________________________________

18.

[Amanda Palmer]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #432.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hate Hillary Clinton???

Much of Tumblr is leftist. Hillary is not.

Isn't she democratic? Who are they going yo vote for if not her

Nah, they're going to vote for her probably (or just not vote)

Doesn't mean that they have to like her

This isn't a tumblr exclusive thing? A lot of the people I know irl view voting as picking the lesser of two evils.

AYRT and to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it was unique to Tumblr. Just saying that dislike of Hillary Clinton isn't complicated, it just comes from people disagreeing with her politically.

There's going to be social justice wars all over the place over whether it's better to vote for the lesser evil or a third party that has no chance of winning. They're already starting. Because fact: there are people who think the social justice collective on Tumblr is responsible for a movie's success or lack thereof at the box office, so I wouldn't be surprised if they think Tumblr can put a third party in the White House.

Yeah, it's fucking stupid as hell and it pisses me off.

In terms of presidential politics in 2016, there are only two practical choices for who's going to be president. It's going to be a Democrat or a Republican. And if you're a leftist (assuming not an accelerationist), a Democrat is going to be 100% better.

Now, I don't think that you're obligated to vote for a Democrat under those circumstances. I think it's very prudent, especially if you live in one of the ~13 states where your vote actually matters. But I don't think you're obligated. But you do need to understand that your choice is for voting for a Democrat, or for moral purity. There is no course of actions you can take in the ballot box in 2016 that could even conceivably lead to someone other than a Democrat or Republican winning the presidential election, ever. So it's just stupid to have a discourse about it that's centered on that possibility it. It drives me crazy.

And the other thing that drives me crazy is, if you actually do care about having a politics in the United States that is more leftist, there are plenty of ways to do it. And people should do it. And it involves going out and getting involved in local elections - city, county, state - and it involves building organizations and it involves getting more left-wing candidates through primaries. And instead of that, we have a stupid fucking slapfight on the Internet about which of the choices between voting for Hillary, or demanding the imaginary electable socialist candidate who doesn't exist, makes you morally pure and which choice makes me evil. So fucking stupid.

Re: Why does Tumblr

insanenoodlyguy - 2015-04-14 13:01 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

othellia - 2015-04-14 17:34 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 17:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

I think additional to that, there's also the issue that even though they might not agree with her views, a lot of tumblr is going "BUT WE MUST VOTE FOR TEH WOMAN!!!" just on principle.

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 17:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 17:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 19:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Why does Tumblr

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-14 21:24 (UTC) - Expand

I'm not sure what the average age is on Tumblr, but they're pretty young, and she's pretty old?

I've heard some stuff about how she's a bad feminist role model or whatever because she made a choice to stay with Bill, but she's also a woman launching a presidential campaign, so you know.

*shrug*

I've heard some stuff about how she's a bad feminist role model or whatever because she made a choice to stay with Bill, but she's also a woman launching a presidential campaign, so you know.

That argument makes no sense. If anything, it's feminist for her to be able to make the CHOICE whether she wanted to stay or not. She had the ability to do either one, she made a decision, and everyone else should respect that because it was HER decision. She could just as easily have left if she wanted to. Clearly she didn't.

Well, Tumblr. I would never accuse them of making sense.

Tumblr hates her because tumblr is very young and has a very shallow, pie-in-the-sky view of elections.

The people on there who I'm seeing supporting Hilary are people who are in their mid- to late-20s, who've been through two or three elections and know how the game works. The people who I'm seeing saying "but we can do better" and "we need to elect a third party candidate" are people for whom 2016 is gonna be their first election. They don't get it yet. They have their ideals, and they're at that age where they're a bit arrogant and think they've got it all figured out, so they think they have more of a choice than they really do.

They'll learn. I just hope they don't wind up learning the way young people did in the 2000 election, when all the votes for Ralph Nader wound up being votes for Bush.

I think it's an age thing, yeah. Hillary's been around long enough that she's said and done things that made sense at the time, but are against current doctrine. And you know how the kids are about their doctrine.

These kids can think she's a Nazi because they literally weren't born yet when she was working to get us universal health care twenty years early and in a better form.

In all fairness, she's not going to get heat about health care because of statements she made in the past, she's going to get heat specifically about gay rights. And it's true that the shift that she's made on the issue is pretty much a shift that the Democratic Party has made as an institution, but I don't know, maybe she does kinda deserve to get a little bit of shit for selling out gay rights for political expediency? Unless you really and sincerely believe that her views actually changed.

SA

Oh, I forget she'll probably also get shit for Iraq, but same again there, really - you should get criticized for voting for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history

SA again (keep thinking of more things to say)

And even more so, Iraq's still completely relevant. Hillary's foreign policy hawkishness is one of the real bones of contention between her and the left, so I'm not sure you can even plead political expediency or the particular situation of the moment there. She should absolutely get shit for that.

FDR sold out black civil rights for political expediency, and if that four-wheeling son of a bitch were running next year I'd vote for him. Hell, I'd vote for him over Hillary.

Um, you mean her health care reform package that she totally sabotaged?

Or how about her husband abolishing welfare and bragging about it?

I don't think she's anti-gay and I don't care that much; I'm old enough to remember when SSM was a fringe position.

Economically, she's a right-winger who's been subverting the Democratic Party from the inside. She and her boll weevil husband.

when all the votes for Ralph Nader wound up being votes for Bush.

There have been studies on that, on where the Nader votes would have gone, and what was determined was that an equal amount of votes went to Nader from the Democrats and the Republicans. A much larger (3x the amount of Nader voters) amount of Democrats broke ranks and voted for Bush.The idea that Nader lost Gore the election is a myth.

Edited 2015-04-14 15:21 (UTC)

Ayrt

Well, all right, thanks for the info. I guess I'm wrong on that point. But I still think the cynicism from that election is warranted. We all thought that was gonna be the year that we'd do it and change the system, and it turned out the system was stronger than we could have imagined.

Eh, I'm not sure that I agree with this entirely. I agree that any push towards a third party candidate is entirely unrealistic and kinda dumb. But at the same time, I mean, there are very real disagreements in principle here. And while I think you should still vote for Hillary if you live in, you know, Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, or whatever, I can't really get mad at someone for not wanting to vote for and support a candidate whose views they materially disagree with.

Also, the whole "sneering at dumb teenage kids for disagreeing with you" thing you have going on in this post is really not at all a good look. Just in general.

Ayrt

I'm not sneering at them. It's just the way we tend to be when we're teenagers: naive, idealistic, and under the impression that we know more and better than we really do. And then we gain experience and mature a little bit more, and the way we look at things changes. It's something everybody goes through. It's not dumb, it's just a natural part of the process of growing up.

And yes, I think they're being naive and idealistic because they think they have the power to change the system just by voting third party. They don't. None of us do. The third party candidates that they choose to vote for are not going to win, no matter how much they want to believe otherwise, and choosing the lesser of two evils isn't the terrible thing they think it is. It sucks that it's the reality, but it is the reality. If wishes were fishes, and all that.

My point, which I stand by, is that the part of their position that's dumb and objectionable is that they think that a third party can win (and that they're yelling at people to vote for a third party based on that understanding). I would argue that voting for a third party is more or less defensible, depending on the conditions and the situation that you're in, as long as you go into it with your eyes wide open. It is not in and of itself wrong to feel alienated from the political process or to refuse to vote for candidates whose positions you don't support. But misunderstanding the prospects for changing that, and acting stupidly as a result, that's where it is bad. I don't think there's any general mandate that people should as a rule always vote for the lesser of two evils.

And I do think, with respect, that you're sneering at them, and you're still doing it in your explanation of how you're totally not sneering at them. Listen, you think they're wrong and dumb, right? So say that they're wrong and dumb, there's no need to talk about how naive and inexperienced they are. And it's kind of arrogant to do so, and inflames the emotions of those you're trying to argue with. And wrong in any case as there's certainly adults who take the same stances.

Ayrt

"there's no need to talk about how naive and inexperienced they are."

Why? That's what they are. You are the one insisting that they're dumb, and I have no idea in what universe you think it's better, and less sneering, to call someone "dumb" than to call them "naive," and why on earth it would inflame someone's emotions less to say "you're wrong and dumb!"

Do you think that it's bad to lack experience? Is that why you find those terms so offensive and "arrogant?"

You're also, I would like to point out, making the exact same point that I am, but getting so caught up in me daring to say that teenagers are inexperienced and naive compared to adults that you're completely missing that. A teenager is not as mentally developed as an adult. Period. This is a fact. Stating it is not "sneering" at teens, anymore than saying "prepubescent children are not as mentally developed as teens" is sneering at prepubescent children.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only