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

Behold an honest journalist:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(The Thinkery is by the same person as linked above)

Democrat Senate Candidate Wants More White Male Suicides

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is why I don't listen to Sargon (other than his interviews), here is what the Maine Democrats said:

“For the past month, the Maine Democratic Party held public forums all over the state of Maine inviting anyone interested to come and share their thoughts on the direction of the state party. Richard Fochtmann spoke as a private citizen at a public forum and unfortunately, he used his 2 minutes at the mic to make his point with an offensive joke. Another attendee promptly stood up and called the comment out as inappropriate. During that same forum Fochtmann stood up and apologized to the group. This video has been selectively edited without the call-out or ensuing apology, and Fochtmann has been mischaracterized as a ‘featured speaker’ or ‘Democratic leader’ in order to fabricate a controversy. In truth, Fochtmann spoke only for himself.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/14/m...-rates-among-white-males-video/#ixzz4eTIwMcxq

But yes speakers like that only add to the problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

#cowardice | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for old news.​

(A) Your unverified boasts aren't really worth anything; your Republican and conservative advocacy is on record.

(B) Your thesis isn't even a thesis; it's petulance that you cannot coherently explain.

(C) You're doing a precisely terrible job of convincing us you don't care what I think.

†​

Here's an example for you: In January, James R↗ offered up an article you might have some interest in, an opinion piece by a young actress claiming her mantle of feminism by telling women to stop making men uncomfortable.

Now, I certainly had my say↗:

I mean, all I'm getting at is there seems to be something of a spiral down the rabbit hole, and much like the dictatorship of the proletariat, I've never met an advocate who can dig back out. And much like those revolutionaries, neither do these advocates necessarily care to dig out; they often think they're doing just fine as it is. Which brings us back 'round the swirly: By all means, we might suggest, address the problem of being talked down to. But couch your address in a manner that doesn't demean. Because, you know, everybody knows the phrase "talk down to" has negative connotation. It seems worth wondering how long and bland except for being ridiculed as incomprehensible and therefore useless a perfectly accurate phrasing must be in order to escape the vortex of meaninglessness.

But isn't this always the problem? How to address problematic circumstances when addressing such circumstances inherently offends? Over and over, it keeps coming up in history. As a setup, sure, Weller is hardly new; neither, though, is her lack of a punch line what we might call innovative. It's one thing to take the advice, but in the end what does that even mean?​

Or as Iceaura↗ put it, "the men of good faith (the only ones you can hope to reach) aren't hearing 'intellectually superior nastiness' unless it's there".

Or Magical Realist↗: "How can one hope to treat all people fairly without being able to name the culturally-ingrained bad habits that make that impossible?"

And that's just the men.

Though James R↗ has his counterpoint, but in a way that comes back to Iceaura's point, as well as MR's: #NotAllMen is a reaction to a post hoc interpretation derived from vested interest. As James R↗ further explains:

Denby Weller's point, if I understand it correctly, is that using the word "mansplaining" tends to cause collateral damage, in that it not only labels the behaviour of the particular man as inappropriate (which it is), but also implies that this is a trait that is common to men in general (which it may or may not be).​

And therein we see the problem.

This is something we've all seen before: It's people throwing in with like cause for bad reasons. A joke that keeps coming up in drafts of blog and board posts has to do with looking at a friend and saying, to his face, "I actually never knew you believed gay sex caused hurricanes." No, really, it's a weird phenomenon by which a prominent Christian advocate, such as John Hagee or Rick Santorum or Pat Robertson, would say something insanely bigoted, and people would react, denouncing the crazy bigotry, and then someone near you would just lose it in a self-righteous tantrum. See, they really, really want to be good people, but they don't like what it takes, so they would finally admit it by attacking: "I'm not a bigot! I tried to stand up for your civil rights! But if you're going to force me to defend myself by attacking all Christians everywhere as bigots, I have to oppose you! You forced me to oppose gay rights, you bigot!"

See, we've heard it for years. And in those moments it just doesn't help to come right out and say it. You know: "I didn't realize you believed gay sex causes hurricanes" (Hagee); or, "... that the two chicks eating each other out in that video you were watching the other day were just like a man raping a dog" (Santorum; also, "raping a corpse", per Mabon, Ramsdell, Lively, and any number of others; or raping a child, according to Judge William Pryor of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, though at the time he was merely a state attorney general filing on behalf of Alabama and, like, four other states); or, um ... y'know ... "I didn't know you believed gay people were going to attack you, take you prisoner, and force you to have anal sex with dogs, and force you to like it. How often do you worry about this?" because apparently 700 Club has a massive closet cult following.

And it's true, I just don't believe those folks are really that stupid.

Mansplaining has a fairly specific definition. All "Denby Weller" is asking is exactly what you're asking: Allow the bigots to define what the people they hate and denigrate think. Or as I put it, then:

Let me both reiterate and then try anew:

• By all means, we might suggest, address the problem of being talked down to. But couch your address in a manner that doesn't demean. Because, you know, everybody knows the phrase "talk down to" has negative connotation.

(Okay, so ....)​

• By all means, we might suggest, address the problem of how one talks to you. But couch your address in a manner that doesn't demean. But, you know, what does that mean, "problem"? Implying someone's behavior is problematic can be construed as demeaning.

(Okay, so ....)​

• By all means, we might suggest, address how one talks to you. But couch your address in a manner that doesn't demean A'ight, so ... tell me, sweetheart, what's all this 'bout how I talk to you? Why are you talking about how I talk to you?​

How to address problematic circumstances when addressing such circumstances inherently offends? I've even tried conceding this might be a point of confusion―

• After all, I'm responding in a context―i.e., American liberal―including the market viable assertion that the mere fact of complaint is often denounced as inherently demeaning. That is to say, that some people advocate disparate impact outcomes we might otherwise describe with some unpleasant term ending with -ist doesn't mean it's fair to use those words, or even propose disparate impact. To some degree, the counterpoint is that things are the way they are because that's just the way it goes, and within that framework it is rude to even suggest there is something awry. Perhaps it's a particularly American thing ....​

―but the radio silence on these considerations leaves me uncertain where to go next.​

Or, as the boys go 'round about it all, we can also check in with a woman:

"Speak a language that they can bear to listen to" because otherwise, they will not hear a word we say? Wow.. So what language do women speak that men will listen to? It's telling women that we have to mind our place, and our position, be complaint and hope like hell that our meek and polite words are noticed by the men around us. It tells us to not be aggressive in defending our rights, but to be ladylike, behave and use words that men identify with women. Worst of all, it says that mansplaining and the issues surrounding it (such as in the workplace, for example) is not a real battle for feminists. Mansplaining in the workplace is exceptionally detrimental and demeaning to women in their places of employment.

Mansplaining is part of a pattern of behaviour, it is but one fragment, but it feeds attitudes towards women that feeds the sexism and bigotry. Telling women that we should only be speaking in a language that men can "bear to listen to", because any other words or language that does not fit into the little box that women apparently belong to in regards to how we speak will simply be ignored and not heard, because men cannot "bear to listen" to what we say if we step outside that box. I should not have to explain just how demeaning that is in and of itself.

In those two sentences, Denby Weller is basically telling women to be compliant and hope men can "bear to listen" to us. The rest of the article is basically mansplaining.

(Bells↱)​

―End Part I―​

 

Part the Second

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click to break down doors.​

I won't razz James for deciding to leave the apologetics to Weller↗; it is, actually, the wisdom of recognizing that there is more to the argument he posted than ... er ... something.

But this leaves us a ripe opportunity with apparent low-hanging fruit.

This is easy, right?

Can you solve the problem?

Because it is a complex problem. It's true I don't have a lot of sympathy for the suprmacist in such moments, but we all know that eventually a bully will cry, and this latest American cry for help is extraordinarily dangerous, almost allegorical to the escalations 'twixt a bottle of pills once upon a time and seeing how many one can kill before the cops take him down.

But here is the thing: There is no discussion about settling bigotry and supremacism in society that will not alienate the bigots and supremacists. And this is why your thesis isn't even a thesis. This is what you can't coherently explain. How does giving aid and comfort to supremacist bigotry actually abate supremacism and its deleterious effects?

In your advocacy for bullies and bigots and supremacists you have failed to address this issue. Don't get me wrong, that's part of my point: You have failed to address the issue because there is no answer yet known that will support what you want.

None of us can read James' mind, and no, he's not slippng me secret notes in the Lounge; we don't get along that way. Still, there is a reason he stopped where he did; having put an issue out and met two prongs of strikingly consistent retort, perhaps he did not see a pathway through the discussion that would support what he put out but not oblige him to some perceived marker of irrationality. I wholly confess I would not wish to try to make the argument from the moment he found himself in. To the other, we have an illustration of what you seem to be arguing, to the one, and its functional problem, to the other.

Look, dude, it's one thing to say stupid things, but you can't back them up.

And here is an opportunity to do so.

Or else you can just keep reminding people you haven't a clue.

You want to remind "how [I/we] helped give [you] President Trump"? Very well. Illustrate your point.

I'll tell you directly, I don't think you can. Specifically, I don't think you can make a proper liberal argument for coddling supremacism and bigotry. So here's an obvious chance: After a few months, the discussion of how to not make "men" uncomfortable according to a reactionary redefinition intended discomfit men has yet to move past its last known benchmark:

As Bells put it:

Most importantly, Weller's ideal is to not hurt feelings, to remain somewhat meek, in our place, try and make our voices heard using language that won't offend men by using the 'not all men' argument.

For example:

If you want people to change, you have to speak a language they can bear to listen to before you have any hope at all of them hearing a single word you say.​

​

Or, as I asked at the time, among my two bits:

• What if the only way to address a problematic subject without offending someone is to pretend the subject isn't problematic? This is the part nobody ever explains

• So how do we discuss the problems racism causes if invoking racism is alienating and thereby disqualifying? How do we address any problem if the implication that it is a problem is itself considered alienating and thereby disqualifying?

• How do women discuss the problems misogyny causes if implying there is a problem is perceived as demeaning and thereby disqualifying?

• How does society discuss sexism if the proposition that sexism needs discussing is perceived as demeaning and thereby disqualifying? Even calling it sexism can be problematic.​

Neither can you answer. So ask yourself what's important, because if you can prove me wrong on this, you'll also be genuinely advancing the discussion at a very important intersection perpetually gridlocked by the objectors' inability to describe the resolution of their own objection.

It's pretty much as good a test example as your Republican sympathies↗ might find; sorry you missed it the first time.

Right now the standing prescription is to silence the objectors in order to empower the supremacists and bullies. But you want to pretend to be some sort of Democrat or liberal, so ... you know ... I'm pretty much telling you how you can win the argument. And can you sell that pitch to Democrats and liberals? Can you finish Denby Weller's pitch for her?
____________________

Notes:

Weller, Denby. "Ban 'mansplain' from the feminist vocabulary". The Sydney Morning Herald. 31 December 2016. SMH.com.au. 16 April 2017. http://bit.ly/2iBqVDb

―Fin―​

 

Nonsense. You are parroting the wingnut thesis as heard on Limbaugh, Fox, Breitbart, et al. The Trump voters were getting their worldview, their perceptions, from those sources. It wasn't a "backlash", it was a lash, self generated - and it's been building since Nixon.

So take on the people who are getting the bigots out in force for the very opposite.

Russ Feingold got beat, in Wisconsin. Just sayin'.

If I recall, you went around listening to people while sitting in their homes thinking they were stupid. I'm sure that helped. I'm sure they didn't notice - being stupid, right?

Then you blamed people who were not involved or present for the lies the people you thought were stupid were listening to on their TV and radio. The liars on the radio told people what "liberals" were like, these people repeated that to you, and you parrot it here. You even parrot the vocabulary - lefties are "screaming" things at people, for example. (It's you with the exclamation points in your posting here - - did you notice?).

Now you want everybody to treat the Trump voter like a child, and manipulate them by carefully pandering to their insecurities and delusions of ignorance, so they can be guided and conned into voting in their own interests. And you intend to do this without any influence on the media they get all their news and opinion from.

And you recommend all this from a "left" perspective, when you can't make a single leftwing argument for anything, you don't know what the left is saying or doing, and you keep repeating rightwing agitprop stuff right down to the latest vocabulary focus on Hannity.

 

So the plot thickens
http://archive.is/KMCDK

"After the piece went viral on social media due to coverage from right-leaning Twitter and Facebook personalities like Milo Yiannopoulos, HuffPostSA editor Verashni Pillay wrote an article (archived post) defending its publication. She highlighted examples of complaints sent to the website, and blamed readers for having a poor understanding of the “pretty standard feminist theory” Shelley used. Pillay has since deleted the defense. Then, following the extensive backlash, Huffington Post deleted the article, replacing it with a meek apology and a claim that they were unable to confirm that Shelley Garland was a real person. They even had to hilariously clarify that they are in favor of universal voting enfranchisement."

So apparently it was all a sting designed to demonstrate what quality of article Huffington post would publish. MISSION SUCCESSFUL!

"Further documentation from “Shelley” elaborates on how she conducted the ruse armed with a heavily photoshopped image taken from the Internet and phrases employed by the “less sensible left.” The hoaxster says that her editors at Huffington Post did not correct any of the false claims, factual errors and logical fallacies she purposely embedded in the piece, and accepted it without question."

Also apparently the article may have violated South African press code: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/she...e-to-deny-white-men-the-franchise_a_22036640/

Here is the authors claims for writing this:
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp1.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp2.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp3.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp4.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp5.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp6.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp7.jpg?w=750
http://i2.wp.com/cliffcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/resp8.jpg?w=750

 

Wow, so you mean the critique against a badly-writ modest proposal was correct, and the bawling, ignorant right-wing panic wasn't?

Imagine that.

 

I suppose had a right leaning publication offered up the same article with the exception of pointing at people of color as the target for denial of rights and wealth, there would be no complaints from the Left. I mean, it's just satire, right?

 

that wouldn't be satire that be bigotry. satire should always punch up or at the very least not punch down.

 

#ignorance | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click if you might as well get drunk.​

You don't comprehend the modest proposal, either, do you?

It's one of those weird things that results in people thinking they're pioneering a whole new world of philosophy when they're simply part of the fandom rediscovering The Cave. It's true, our society does not afford a well-rounded education and never really sought such outcomes in establishing its educational standards.

My old joke has to do with literature: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... oh, come on, Charlie, that's bullshit—it can't be both! LOL!

One of the differences, between, say, my father and some of his fellow Republicans from once upon a time (i.e., Reagan era) is partly the classic line, that he never left the Party but, rather, it left him. Essentially it happened that a number of things about Life Itself failed to follow his plans, and he didn't forget his lessons. While it's true he said some insane things before he finally fell away from such untenable and insupportable politics, he had a stubborn pride. And unlike so many of his cohort—although, to be fair, also like many others of his cohort—he simply could not abandon the actual structures upon which he built his justifications.

Nor am I surprised that he abhors the current know-nothing voguary. Despite his cynicism about people, part of the reason he still holds any of the familiar free-market, libertarian principles of his time as a Republican is a stubborn hope that he's wrong, that people aren't really so full of shit.

If I suggest to him that people are now pretending to forget A Modest Proposal, then I will see a familiar cynical disgust. He gets it, but feels like he just can't believe it's true. But he knows it's true. The last twenty-some years have reiterated certain points to him over and over again; and he lives, now, in the rural havoc of white despair—which was one more lesson. People really are the same in that way. You know, people say that bit from time to time about how if [supremacist population A] was reduced to the living conditions of [subject population B], then the one would act just like the other, which in turn is what the one complains about?

The low population density is a blessing, in this case. He is finally seeing a certain white supremacist complaint coming true, yet remembers enough of his psychology and sociology to comprehend the conundrum leaving everyone so confused. There are legitimate questions of what elements of this despair were put in place by the population's own ideological history, but at the same time it really is staggering to conceive that white men might finally have achieved that Munchausenish sounding complaint of being an endangered minority: They still have prevailing political power.

Still, though, my father happens to live in the middle of a rural white wasteland. And what he sees is a bunch of people, including those his age, who cannot seem to describe history in any manner that makes sense to him. He considers it near to delusion. That's the thing; I'm pretty sure I know a bit of what he's describing. When I make chortling jokes about the boys of the Porky's generation not remembering, as men, that girls or sex or anything like that was particularly important to them, yeah, he laughs, too. And that's the thing: These men really do believe it.

And it's not an age thing. I still know men my father's age who still do the bit about not trusting the men in their daughters' lives—because the daughter now has a daughter that those men could exploit—and apparently based on some version of remembering how horny and gross and weird one was in their own younger years. Honestly, I think it's a neurotic thing. But that's a cyclopean question mark when it comes to morbidity and mortality among white males in the U.S.; the inquiry inherently suggests a massive self-infliction over the course of generations, which would be one of the most breathtaking collective behaviors ever witnessed. Honestly, it isn't all just anti-union and pro-private industry health policies that brought the "white working class" to such notorious trendsetting influence. Or the racism and sexism. It would be an incalculable proposition as far as documenting etiology, pathology, and the differences between genuine and similar behaviors.

But there is also, in that, an aspect of feeling left behind. Okay, so I am going to accept, for the sake of argument, that Americans, generally, have no idea what the modest proposal is, and thus no clue how it works. Alright, why? That is, we are the United States of America. Why are we damn near illiterate compared to our English-speaking, industrialized neighbors?

Truth is, we're not. Certes, we could be doing better for our own sake, regardless of what anyone else is accomplishing. But that's the thing: When one's answer is, whether real or pretentious, over and over again, to claim or accept their own ignorance, yes, they will start feeling left behind. When the answer is that no, you can't have what you want because these issues you apparently have not understood or cannot understand or something like that, essentially, you can't have what you want while being reminded of your own ignorance, people will eventually start to resent the feeling.

Funny how that works. It's almost like welcoming white men to the club, as such, except it's not. Much of what the minorities were apparently ignorant of turned out to be pretentious bullshit about skin color, evolution, men and women, God's will, and so on. But an ideology and identity accustomed to getting its way starts finding itself rejected over and over again because, apparently, everyone else knows better, will eventually get upset. And, yeah, they feel left behind because they didn't keep up with a bunch of stuff. Which is why science and enlightenment are seen as elitist compared to some perceived natural order obliging them to unfortunate superstition. Like 2012. It probably did not feel good, for the anti-abortion crowd, to hear itself so roundly mocked, but that's why the Willke Lie is not supposed to be spoken in public; it is intended for discourse within the cohort. Still, though, if one happens to be among those offended because the public and even the politicians are openly rejecting this sincerely held belief, it's one of those times when they did it to themselves. It's like feeling offended because scientists won't teach religion as science. If one is among those offended because others say religion isn't science, they did it to themselves.

And this? Look, conservatives have, as a general proposition, rejected liberal arts at least during the period of my lifetime. The argument expects history malleable, philosophy useless, and psychology utterly fake. Then again, conservatism has become a philosophical proposition presenting fake history not even properly mythopoeia as absolute, in order to exploit psychological principles in hopes of manipulating—swindling—other people. To some degree, conservatism always was lying, absolutist, and manipulative; that's just part of what it takes to keep fallacious constructions for influential societal structures.

All that is to say we probably should not overlook the fact of how much of the flaming conservative diva reaction stems from the actual ignorance of having no idea what anyone is discussing.

 

No I mean the critique against how awful our media is stands as proven, and that the "modest propsal"-"satire" it was not. It literally was not a satire but intentional vile tripe, and your attempts to keep calling it as such is proof to your need to protect and make excuses for your social justice authoritarianism.

I love the idea of punching up, as long as someone is of a privileged demographic it is ok at strip them of any right, you know, like us jews, we rule the world don't you know? Either we can joke about everyone or joke about no one.

 

Sorry, that made me chuckle. How does this work, exactly? If you are deluded into thinking that you are ignorant does that mean you are actually well informed?

(Seriously, nothing to do with the topic - just found this turn of phrase amusing : )

 

Why don't you just put on your big girl/boy pants and admit that you didn't recognize satire when you saw it? (Poe's law, ya know)

While you're at it, suck up and tell us that you never heard of Jonathon Swift. It'll be OK...

 

In that case, it wouldn't be satire.

 

just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its not satire. there is a long history of people throwing temper tantrums like you are because they didn't understand satire. the piece while a rather poor attempt was a rather clear attempt at satire. and you putting satire in quotes shows that despite your attempts to act like your some how intellectually superior to others your just a member of the ignorant masses.

https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html read it than quit your bitching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire this should also help your piss poor understanding

 

We probably should not overlook the fact of how much of the flaming conservative diva reaction stems from the actual ignorance of having no idea what anyone is discussing.

 

You might have a point there. Perhaps this could be used as a new litmus test: "Do you grasp the concept of satire?" - "No?" - right lane please.

Just sayin'...

 

this is what he meant. this is why he prefaced it with needing more women and milennials. since, he is a white male himself, it would seem he is one that does not have a self-centered view of male patriarchy or specifically white male dominance.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36116166

It's pretty much common sense why suicide rates have increased. there are more easier access to guns, drugs etc as well as addiction is a bigger plague in society today. also, the highest rate seems to be 40ish among white males. that is around the time getting closer to retirement, finding purpose and midlife crisis would be more in effect etc and as always those who have a harder time financially will be at greater risk so usually people struggling with bills and poverty would be more apt first. it is also a time when physically more health problems and pains/aches start to show etc. many people will be alone at this age too because of divorce as well as children are grown and left the nest. the breakdown of family and people living more independent lives is also a contributor as there is less accountability to others.

i don't think it's because people were more happier before but when you have more responsibility to others, you may be less inclined to commit suicide.

but overall, a group that was used to more entitlement may have a more difficult time using new coping mechanisms as well as identity.

 

What's wrong with being authoritarian? It got Trump elected.