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

#flaccid | #rubberchicken​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Incongruously irrelevant: Click for chicken.​

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out the bit about—

—how form is irrelevant in the face of arbitrary and uninformed opinion.

Why did the chicken cross the road? Maybe the punch line will render it a particularly odious example of the joke, so that we think it's not funny. But that doesn't mean it wasn't styled after the joke.

And that's where our neighbor, the wannabe provocateur, runs awry yet again. His apparent dearth of comprehension about liberal and leftist argument is easy enough to pick out, but so also is his comfort and fluency in the language of certain antisocial factions of the political right. In this case, he has managed to pick a route requiring reality reformulate itself for the benefit of his ill-crafted presuppository presuppositional special need.

Saying, "'Satire' it was not", is a bit like trying to disqualify The Aristocrats from comedy because the sketch offends someone's moral presupposition. Historically, bad writing and execution are the only real disqualifying criteria for an Aristocrats sketch, though that bit where we suck air through our teeth and ask, "Too soon?" is generally worth accounting for on the front side; oh, right—writing. Such cases are disqualified from being funny; that one attempted the form of the Aristocrats sketch, however, does not change.

I mean, if I could blow, "Why did the chicken cross the road"?

Okay, I can.

Still swallow, though.

See? I just blew the chicken crossing the road.

Two rules of thumb: Never tell him where you don't want it, because that is where it will accidentally end up. For reasons that ought to be obvious, never ask my opinion or other thoughts about self-aware, recursive humor. Just remember Bob, Cape Feare, and thirteen rakes. Which has nothing to do with fellatio humor, and is not necessarily self-aware or recursive in its context. Excess, however is its own discussion.

I'm sorry, what was I on about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So your saying men don't have responsibilities towards others?

If this theory is true then we would see male suicide be lower than female suicide say 100 years ago, and we would see traditional/patriarchal societies today with such inverted ratios.

Tiassa,

The author said it was not satire, your sophistry and babbling can't change that fact. Sort of like how you can change the fact that you choose poorly in the democratic primary and helped us lose everything to the likes of trump, the republicans, and tea party, alt-right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Striking is the idea the author puts forward, that white males ARE superior to people of color and women. That's the conclusion I would find if I took it seriously. If the only remedy to their inferiority complex is to hamstring a specific race of males, then her opinion of those she supposedly champions is pretty low. Would that be considered "soft bigotry"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

funny. how are they being 'hamstrung'? what is the problem? they aren't the only star of the show anymore? more women dating outside their race including white? besides that, what is the big problemo?

if this is a reason for higher suicide rates, that's pretty shallow.

 

Aaah no suicide is a whole other topic, the article is about stripping white males of a right to vote and a right to be an elected politician.

 

There is more than one reason for suicides. People can commit suicide because they lost a loved one or because they lost their job or because they blew all their savings in vegas etc.

as for specifically alluding to white male entitlement, i really doubt that any sense of some loss in that department from those still of the old school mentality would be the sole reason for someone offing themselves because that would be a bit crazy/bizarre. i would think it would be other issues or pressures as the main cause.

 

okay, my mistake as i started from michael's post.

 

and yet you won't post a link to that. I think your lying. please show where the author says its not satire.

 

He's undertaking a deliberate contextual shift.

And it's not exactly new to pretend to make a serious point through parody of satirical form; it's just one too many dots for our neighbor to connect ... follow ... count ... notice ... whatever.

 

and there's always the asshole who doesn't get it that ruins it for everybody. hell people thought swift was serious too.

 

And you went along with Russia as they tried to defeat Clinton by throwing their support behind an unelectable democrat. Congratulations; you got what Russia wanted - Trump. You must feel a sense of accomplishment as you read the headlines about President Trump's latest actions.

 

actually russias action went the other way. they pretended to be pro clinton people attacking bernie supporters to make it more likely they wouldn't vote for her in the general. sanders was by no means unelectable and in polling against trump consistently polled better than clinton.

 

I post the authors reply already, once again here:
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

They way say such a thing as "but overall, a group that was used to more entitlement may have a more difficult time using new coping mechanisms as well as identity."?

are you saying Russia supported Bernie?

 

Russia attacked Clinton, not Sanders. Their bots posted anti-Hillary messages; they were worried she would win. Fortunately for them, people like ElectricFetus bought into the memes and helped Trump secure his victory.
==============================
Major Bernie Sanders backers suspect Russians flooded their social sites with anti-Hillary memes

Sarah K. Burris
13 Mar 2017 at 11:35 ET
Professional presidential campaign staff for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) confirmed to the Huffington Post that Russian trolls were responsible for pushing out anti-Hillary Clinton memes and social media content.

The series of interviews revealed large Facebook groups supporting Sanders were inundated with content from people with no ties to the regions in which the pages were located. Former reporter John Mattes explained that his San Diego page became overwhelmed with anti-Clinton memes with messages he’d never heard coming out of the Sanders campaign. Instead, they were memes alleging Clinton used body doubles and murdered political opponents.

He initially suspected the posts were coming from anti-Clinton sites run by 1990s Clinton opponents, but he quickly found out that domain names were registered in Macedonia and Albania. Websites like WorldPoliticus.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co and USADailyPolitics.com are just a few of the sites that trafficked in fake news against Clinton. By the end of October he traced at least 40 percent of the domain registrations of the fake news sites on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Some others were based in Panama and the U.S. or untraceable.
=====================

 

Had we elected Bernie in the primary, Trump would not have won. It is not my fault you choose to back an unelectabe candidate, with 2 FBI investigation ans decades of baggage, the Russians could not a had a successful cyberwar against a clean candidate like bernie.

 

actually from reading that it basically confirms its satire just with a different target and concept. also reconfirms you don't know what the fuck satire is.

 

fine your dicks the biggest could you just shut the fuck up already your fucking egocentric primadonna

 

It's striking how much of the rightwing media's "reasoning" and contention involves treating hypothetical consequences of alternative reality events as evidence equivalent to observed consequences of what did happen.

There may be a connection in that with the inability to register satire (twinned with the famous blindness to irony, long noted as a field mark of the Republican voter), the whole freed by amnesia.

 

And that is sophistry. Your "satire just with a different target and concept" is duping an editor of a prominent news journals to admitting she wants to strip human rights from a demographic and publishing intentionally hateful vile tripe.

https://archive.fo/EPJRM#selection-1737.731-1737.868

No, for ever day we have trump as president I will remind every Hillary primary voter how they fucked us.

 

One point not talked about, in terms of the Russian hacking of the DNC is the Democrats never denied any of the content that was released. This content shows a lot of scamming, scheming and cheating going on, that was made known, but never denied. For example, the fix was in against Bernie, and the media help Hillary cheat on her debates with Trump by giving her the answers to the test. None of this cheating was supposed to be made known. It was not denied. Once this cheating was known, many people realized the Democrats and Hillary was not the type of people one would want in power, since they are scammers and con artists.

The liberal media fixation on the Russian hack is a distraction away from look to closely at the content and the implications of the content that was released. This is on top of Hillary's private server, which was about as easy to hack, as the DNC server. Half the server content had to be purged to prevent anyone knowing what the Russian may know based on hacking Hillary due to her scheming negligence.

Another thing not mentioned are the dealings between the Clintons; Bill and Hillary, and Russia. These is far more tangible proof of these dealings than the fishing accusations against Trump. Hillary and Obama sold Russia enriched uranium, while and Bill Clinton gave one o his expensive talks to Russia, with a double fee. Why the double fee? The Trump and Russia scam is there to help everyone take their eye off the real ball.

The scam works like the situation of two siblings, where one sibling breaks the mothers antique vase, and then blames his brother, to his mother, before the mother discovers the broken vase on her own. Since there are no witnesses, if the first bother starts and keeps up the blame game, the other brother will take the hit. The accused brother has to figure how to extricate himself from the scam, with all his truthful pleas, being presented as lies and proof of guilt by the guilty brother.

A more likely Russian scenario, not discussed, is Hillary and Bill made friends with Putin, with Putin even paying Bill to give a talk, where he was treated as a VIP. They all know that US homeland security monitors the activity of any foreign nationals within the USA. They conceived a plan to allow the Obama White House, to routine monitor the Russian Ambassador, who was instructed to entrap Trump and/or his associates with leading questions. Trump did not bite.

The need for this scam was to create leverage over Trump, so if Trump lost, he would not continue to pursue the put Hillary in jail mantra. Trump may have been perceived as a sore loser, so they needed leverage over Trump, which the Russians and Obama helped to provide by making use of intelligence protocol and insider leaking.

Trump, like the falsely accused sibling, pushed back by mentioning the wire tapping of Trump Tower, which then exposed Rice from the Obama Administration.The Democrats had to regroup and the fever pitch of the propaganda media was throttled down. The Democrats never expected to lose to Trump. They expect to they could buried all their treachery once in power. But now there are many loose ends ,that need a distraction long enough to be tied from a position of far less power.