I Hate Screen Names
report this user

Bio

I really do.

Jul 19 I Hate Screen Names commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@42: So your argument is that not only does Stein have no chance in 2016, but she or the next Green candidate also have no chance in 2020. Why are you voting for them then? How-- specifically-- does that make any difference as opposed to opting out and staying home?

As to corporate rule, we're getting that either way. So it's a non-factor.
Jul 19 I Hate Screen Names commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@27: No. Most people already don't vote for either party and stay home instead. The two parties are doing just fine. If 90% of the population stayed home and 10% picked the next president-- who would thus be the choice of roughly 5% of us-- that person would still be President.

The only way to improve the two parties is to elect someone else. If you have an argument that Stein can actually win the Presidency, then I'll listen to it gladly. If not, then it's time for some damage control for 2020.
Jul 19 I Hate Screen Names commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@14: Are you brain dead? If not participating meant we get to redo the 2016 election, or that neither Clinton nor Trump take office, then I'd be not-participating like a motherfucker. But opting out does fuck-all.

Actions are judged by their consequences. And here are the possible consequences we're facing for 2016:
1. Trump presidency.
2. Clinton presidency.

That's it. There are no other outcomes. Since [2] is vastly preferable to [1], the not-shithead does what he can to make [2] a reality. Any other decision is fucking moronic.
Jul 19 I Hate Screen Names commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@9: The Democratic Party isn't going to do shit. Which is a fuckton better than a Trump-led GOP royally fucking us over. You want to take Clinton and the Dems down in 2020 and elect someone better, you have my blessing and probably my support. But TODAY, we have only two options. And one is orders of magnitude worse than the other.
Jul 19 I Hate Screen Names commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@3: 1.5 million people died as a result of the Iraq War. That's over twice the population of Seattle, dead. I'm willing to get some slime on me to prevent that from happening again. My sense of moral purity sure as shit ain't worth 1.5 million lives.

And no, it's not "[Dan's] fucking job not to have total shitbags rise to the top." It's EVERYONE'S job, yours included. Absolving oneself of the moral responsibility to vote against shitbags is PRECISELY how they rise to the top.

But I'm sure your sense of self-satisfaction is totally worth the high likelihood that my father and his (MY) family will be deported come a Trump Presidency. Asshole.
Jul 12 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
I'm curious as to why NCA is limiting himself to single women without kids. I certainly understand why he may not want a partner who is currently raising children. But at his age-- mid-forties-- there are plenty of women whose children have left the nest. Does NCA want children of his own, and think single women with kids won't want any more? Does he exclusively date women much younger than him, so that their kids haven't left yet? Does he have some hangup about being a motherfucker?

Lots of possibilities, but addressing the right one might open up his options more.
Jun 23 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
Honestly, I'm tired of this. I'm trying to explain why someone might not be comfortable calling a person by a dog's name at work. And while a few (e.g., CMD) are making reasonable arguments, the majority seem to be taking the following tactic:
1. If you disagree with me, you are necessarily a bigot.
2. Any bigot's argument is invalid.
3. Therefore, you are wrong.
Think otherwise? Consider why posters seem bound and determined to establish my supposed bigotry, when motives are entirely irrelevant to logic.

I find I no longer have the patience to wade through this kind of smug self-superiority. I'd rather head home and drink a martini.
Jun 23 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@79: I suggest you stop attempting to divine my "real" motivations. I know me a lot better than you know me, and your constant ad hominem attacks make you look like an idiot.

I've never met anyone named "Spike," either as a given name or as a nickname. The only human (well, vampire) "Spike" I know is played by James Marsters, as @78 noted. Like "Spot" and "Rover," I can only conceive of it as a dog name, and expect most other people will as well. And I'm not going to call a person by a dog's name in a professional environment. As I said aaaaall the way back @28, "if you want me to use your fantasy name, then you better pick one that doesn't make me feel like a fool."

"Rex" works. So do "Max," "Charlie," "Milo," etc.-- all popular dog names that are actual human names as well.
Jun 23 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@74: I'm amused that you think you know my motivations.

I don't care about his lifestyle. I don't care about whether, with whom, or how he has sex. What I care about is that *I* look less-than-professional in calling someone "Spike." Looking professional in my place of professional employment matters to me: that's why I dress and act a certain way for work. It matters to a lot of people. We can't all work in tech start-up utopias.

I'd have no problem calling him Spike at a (non-work) party. If he bought me a beer and seemed like a good bloke, I'd even go for Princess Sparkles. But on the clock, when I need to look competent and composed in front of others, I'm not going to "break character" to indulge someone's fantasy life.
Jun 23 I Hate Screen Names commented on Savage Love.
@71: Right. So for same-sex marriage, the answer to "why is that discomfort irrelevant" is "because the social and economic benefits of being married far outweigh whatever discomfort someone has at the abstract concept of same-sex marriage. Makes sense to anyone who isn't a homophobe.

But that's not the situation with silly names, is it? One person is more comfortable being called X. One person is less comfortable calling someone X. Why does the former always trump the latter?