"Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?" and the culture war.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 14, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    https://archive.is/dukBv

    Another product of the huffington post. So lets thinking about the logistics of how to strip voting rights and political power from white males "for only 20 years", will color pallets be used to decide who is white or not? percentage ancestor? will gays count? Will not white men denied the right to vote and to be politicians simply leave, as they did in Zimbabwe?

    Rather articles like these exist not to propose viable, sane, policy, rather they exist to generate attention, clicks, hence why I provide an archive link. Such works attract offense from the one side of the political spectrum and pushes the views of the other side further off the spectrum, but the author does not care, the author only wants clicks.

    The first step to slowing the culture war is to stop reading such tripe, or better yet don't give them clicks, next is to have sensible debate with others of different viewpoints so the political views points can start coming closer together rather than further apart.
     
    Syne and joepistole like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,960
    #selfdestruction | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Distraction: Click to bite down and give no reason.

    Reading comprehension helps. I don't think you have a clue what you're on about. You're just making stuff up.

    It's a pretty stupid article, that much is true. But taking the "alt-right" line while flying "alt-right" colors—HuffPo links are generally stable enough that you don't need the alt-right's favorite wayback machine, and you can always quote the text you're on about if you want a stable copy for reference—isn't the best way to encourage us to believe you have a clue what you're on about.

    To the other, I think such articles are overdone, anyway. It's well known that the right wing requires reading comprehension problems. Like the time the Congressman altered an article before reading it into the Congressional Record; no, really, it's over a quarter-century on and we still hear about that one.

    Much like the comedy of Seinfeld, sometimes artists need to know the genius they think they're showing the world is nothing more than a bad idea.

    But thank you for making the philosophy student's point for her↱.

    Every time someone describes a world in which the empowered classes are treated the same as the denigrated subject classes, the right wing freaks out. After all, reality reminds without question that an overdone rhetorical device on an unempowered fringe is far more dangerous than an overdone rhetorical device in living effect—right?

    There's a lot going on in that article, but for all we might criticize you manage a swing and miss when it's teed up for you. Honestly, for all the stereotypish jokes we can make about philosophy majors, making their points for them is an unfortunately frequent symptom of unprepared critique.

    The man ... is huge, much larger than anyone else in the frame. He looms over the table at which Lebohang Mabuya is seated with several young children and begins shouting at her. The person shooting the video appears to be in the next booth. She can be heard telling a man who looks as though he wants to intervene that they should “Leave him [Viljoen]” as the “Spur people will help.”

    The waitrons seem to be hanging back at first. In fact, at 00:18, one waiter walks past with a tray, looks on as Viljoen feigns a punch at the woman's head, and then serves the patrons a few tables over. Then two waiters appear to obstruct his way as he heads back towards her but he pushes past them and then for the most part, people just stand around watching the drama unfold. The video shows other patrons trying to calm Mabuya down. Viljoen meanwhile is free to go on his way.

    A white man—who for all his life has been told that the world is his oyster—raising his hand to a black woman—who for all her life has had to prove herself time and time again just to get her existence recognised. A mere 20-odd years ago, this would have been acceptable by apartheid standards.

    The problem here is two-fold. It's whiteness: a perceived sense of racial superiority, and misogyny: a perceived sense of gender superiority; both of which are very difficult to take down in any situation because both have been empowered, justified, and validated for centuries to the point that they're not questioned. A notion of self-serving arrogance that seeks to promote the interests of white men whose authority cannot be challenged lest we hurt their feelings.


    (The Daily Vox)

    Context is important. Hand a philosophy student that story occurring amid those attitudes and my first criticism of this retort would be its lack of innovation; the second would be its lack of awareness—i.e., this is a manner of communication in which one must necessarily account for suicide-pact advocacy and its general determination to botch all communication as a pretentious criterion of self-justification.°

    Comparatively, I would suggest waiting to worry about the disenfranchisement of white men until the idea moves a little closer to the overton window; or, rather, the window moves closer to disenfranchiement. After all, the political and historical spectra describe the philosophy student's proposal as an extreme circumstance exceptionally unlikely to come about, and specifically easily forestalled.

    There is something to be said about foolish hand-wringing, of course. And there is also some need to consider whether validating irrational, speculative hand-wringing derived from determined and even calculated ignorance, actually helps anything or anyone. The problem is legitimizing pyritical discourse by taking it seriously. It would be one thing if advocates of this manner of irrationality actually took themselves seriously, but when cornered they can't manage to show themselves capable. You know, like the self-reinforcing bit where someone like Kellyanne Conway turns around and complains that nobody in D.C. has a sense of humor; the cowardly flight from her own advocacy would probably go over better at Sciforums than, you know, when one is the White House. I mean, sure, we can all roll our eyes and groan when someone tries it here, or or on Facebook, or whatever, but most of them ain't the White House. If I'm not supposed to take dude over here seriously, or advocate over there, 'tis true I'm less accepting of the vector when it comes late and after one has exhausted and even exasperated other justifications. But if I'm not supposed to take the White House seriously?

    It's a compound problem, a recursive conundrum. Here, a simple analogy: Whatever else I or anyone else might say in retort to traditionalist complaints about the fact of prostitution, the one person in this Universe who ought not criticize the prostitutes for being sluts is the paying customer—unless, of course, verbal abuse is part of what he's buying. The guy renting someone to rape just shouldn't complain about the immorality of a woman in the act of copulation. And how much time would we intend to waste arguing with a rapist about whether an accurate description of his actions—his goddamn paid-for fantasy, for fuck-all sake—hurts his feelings? Because, after all, that complete bullshit can come to obscure the more important issue, which is that the traditionalist complaints about the fact of prostitution demonstrably help no one; indeed, history reminds quite clearly and repeatedly they only exacerbate harm.

    Similarly, the problem with the foolish hand-wringing can be drowned in details. It's one thing to take people seriously or ont, but how much time should anyone waste trying to discern the deliberately unreliable? Those who scheme to deceive, well, I suppose that's the point, they scheme to deceive.

    The neurotic trap is blatant; that is a sign of how thin this stress has worn: If taken seriously, they are unhappy with the response because their advocacy is abysmal, ignorant, or otherwise described accurately according to dimensions their self-love finds unsatisfying. If we just write them off because it sounds so outrageous they must be yanking our chains, they are offended because we are too elitist to take their needs seriously. True, somewhere in these United States are individuals represented by aspects of these problems, but those who willfully seek constructions to justify their decision to stand in opposition to the collective create one of those ugly get out/why did you leave me interdependencies that are really, really hard to break. In the end, these are people who put themselves before us who are absolutely determined to be witnessed being unhappy; they demand satisfaction not simply despite, but because they refuse to be satisfied.

    It's an unfortunate human condition, but largely epistemically closed. Rupture and relief flow must come from within; there is no way to lance this pestilent boil. The only satisfaction is the suicide pact; one cannot be happy unless everyone else destroys themselves.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° When we fail to attend history—such as a Congressman reading edited satire into the Congressional Record as if it is seriously and literally intended—it is easy to make basic mistakes like presuming readers in Red'it and elsewhere will necessarily understand what they are dealing with.

    Regardless of how intelligent any of us think ourselves, we should remember it is an unfair expectation that anyone else in the world should be as smart as we are. I know, it sounds arrogant and elitist and all that, but I learned that lesson trying to coddle bullies and validate the right wing. It's easier than you might think to insult people by presuming them smart.​

    Garland, Shelley. "Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?". The Huffington Post. 13 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 14 April 2017. http://huff.to/2ofiU5W

    The Daily Vox Team. "Spur altercation would have been acceptable—by apartheid standards". The Daily Vox. 23 Marcy 2017. TheDailyVox.co.za. 14 April 2017. http://bit.ly/2ofnQYy
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    50,778
    Well, this strategy is working well in reverse for the Republicans so why not? Maybe place the polls only in poor neighborhoods. Make no parking available. How about a hip hop literacy test? Or only people that speak more than one language can vote. Print the ballots just in Spanish. Be creative!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,622
    your the kinda person who thinks a modest proposal was a straight piece aren't you?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,607
    It doesn't really matter whether the reactionaries to this piece really don't get it, are are just posing.

    Because one good first step would be to quit taking any offer, proposal, or prospect, of "sensible debate" with the media sources now informing the Trump voter seriously. One-sided compromise with that faction of American politics has cost the country way too much. They are not going to stop doing what they are doing, they are not going to compromise, and they are going to take it all if they can.

    You can't have a "sensible debate" with that political faction, and getting closer together with it means you have moved in the direction they want you to move, the better to beat you. It doesn't mean you and the Trump voter have come any nearer to mutual compromise and rational agreement, it means you have wrongfooted yourself and given both ground and leverage to the Trump voter's manipulators.

    To quote Matt Taibbi, a journalist who has been doing research into the Trump voter as deeply as anyone else: "They're completely full of shit".

    Or to quote the blogger:
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    No need for further debate then?

    What is wrong with using an archive? Ooooh that right hitler was a vegetarian therefor vegetarians are hitler.

    and I care why?

    Ok I'm going to break up your mindless jabbering here to restate my argument, has it accursed to you the a simplest answer often the right one, that the blogger here is merely saying what she said for attention, for clicks and your grossly overthinking this?

    ... Seriously what does this have to do with the price of cheese? Also IMHO prostitutes are the most honest women on earth:



    ... so you want to legalize prostitution then?

    mindless drivel ends, thankfully. As for the suicide pact, that already been signed and completed with the election of trump, enough American's said "burn it all down" thanks to the likes you.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    No, I think your "modest proposal" is intentionally bait used to garner attention, positive or negative, does not matter, to sell ads, on what is supposedly a high brow news journal. It is not a proposal or modest, it is troll bait, nothing more, nothing less, a standing example of how low our news media has gotten.

    Beg to differ, here is a prominent feminist Hillary voter have sensible debate with a trump voting anti-feminist:

     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
    Syne likes this.
  10. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,622
    ITs not my modest proposal its Swifts
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

    jesus if your going to pradle on like a loon could you at least not be ignorant. it was rather obvious to the erudite reader that there was heavy elements of sarcasm in the essay you decry. that you than failed to note the reference to the arguably most famous work of satire in the english language. seriously even with out the proper punction it was obvious i was referring to a specific piece. do you even read what your responding too?
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    Do you have a counter argument there? It seems your agreeing with me your merely saying I'm ignorant to your reference.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,607
    And Bill Maher has had Ann Coulter on his show, repeatedly. So? Here's the quote:
    I think it's possible that Blair White might be amenable to reason. The reason I think so is that she made the overture, and she is very young, and although she apparently argues mainly from presumption, personal circumstance, and personal experience, she seems capable of abstraction from the many experiences in her future. She seems to have landed in that factional sewer mostly because she knows no other home for her opinions. So that's one.

    Meanwhile, what you have there is a 2 1/2 hour conversation between two young women , on the internet - a youtube video. You can have as many of them as you think will help straighten out the media operations backing the Republican Party, and good luck to you. (And your description of the trans woman as an "anti-feminist" illustrates one of the problems perfectly. That's their frame, you're in it until you get yourself out somehow).
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    Straighten out media operations? no no, old media to me is dead, I did not make this thread to proclaim it alive and well, rather it is a clickbait selling cancerous zombia. Public conversations online between increasingly normal people is where we should be heading over orchestrated celebrities talking on zombie media.

    Also she calls herself "anti-feminist" just as she calls her self "she", should I not call him anti-feminist?
     
  14. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,622
    i'm saying your either mind boggling ignorant or a troll to be throwing a hissy fit over an obvious satire. the reference to a modest proposal was to underscore the huffington post article was satire. the fact you can't recognize it scares me if you aren't lying your ass of about being involved has deeply in political infastructure as you claim. your entire argument here is much ado about nothing. its little more than a childish temper tantrum sadly not unlike peoples reaction to a modest proposal. i would suggest for your benefit to study satire for a bit so you can recognize it.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,607
    "Clickbait selling?" CNN?
    So my proposal of writing off the terminally deluded core Republican voter unless they make the first move, the 27%, turns out to be peanuts compared with yours - you propose writing off the entire media world 3/4 of the country's voters live in, in favor of pitching to the voters who make a practice of watching 2 and 3 hour youtube conversations and can evaluate the evidence and arguments therein.
    If you want to buy into the frame, sure. Why would you want to buy into the frame?
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    Again with an inability to understand magnitude and gradients. Do you control any of that media? No, but you do have greater control online via videos and podcasts you watch/listen, rate, comment and create. Please by all means propose how to fix the old media, I'm all ears!

    So should I call him "he"? Aside for politeness, words apparently mean mind control to you, sorry but I don't ascribe to whorfinism, what ever this "frame" means to you, means something else to me.

    Is the huffington post now The Onion? Again give me a counter theory that this was posted to generate clicks?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,607
    I have even less control over other people's internet than I have over the dominant media that influence Trump voters.
    If you can't see how you are buying into the frame of the media operations behind the Republican Party by classifying Blaire White as "anti-feminist", your thinking is controlled by that frame. Not that this hasn't been obvious all along.
     
  18. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,622
    i have apartently you just lack the wit to understand the concept of satire. this is just you ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrow viewpoint. You have decided it was click bait based on zero evidence and refuse to accept any and other possible explanations. your literally following a rather long tradition of grossly misunderstanding satire. i know its easier to rant and rave rather than think but for fucks sake try it.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    and how is that a counter theory? Do you understand the concept of clicks? Anything that generates attention, and it does not need to be news, in fact as they as long ago discovered it can be anything so long as it is salacious. So instead of presenting news, we get what you call "satire".
     
  20. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,622
    how is you whinying something is clickbait with out proving the point a theory.
    yes fsar more so than you appartently understand satire.
    i don't call it satire it is satire. just because you can't understand anything outside your small minded ranting doesn't mean your right. the piece holds all the hallmarks of a satirical piece. and if you had bothered to read and do research it was from the opinions section on huffington post not straight posted in the main news line like your suggesting. you just wanted to be whining and go on your attack against progressivism to continue your efforts to harm the movement.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    It is not news, you admit that much right? It garners attention from outrage to hateful glee. It is clickbait.

    I will ask again: is the huffington post now The Onion?

    Harm the movement... who president right now? WE FAILED! We are far beyond harmed here, and you want to keep doing the same things that have got us into this hell.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,960
    Who's this "we"? Stop lying↗.

    In addition to your acknowledgment of being a Republican—i.e., responding to criticism of you by starting a thread in defense of Republicans—that you just can't stop lying is at least as significant as your lack of any applicable liberalistic anchor and utter inability to write or even comprehend basic liberal political theory.

    So stop it. You're not going to save any liberal anything by turning it into conservatism. You're not going to rid the world of prejudice and hatred by accommodating it. Indeed, you already know this well enough that you won't even bother to explain how your serve-the-bullies thesis is supposed to work.

    So quit lying. Stop with the "we" bullshit.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,657
    Blah blah blah

    How is advocating we focus on taxing the rich to provide services like free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, etc? No please name me how I'm turning it into conservatism? You turned the whole fucking nation toward conservatism, the reactionary backlash your ilk created put Trump in power! You can sit there thinking your so liberal while your actions have done the exact opposite.

    How about ridding the world of poverty? Bigots are going to hate, what matters is the targets of their hate have food, water, shelters, education, opportunity, equality and protection, and the best way to do that is to not get the bigots out voting in force for the very opposite!

    I have explained repeatedly how it works, you refuse to listen. By providing a candidate people like↗, that they think trustworthy that advocates for radical progressive ideals rather then babystepism, by focusing on common goals with the independents and libertarian republicans, like reducing Washington corruption, we can build the blue wall back up and regain the presidency, house and senate.

    You on the other hand want to yell names at everyone that does not agree with you perfectly, how the fuck does that help us? It does nothing useful, it protects no one, it even enables the "bullies" energizes them to double and triple down, you might as well have voted trump.

    Nope, I'm a democrat, I volunteer for the DFL, I am an elected director of my congressional district, and you can call me a liar all you want, you can ask me to stop all you want, I will repeat my self, and remind you as well how you helped give us President Trump.
     

Share This Page