#however op seems to be talking about issues relating to hateful groups specifically so this may not be relevant.

[livemedown]

I personally agree with this, with a few exceptions (mostly proshippers. Proshippers either get upset when they see it and/or bug off, at least from my experience. If they know you're an "anti," they'll usually leave. I don't want them interacting with me, they don't want me interacting with them, it's generally a win-win).

The majority of DNIs I've seen? Absolutely worthless. That transphobe or racist isn't going to be stopped by your bio. They're gonna harass you no matter what. And if you want to express your support for minorities, there are less performative ways to do so - such as outright stating your support of trans rights or POC rights instead! It goes a long way for you to actually share support, rather than just posting a DNI list no one will read.

its 2025 now. time to get rid of "dni bad people" shit. and "basic dni criteria" too. here, i said it. it doesn't save you from interacting with people you don't like and you look performative and silly🤔

[bondsmagii]

Please give me the forbidden Goncharov discourse 👀

so for context, this comes from a post by tumblr user lastoneout that reads:

turns out tumblr does have reading comprehension and the ability to analyze a complex text through multiple frameworks and have a nuanced discussion while doing so but apparently we were all saving it up to have nuanced discussions about a fake movie with no actual text to analyze

and then my tags on the post, which read:

#this is so funny but i maintain it's the only unrealistic thing about goncharov (1973) #like you mean to tell me the fandom on tumblr is this huge and yet there's not one hate blog? #there's not a core group of haters posting the most deranged piss on the poor shit in the tag? #no discourse? no anon hate? #christ but there's not a single poc in it come on tumblr i've not seen a single person get called a racist for liking it #this is a glimpse into what peace on planet earth would look like #(ironically i do have some deep analysis for why this might be but i will spare op lmao)

now forgive me if this makes no sense, because this is the first time I have tried to articulate it before, and of course in keeping with the theme it's about a fake movie (cinematic masterpiece Goncharov, (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese).

with the obvious out of the way first: Goncharov is a fictional movie, it does not exist, and therefore there it nothing to say about the real-world issues associated with lack of representation. this means we can skip that in actuality, though if we're looking at it from the perspective of a real movie and how it would be regarded on Tumblr, I'm sure that there would be related discourse. however, this is not real, so we can focus on the more entertaining, light-hearted sides of fandom. and this is universally what Goncharov posts were like: gifsets, fanart, humorous and well-written textual analysis, deep and pretentious photosets and quotes, everything that you love to see. but it was odd, in terms of realism, that there were no haters at all. which made me wonder: why are there haters when it comes to real things, but not when it comes to fake ones? part of this is what's mentioned above: in real life, there are some dynamics and trends and issues that can and do have a very real impact on society, or represent aspects of society that should change. but I can't help think it was something else, too.

I mentioned in my tags hate blogs specifically, because in real fandoms, you can easily find hate blogs that have absolutely nothing to do with any real, tangible criticism. it is just vitriolic hate: of a character, of a book/film, of an actor or actress involved, or some combination of these. there's no actual criticism, and very often there are massive feats of mental gymnastics used to make fans of [character] or [thing] look bad. it is just seething hatred, all directed towards something that is supposed to be entertainment; it's supposed to be fun! so why do some people take something harmless and make their entire personalities about hating it -- as well as spending significant parts of their day talking shit, getting into arguments, and even sending anon hate and threats to fans? it's because there are some people out there who like to hate things. they don't seem to like having fun. anything fun that comes their way, they have to pick holes in it; they have to have something negative to say to it. deep down, they know this is a very sad way to live. they know there's a difference between being a casual hater who likes to bitch about things in private with friends, or make the occasional joke or rant online -- and running a literal blog dedicated to hating something. they know there's a difference and they don't want to admit that they're losers, so they dress it up as something noble. these days, it's usually activism. this also explains the mental gymnastics, the reaches, the "fans of [character] are -ist or -phobic" shit. they're applying a thin coat of legitimacy to the fact that they're irrationally angry about something completely pointess, and there are a lot of people out there who seem to think this is a good and beneficial way to spend their time.

even among fans, there are some who seem to be having a bad time. I have looked at certain posts or blogs before and wondered to myself if the person even actually likes it, or if at this point they're just hostage to nostalgia or the idea of it (either the potential or their fan version of the universe) and they can't just call it quits. these people are not the same as the previously described, as they don't make their whole lives about hating something, but they're clearly miserable and could do with moving on, and they do contribute to the kinds of critical and often aggressive posts missing from the Goncharov project. the absence of this, as well as the more unhinged hatred, does leave a pretty obvious gap in the believability of the film's existence, and this is... rather depressing, really.

the thing that allowed Goncharov to be a peaceful experience was because of the fact that it wasn't real, and everyone knew it. but this should be applied to all films and books: they are not real. while some criticisms are valid (such as the terrible writing that female characters are often subject to, or the lack of representation in popular cinema, etc) a lot of the hate comes from interpersonal beef about characters, and these people aren't real. it's a very strange thing to witness: that so many people are capable of understanding that Goncahrov and Katya etc aren't real, and therefore there's no point getting mad about them, but they cannot carry that over to any other fictional character. the film's unreality is part of the joke, woven into it from the foundations, and so no hater, no matter how deranged, could possibly take themselves seriously hating it. instead they have to resort to complaining about the joke itself, and how annoying it is, but the content remains completely hater-free. it's an absolutely fascinating glimpse at the complete breakdown of the line between reality and fiction on this website -- Goncharov came from within, and its construction and creation was there for all to see, whereas other media seems to spring to the consumer fully formed and therefore with some kind of mystery that awards it a certain flair of legitimacy. I don't mean to say that anyone thinks it's real, but certainly they seem to think it's more serious, and worth getting worked up over. but none of it is real, none of it is worth getting worked up over, but for some reason it seems that when a creation comes from one's peers, this mystery is removed and the complete pointlessness and inanity of getting into fights online over fictional characters and events is illuminated in all its glory.

[casijaz]

Xenophobia is not racism part 24,450 - Electric Boogaloo

@angelina-galkina you have so much to say so I’ll just put your argument right here and comment on it.

I am putting this under a read more tag for all my followers. If you’re interested, please read.

Angelina, your English seems to be well enough for you to understand my original posts, so I figure you will be able to understand me now. I am also not a native English speaker, so if there is miscommunication between us do tell me.

angelina-galkinaheeft gereageerd op je bericht ���On Xenophobia and Racism”

Actually, the reason Europeans hate Slavs is because they think Slavs are Asians or all mixed with Asians. Slavs were seen as low as blacks people on the Nazi “racial hierarchy” scale. It was because Slavs were not considered white, (which was decided by those white European men you mentioned earlier who classified race.) They think Slavs are “secretly asian” or something like that. To be specific, manyyyyy Russian Slavs are mixed with central asian/ middle eastern at this point.

In Poland and Ukraine, the white nationalists there (like you said, there are a lot) dont consider Russian Slavs white (I am a Siberian Yup’ik, so don’t think I’m getting defensive, I’m not white lol) Russian Slavs experience xenophobia, and that xenophobia is rooted in racism in Europe. In America, the hate of Russians is rooted in dumb political reasons.

When I say that the xenophobia against Slavs in Europe is rooted in racism, I mean to say that they hate Slavs because Slavs aren’t white to them. Again, many Slavs are only partially white (so I guess they are only partly Slav?) This is sort of confusing, apologies.

Also, when you say that the hate of Slavs is geographically based, that is partially true. Because Slavs are so Eastward, they have mixed many times with Central and west Asians. So it is rooted in racism, but the insult is that they are part non-white so it’s not directly racism. I just don’t like misinformation being spread.

Note: {I am from Russia, (English isn’t my first language, sorry) and I know primarily about Russian Slavs, so I am only speaking about them.} Russia is both a multi-racial/multi-ethnic country. 

angelina-galkina heeft gereageerd op je bericht “Okay non-European tumblr”

They were talking about their own issues within Europe. It had nothing to do with people of other races. They were talking about how white people hate other white people, BASED ON racism against other races. It isn’t white racist people hating other white people, it is white racist people hating on other white people who “aren’t white to them” They never said anything bad.

Let’s unpack all of this for a second.

First off all. Who do you refer to when you say Europeans? People of Slavic descent are European. If by European you mean north/west ones I can tell you as one from that area that they are definitely European. These white people do not think they are Asian. Racial discrimination against Asians is something that is experienced by a lot in my country, but not by eastern European immigrants.

“Slavs were seen as low as blacks people on the Nazi “racial hierarchy” scale. ” In my original post I said whiteness was a social construct subject to change. While Nazis have had a hand or two in defining races, the construct of race was not created by them. It was European men in the 1600s. What you are also implying is that Slavic people only experience racism by being related or in proximity to ACTUAL non-whiteness. This is a tactic that has been used a lot in the defining of racism. But let me tell you. The people they’re compared to are always off worse. Also. Don’t ever say blacks again. It’s a racist term.

I have no insight in the genetic background of all Slavic ethnic groups in Russia. However from what I could find from these studies: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/russians.html and https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3 is that there’s virtually little to no Asian heritage among Russian and eastern European Slavic peoples. There was almost no middle eastern genetic heritage found among these groups either. This was a study done with a group of 1000 people. You could make an argument that they misrepresented the population, but I actually have a problem with people claiming non-white heritage just for an excuse to absolve themselves of white privilege.

Xenophobia is a complex issue that IS tied to racism but is not racism. Please re-read the post I made. In Europe, xenophobia can be strengthened by racism. For example, in a lot of northern countries the south of Europe is seen as more ‘exotic.’ This is because they are in proximity to non-white countries. In the United States of America, xenophobia is not just all about ‘dumb political reasons.’ The United States of America is a former colony placed on stolen indigenous land by white Europeans from all over the place. They brought their values and systems regarding race along with them. This means Europe and the U.S. have similar systems, simply because it’s the same people who made them.

I think you’re onto something when you say ‘not white to them,’ but you need to realise that they still are white. I don’t know what your experience with racism is if you’re part of a non-white ethnic group in Russia. I can tell you my experience as mixed black person who is not white passing and lives in Europe. Whatever Slavic immigrants face for discrimination, and what I face, are completely different. Their discrimination is not nor ever based on their race. They are white. They don’t get blackface thrown in their faces. They don’t get called racial slurs. They don’t get their bodies or cultural aspects dubbed dirty or inferior on basis of their race. If they do experience discrimination it is based on the geographical history we’ve had in Europe.

What I can definitely agree on with you is that southern and eastern Europeans experience xenophobia on basis of their relation to non-whiteness on a geographical and historical basis. Many countries were colonised by the Ottoman Empire once. In the 1900s they were described as being ‘too close to the east.’ However note that I say ‘too close,’ but not ‘IN’ the east. In the 1800s while northwest European men were defining races they deemed a lot of races not quite white by relating them to races they had definitively deemed not-white. But we no longer live within the racial confines of neither the 1800s nor Nazi Germany. The racial hierarchy scale however is here to stay. It is subject to change, has been, and always will be, but there are certain groups of people whose claim to whiteness can never happen. Among them are black people.

Now to the reaction I made to the non-European Tumblr post going around! I am European! I was talking about my own issues too! These are my issues! White people hate white people because of geographical and cultural differences. They are both white. So they can’t be racist against each other. Both are at the top of the racial hierarchy. They did say something bad. When us ACTUAL non-white Europeans try talking about racism they try and hijack the conversation by stating they can’t possibly be racist because it works differently in Europe. It doesn’t. The U.S. and Europe have the same racial systems. The U.S. even has some of the same xenophobic basis for discriminating groups of people as Europe because the white population of the U.S. consists out of solely (people descended from) European immigrants.

Don’t ever tell a European of colour to not talk about their own issues. These are my issues and I will only stop talking about them when racism and xenophobia cease to exist.

[eichy815]

Common Myths About Independent Voters

With a lot of Democrats still “grieving” or “in mourning” about the 2016 Presidential Election – and many Republicans wrecking their brains trying to figure out how to maintain the legislative upper hand for the next three years – quite a bit of discussion tends to focus on how candidates can win over Independent voters in future elections.  Specifically, the 2018 midterms and the 2020 Presidential Election.

First, let me reiterate the sentiments expressed in my December 2016 Morpheus magazine op-ed on “sectarian privilege” that I wrote shortly after the 2016 election.  Institutionally and socially, Democrats and Republicans in the United States both have systemic and cultural advantages over those of us who identify as Independents.

On top of that, some members of the major party establishments brag about their ability to “understand” Independent voters mainly through a combination of statistics, focus groups, and survey-based research.  This was the presumptuous, egotistical self-claim made by one of my most odious past acquaintances (whom I have derisively nicknamed “Tweedledum”), who could easily be the poster-boy for sectarian privilege.

Two elements of reality remain unavoidable, however.  Independent voters can be unpredictable.  We are also a diverse group – hardly monolithic.  So any candidate who wants to swing a close election in their favor by “winning over Independents” really must take a lot of different variables into account.

As someone who prides myself in putting forth balanced, common sense solutions to many of America’s problems, I’ve found that both Republicans and Democrats alike jump at the chance to try to “recruit” me as an ally.  They try to persuade me that I’m actually a “closet Republican” (if it’s an issue where I’ve sided with conservatives) or a “closet Democrat” (if it’s an issue where I’ve sided with liberals).  At their core, I believe they ultimately just want me as a “worker bee” for their partisan infrastructure.  Some will try to compliment my ideology and make an attempt to relate to me via proverbial “honey”...whereas others will try to socially-shame me and make me feel guilty with proverbial “vinegar.”

And, while I am secure and steadfast in my own identity as an Independent voter, I certainly don’t claim that my individual stances on issues (or my approach to political life, in general) are necessarily representative of *ALL* other Independent voters out there, either.

The main component that Independents tend to have in common, despite the issues on which we personally disagree:  we have a shared disdain for elitism, corporate cronyism, and politics of exclusion.  We want varying forms of electoral reform – which Yellow Dog Democrats and Yellow Dog Republicans are resistant to allow, because it would result in more candidates against whom their own standard-bearers would be forced to compete.

We would have an America where political candidates tended to be more – GASP! – reliable and ethical.  And we can’t have that, can we?

So, my dear partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans, before you slink back into your patterns of toxic tribalism and write off all of us Independents due to our refusal to walk in lockstep with you 100% of the time...please humor me as I shine a light onto the ten most egregious myths that tend to be leveled against Independents as a way of further disenfranchising us from the political discourse.

Myth 1:  “Independents Don’t Stand For Anything”

If you swallow this whopper, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention.  While I won’t deny that there are vapid individuals who choose to self-identify as Independents, more often than not a person is going to describe themselves as “Independent” out of frustration with “business-as-usual” politics.  We are tired of being blatantly lied to by candidates, by the major political parties, and by the corporate-owned media.  We are tired of people trying to coerce us or threaten us in order to gain our votes.  And we are tired of being expected to declare allegiance to a political party if we want our votes to be counted.

Some Independents do lean more leftward in their politics...while others lean more rightward.  Some are to the left of the Democratic Party; some are to the right of the Republican Party.  Some are hovering someplace in the middle when it comes to their stances on specific issues.  And some – such as myself – are all over the map when it comes to whose side we’ll take based on the circumstance and topic at hand.

But one commonality should be clear, a majority of the time:  any of us who’ve decided to self-identify as Independents have consciously chosen to do so for a very good reason.  Typically, it involves dissatisfaction with existing politicians’ unwillingness to improve and transform the political system that we currently have.

Myth 2:  “Independents Refuse To Compromise When It Comes To Seeking Solutions”

A lot of people who’ve mentally aligned themselves with either the Republicans or the Democrats find it convenient to paint all Independents as “compromise-adverse.”  

This longstanding myth was perpetuated by many new voters who were inspired to become newly-engaged in the political process by the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders (the so-called “Berniecrats” or “Bernie Bros” – you know, the ones whom Hillary Clinton blames in her recently-published book).  This was topped off by the fable that most Sanders supporters were ideological “purists” who simply want “free stuff.”

Yes, people want their ideals to come to fruition.  Just like anyone who’s loyal to the Democratic or Republican Parties also does.  But most people, if you’re negotiating with them directly, would prefer to end up with half a loaf of bread rather than none at all.  When negotiating, however, you never ask for exactly what you want...or for less than what you want.  Because then you’re inevitably guaranteed to end up with much less than that, once the negotiations have concluded.

Politicians in general need to get past the “all-or-nothing” mentality that drives legislative negotiations.  The main underlying reason as to why our political system is so badly damaged is because of partisan operatives who treat political discourse with all the dexterity of “team sports.”

Myth 3:  “We’re Smack In The Middle On Every Single Issue”

This is the inverse of Myth 2.  Whereas people with strong ideological leanings do seek to implement blueprints that are overwhelmingly liberal or conservative (or progressive or libertarian), that doesn’t mean randomly proposing a “compromise just for the sake of compromise” is always a prudent path.  I talk more about this in my September 2016 op-ed entitled “Purple Pain: A Fairy Tale of ‘Faux-Moderates.’”

The ACA was the classic example of badly-written legislation that fused together “the worst of both worlds.”  Most conservatives hated it because it increased the size of the federal government.  Many liberals hated it because it didn’t include enough cost-controls for the middle class.  In reality, a smaller-scale solution with mostly non-controversial components would have probably been preferable to the masses.  And now, Democrats are still learning the hard way.

Currently, Republicans are pushing an overhaul of Obamacare and reduction of the corporate tax rate.  What they will similarly discover is that – if they fail to make some reasonable concessions to their opponents when enacting these goals – the general public will also reject a health care overhaul that continues to lack cost-controls...or lower tax brackets that fail to incentivize the repatriation of American jobs.

Myth 4:  “We Are Essentially The Same As Swing Voters”

Just like how people tend to conflate the terms “nonpartisan” and “bipartisan,” many folks don’t seem to understand the difference between an “Independent voter” and a “swing voter.”  Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov – authors of Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction – define a “swing voter” as someone who tends to be more persuadable during an upcoming election.  They are usually nonpartisan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are “moderate” or “centrist.”  Their undecided status makes them a coveted sliver of the electorate in hotly-competitive races.

There can even be a pointed difference between a “swing voter” and an “undecided voter.”  Swing voters might be undecided for a large chunk of the election season, but they’ll usually make up their minds on how to vote within a month or so of Election Day.  Undecided voters, by contrast, sometimes are literally undecided on the morning of the actual election itself...or even as they walk into the voting booth.

The vast majority of voters who confidently describe ourselves as “Independents” aren’t usually all that undecided as to which candidates we’ll support or where we stand on specific issues.  Our voting behaviors may simply vary from one election cycle to the next.

Myth 5:  “We Are ‘Slacktivists’ Whose Passion Is Actually Quite Shallow”

When people make this argument, they are usually referring to those who subscribe to “Cult of Personality” – rallying around messiah-like political figures...and then pulling out the stops to defend them in any and all circumstances.  Politicians with the last names of Bush, Clinton, Trump, Sanders, Reagan, Obama, McCain, Gore, Walker, Kennedy, Warren, Cruz, Booker, and Ashcroft have all benefited from this hive mentality.

Another symptom of those who subscribe to “Cult of Personality” is the mindset where someone has maximum passion for a candidate or a cause while simultaneously putting in minimal effort.  Social activist Becky Kip wrote a phenomenal August 2016 piece in Morpheus magazine on “clicktivism” – how ranting on one’s personal social media account should never serve as a substitution for voting or demonstrating or letter-writing.

Myth 6:  “We’re Wishy-Washy”

When you poll Americans, a plurality of any cross-section of respondents tend to identify as “Independents” if asked to classify themselves politically.  Yet, there’s common skepticism that “leaners” (people who are, overall, either more liberal than conservative...or more conservative than liberal) aren’t truly “Independent.”  This type of generalization ignores how diverse we are, as a group.  Even journalist Linda Killian – author of The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents – seems conflicted when she categorizes us broadly yet also acknowledges our heterogeneity and unpredictability while praising our ethics.

The ones who are ruining the image of all Independent voters are the so-called “Independents” who classify themselves that way exclusively out of opportunism.  Former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman is the perfect example of this – someone who cherry-picks his partisan stances based on whichever Democratic-leaning audience to whom he’s speaking – while excusing the outright bigotry of social conservatism.  Lieberman flips his political allegiances with dubious explanations of his decision, in light of his pro-corporate voting record – such as running as an “Independent Democrat” (under the sham that was the “Connecticut for Lieberman” Party moniker) after he lost his 2006 senatorial primary to Ned Lamont...and then endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008.  And then flipping right back to Hillary Clinton in 2016, clearly as a way of viscerally distancing himself from Donald Trump’s bigotry.  Yet, not once during his career did Lieberman push for actual electoral reform.  He’s as much of an “Independent” as Marge Schott was a “nurturer.”

Let’s all try to be a little bit *LESS* like Joe Lieberman, shall we?

Myth 7:  “We Always Gravitate Toward One Major Party Or The Other”

This gets to the heart of that ugly form of bigotry known as “sectarian privilege.”  People who are highly partisan (especially ”Yellow Dogs”) want to self-validate their own dogma by trying to portray self-identified Independents as “closet Republicans” or “closet Democrats.”

Normally, this happens when people find areas of common ground.  If, for example, I’m talking about greater investment in green jobs, many Democratic loyalists will tell me, “You sound like a Democrat.”   Or, if I make the case for why private businesses shouldn’t be mandated by the government which customers to serve, many conservative-minded people will tell me, “You sound like a Republican/Libertarian.”   In reality, I’ve voted for a combination of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, up-and-down the ticket, throughout various election cycles. 

Did you ever stop to think that maybe an individual Independent voter might just happen to have a thoughtful and well-conceived personal opinion on a certain issue...rather than it automatically being a reflection of your own partisan “machine” or doctrine?

Myth 8:  “We Want A Seat At The Table Without Doing The Work”

This accusation, when directed at an Independent voter, is typically sectarian code for “You are refusing to officially join or register with my party, so I am going to desperately attempt to discredit you based on your lack of allegiance to me.”

I realize that many lifelong Democrats and Republicans are proud of all the organizational energy they’ve devoted to their respective parties.  They feel they haven’t been adequately acknowledged for their party-building efforts.  So if someone who identifies as an Independent or a non-partisan voter comes along and makes a suggestion that’s new or different, they feel threatened by it.

Unfortunately, politics has very dire real-life consequences for citizens.  This isn’t about your ego or your social patronage ascendancy, my dearest partisans.  Instead, it needs to become about improving the collective good and maximizing opportunities for everyone.  When you lash out at us by prioritizing party loyalty (or automatically assuming that party loyalty is equivalent to the collective good), you are missing the bigger picture.  You aren’t going to win over new voters by insulting them and berating them for refusing to subscribe to groupthink.

Myth 9:  “We’ll Never Support Democrats Or Republicans Under Any Circumstances”

Let’s be very clear, here:  voting for a Republican candidate doesn’t instantaneously make that voter a “Republican.”  Voting for a Democratic candidate doesn’t instantaneously make that voter a “Democrat.”  Sometimes a voter has consciously decided to choose between what they view as “the lesser of two evils.”  And, sometimes, a voter doesn’t view one of those “two evils” as being all that bad.  But sometimes neither the Democrat nor the Republican are viewed as acceptable choices to the individual voter.  At this point, the individual voter then gets demonized as a “spoiler” (by the rank-and-file members of whichever party feels it was automatically entitled to that voter’s support, in the first place) and accused of wanting “perfection” (see Myth 2).

That voting choice, in and of itself, didn’t magically transform a voter’s actual party affiliation (unless they registered with a party SOLELY so they receive the privilege to vote for a favored candidate in a “closed primary” run by their state Democratic or Republican Party).  Until party loyalists overcome their myopia and start to finally understand this, they’re going to continue dealing with “mutiny” from within their own ranks.

In the past five presidential elections, I’ve voted for three Democratic nominees (John Kerry, and twice for Barack Obama).  During the years when I voted for third-party presidential candidates (John Hagelin and Jill Stein), it was because I viewed their major party rivals (George W. Bush and Al Gore, and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) as too corrupt to warrant receiving my support.  This didn’t mean I felt Kerry or Obama was 100% perfect.  And it sure as hell didn’t mean I was giving the Democrats carte blanche to do whatever they wanted based on those seasonal votes of mine.

Going back to Myth 7:  yes, if I was a sitting U.S. Senator, I would identify as an Independent but caucus with the Democrats (although I’d be more of an Angus King than a Bernie Sanders) at this point in time.  But that’s more due to the sober reality of the two-party system’s dominance coupled with the egregious “leadership” of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.  In an ideal world, I’d belong to a more organized and more collaborative third party that shows its members more flexibility and respect than either the Democratic or Republican Parties tend to.

Myth 10:  “Independent Voters Want Special Treatment”

No.  Ugh!  Just....no.

If there was ever a prewritten narrative to enshrine sectarian privilege into our current political system, this would be it.  “Independent voters think they’re special and deserve to be coddled” – such a condescending fallacy is like when fundamentalists or evangelicals claim that “LGBT people want ‘special’ rights” (such as marriage equality and nondiscrimination in the workplace).

According to Klar and Krupnikov, the reality is that Independent voters can be biased, situationally, in the same way that hard-core Republicans or hard-core Democrats are. We can be discreet or ostentatious about our voting preferences.  We can be low-key or outspoken.  

Furthermore, not all moderates (in terms of ideological stances) are necessarily self-identified Independents.  And not all people who consider themselves to be Independent voters are simultaneously moderate (ideologically). 

Take it from someone who has fought against sectarian privilege for my entire life – Independents are one of the most demonized and overly-generalized groups in America.

If we sound like people who are clinging to some “victim status”...it’s because Democrats and Republicans dismiss us as “spoilers” (or any other variation of any of the ten aforementioned myths).

When politicians try to court us through anecdotal focus groups, they end up (perhaps unintentionally) painting us with a broad brush.

Throw several milquetoast talking points at us, and expect us to digest them without question?  Nope.  Maybe you should try feeding some pigeons in the park, instead.

So if we sound like “angry” voters...you’re damn right we are!  We’re definitely ANGRY...because we’re tired of politicians, party leaders, and consultants who insist on continuing to do the same futile things over and over again...while the quality-of-life increasingly degrades for Americans across the board.