Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
right. well. no ponies.
flying pig
What madelyn said..

This would probably be a good time to be snotty or passive aggressive, but honestly, I don't see the point. God will not, and Hillary will not, give me a pony or a dozen virgins if I sit around snarking at the other candidate or my fellow Ljers who support them. Politicians are perfectly capable of running their own negative campaigns without my assistance.

  • 1
*gives you a really really little pony.*

Is it a My Little Pony? *worries*

*pets pony* I should have used my pony icon.

Yeah, but what would you really do with a dozen virgins anyway? ;-)

(In seriousness, I find that I don't mind when folks leave their squee un-cut-tagged, whether it's about Hillary or Barack, but I always wish the vitriol were cut-tagged. More squee usually improves my day, even if it's for characters or a fandom or a candidate to which I am not personally attached; more vitriol pretty much never does.)

God, yes. I like the squee! (Provided it's not like, eight pages long or whatever), but the mocking et al I can do without.

(I'd make a volleyball team of virgins, of course. Very popular on the circuit.)

What I find ironic is that Obama wants to keep the old politics out of it, and yet some of his supporters don't. Either they aren't really listening to him or they don't really believe him.

Honestly, with everyone, it's so much habit to slam the opponent/mock the opponent instead of praising the politician desired that I'm not sure most people notice they're doing it anymore.

This is why I started ostrich_2008, so I would have a politics-free zone.

Which reminds me: I need prompts. I suck at prompts.

God, that looks like *such* a good idea.

I support Obama, but the amount of vitriol and misogyny leveled at Clinton absolutely disgusts me. It makes me want to bang my head into a wall.

God, I know. Some of it's been creepy and I'm not even sure the people saying it are aware how it sounds. *sighs* I seriously don't understand the negative campaign concept at all.

As a Canadian, it's been interesting to watch...

I watch your elections with interest and a bit of fear because we are, in so many ways, tied to you.

Still, I think there's a huuuuuuuge difference between sparing feelings over disagreements in plot and characterization in something that is, ultimately, not likely to have a significant impact on the early 21st century; you can afford to let things slide.

Not sure if that can apply in politics. I think people need to be passionate and intense and most importantly well-informed of itty-bitty details. Facts, actions and history should be more than adequate; slagging is perhaps excessive force. But I do believe the analysis has to be cutting, has to be ruthless ... both for who you favour and those you do not. And I think people need to see what others are worried about, if only to further their understanding of why they support the candidate they do, in the face of those concerns.

The only thing that bugs me are personal attacks. One does not KNOW the candidates for the most part, so it all seems rather odd. Hell, I used to KNOW my MLA and my MP personally, and I still didn't get into the "good guy/bad guy" thing. I just looked at how they did their jobs.

In summary: Politics is weird, it makes rational people weird, and it seems to be the new bloodsport, which is just... odd.


Re: As a Canadian, it's been interesting to watch...

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But honestly, negative ads suck, period. Discussion and analysis are fine. But I honestly don't see any good reason, other than smug superiority, to have most of teh political posts talk about the suckiness of the other candidate in the manner of a tabloid newspaper. It's not just offensive, it's off-putting and frankly, it's hostile to those who do support the other candidate.

Still, I think there's a huuuuuuuge difference between sparing feelings over disagreements in plot and characterization in something that is, ultimately, not likely to have a significant impact on the early 21st century; you can afford to let things slide.

Not sure if that can apply in politics.

Er. I'm pretty sure svmadelyn didn't say anything like that or asked specifically that people should *not talk* about it? I thought she said she just wanted the negative cut-tagged so as to see less of the Candidate X sucks.

Here. Have a pony:

Photo from here (for credit if you actually use it! ;) )

Back on topic:
I have always held to the belief that even though yes, it is my journal and yes I should be able to post what I want in theory, in reality, it just doesn't work that way and things like my politics, my religious beliefs and discussions about sexuality have always gone under cuts... or just been marked private or filtered to a select few. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be an asshole.

This election especially, I don't feel obligated to express my opinion because I don't favor ANY of the candidates and my vote will be a wasted one anyways.

Edited at 2008-05-15 04:46 am (UTC)

OH LOVE. *GLEE* That is *awesome*. *bounces*

There's someone on my flist who's a big Clinton supporter. I love her dearly. So when she posted a rant recently about Obama supporters, I skipped it--just like I skip any political posts from my gaming buddy the conservative Republican. But I'd never say that either of them should change what they post because it makes me uncomfortable. I don't quite get this idea that we shouldn't talk about things that we feel strongly about. I'm not going to stop criticizing Obama for letting a homophobe headline a campaign appearance just like I'm not going to stop criticizing Clinton for the racial dog whistles or McCain for enabling the debacle of the war in Iraq. And I'm not sure why I should need to.

I'm confused. I didn't--and I know madelyn didn't--advocate not posting anything, or even restraining what is posted (which--seriously, no), but to add a cut tag if something was going into the deeply negative zone.

I'm Swedish and my political views are so far left that given a choice I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton or Obama, so I have no stake in this race, but you know, I'm a woman and Clinton is a woman, and the snide remarks about her from people on my flist that I consider to be sane, level-headed people have surprised me and not in a good sense. Especially considering that seeing political discussion in among all the fannish stuff sometimes makes it feel as if Clinton is the icky, horrible woman who's coming between the men in that greatest of slash pairings - Obama/McCain - and the Clinton dislike is just more of that old tired refrain: "but the female characters are just so boring, who'd want to write about vote for them anyway?"

*chokes* Oh man. I totally did not think of that!

*dies laughing* And it's true. That's awesome.

there were people asking god for a dozen virgins?!?
i am clearly in the wrong religion!

There should be more of that, yes.

(Deleted comment)
Pony == Envy from other people.

Virgins == gimmicky volleyball team that will give Coke endorsements one day

I haven't cut my squee over Obama, but I will be cutting the posts I'll start making about my issues with McCain when the primary starts up. Mostly, I don't post about politics so much simply because I don't usually have that much of interest to say.

*nod* I tend not to post about it either; I already deal with it at work and at home, so by teh time I get to lj, I'm just not all that interested in repeating it all again. *g*

You know I'm getting sick and tired of them slamming her in order to raise him up..and god forbid you say something about him, it gets a little hairy out there.

Honestly, the really sad part, she won like every single big state..and they still don't think she could beat McCain.

I live in Massachusetts, so it'll be totally safe when I write in Laura Roslin.

  • 1