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

The issue here is why anyone believes that happened - we know who was marketing that bs, and we know who bought it, but we don't really know why.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

-emphasis mine

Oooh, let me! You mean like this?

In a statement issued on Friday, conspiracy website founder Alex Jones has requested that the press treat his ongoing child custody battle with his ex-wife in a “respectful and responsible” manner.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/ale...esponsible-in-coverage-of-his-custody-battle/
​

Seriously? JC on a stick...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So more news on this

April 20: Huffington post make a article outing the author in scornful vengence, author resigns from his job "South Africa’s Centre for Development and Enterprise"
* Author distances himself from alt-right: “I’m not part of the alt-right and I don’t like Milo (Yiannopoulos) and I don’t believe there’s a white genocide in South Africa, and I’m certainly not a racist,” he said. “I don’t believe white men are under attack.”
* "Curiously, the Huffington Post’s exposé of Roodt delved deep into his entire history as a person, including his educational credentials, work records, personal hobbies (he likes Star Trek), and online activities. Hell hath no fury like a journalist scorned."
* the word satire is never used

April 23: South Africa chief editor of Huffington Post resigns.
* "The CEO of Media24, which operates HuffPost in South Africa, issued a statement calling the article’s publication “hugely damaging” to their reputation."
* "Responsible journalism is at the heart of what we do; it’s the currency we trade in,” said Media24 CEO Esmaré Weideman. “In an era of fake news, I know only too well that our editors spend an inordinate amount of time checking the veracity of information before they publish. When our systems fail, we’re not just alarmed; we’re outraged. This is a sad day for journalism."
* South African press ombudsman Johan Retief found that the controversial blog post was both discriminatory and constituted hate speech.
* “Let me be painfully clear about this: If it is Pillay’s belief that the gist of Garland’s article is correct, she is free to believe that and pursue her view – but then she must know that this is not possible within the confines of the code,” declared the ombudsman.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but is says this:

You fucking moron.

And what happened to not giving two fucks about the word "satire"? Do try to be "reassemble."

 

I suspect that most aren't as prone to inappropriate, uncontrollable laughter--or laughing seizures, for that matter--as I am, but post #116 <<< is comedy gold. It's like the Tobias Fuenke's greatest hits from Arrested Development and Roland Schitt's from Schitt's Creek rolled into one. There's no one single moment, you just gotta take the whole thing in.

Edit: Re: Tobias and Roland: stylistically and content -wise, that is.

 

First of all, learn some words.

Now, on to making sense of this. I would ask you to clarify, but... you are incapable. So, assuming you are not simply stating the obvious here, you are either referring to Donna Haraway or this random editor for HuffPo South Africa. If the former: which part of "someone like (as in "someone like Donna Haraway") do you not understand? No one--other than you, perhaps--is suggesting that any one person is the, erm, "zeitgeist" of the modern feminist movement. If the latter: what the hell does that even mean?

Or maybe you were just stating the obvious, for absolutely no apparent reason.

The editor said no such thing. What she said is this:

https://archive.fo/EPJRM#selection-1737.0-1737.228

You do understand that "analysis" and "proposal" are not synonymous, yes?

I was expecting Camille Paglia; though, unlike Sommers, Paglia has demonstrated literacy. So, not surprised.

 

Its you people that think the word "satire" is important, calling this a satire or affair or a dingleberry changes nothing, it is still embarrassing for the left.

Zeitgeist, as the mood or direction, the general ideology of a movement at any one time, it changes with time with what ever new ideas become popular and what ever old ides die out, who becomes figure heads and who is excommunicated.

As for people that represent the zeitgeist, that up to who gets in the news, by incidences, my mistake "satire", like this, which looks bad upon feminism and liberals in general.

For the present zeitgiest of feminism, at least the feminism most seen by everyone, it is not pretty, generally this mood can be expressed as "man hatred" and an obscene not only first world problem but bourgeoisie of first world women complaining about problems that are meaninglessly trivial to the lower classes. You can whine all you want about how this could have become the apparent zeitgiest of the movement, none the less it is an image problem exasperated by events like this.

This is semantic sophistry by you to get out of accepting the now jobless editor had no significant qualms about the proposal.

As for the uneven distribution of power argument, same argument can and has been used for Jews. And is a fundamental flaw of modern feminism.

Well slander her all you want, what is your point? Is it that she is not part of the zeitgiest of the modern feminism movement?

 

So much for expecting you to start making sense.

Also, your definition of zeitgeist is adequate, but your usage is clumsy and even nonsensical (or perhaps, "nonreassemblance"), i.e., when you describe a person as "not the zeitgeist." And you should probably just drop "sophistry" altogether.

As for this:

Provide some evidence--preferably from the 21st century--of this "man hating" feminism, and some indication as to it's impact or significance.

 

Then why do you keep bringing it up? In three separate threads now.

For fuck's sake--familiarize yourself with terms before using them. This is ridiculous.

I don't give a shit about the idiotic editor. I just have little patience with you repeatedly making false claims and distortions. Do you seriously not understand the vast difference between consideration of an analysis and accepting a proposal?!

Are you saying that you do not believe that there is an uneven distribution of power? Seriously?

Again.

 

OK, so there's nothing actually wrong with the left then.

 

Then you are garbage to me, and we don't want you in our party.

 

This present event doesn't count? Can I pull comments from tumblr and facebook? Considering the low and fallen percentage of people that call themselves feminist how can you deny feminism has a huge image problem?

To demonstrate how useless the word is. You people seem to think everyone will see this as "satire" and not a real opinion of the left, quite the opposite is and has been happening, hence the cultural backlash that helped trump win.

To turn things around on you: Many of the alt-right say the jews control the world is just "satire", does that make you think better of the alt-right?

Not at all, of course there is uneven distribution of power, the problem is what do you want done about it? I say tax the rich, a stance even many republicans can get behind, your solution is what? Disenfranchise white men? Gas the jews? What? When the left spend there time whining about problems and presenting no solutions or worse "satirical" solutions what do you think the general population infers of the left then?

Trump has one thing going for him and that is he speak at a 4th grade level (probably because his intellect does not exceed that) He states problems in very simple words
1. America is hurting, no good jobs, lots of debt, so much debt, unbelievable debt, totally unbelievable.
Then he blames a scapegoat:
2. Illegal Mexican rapist, some of which are good people, but lets be honest mexico is not sending their best, not sending their best, are taking your jobs, just stealing them.
Then he presents a solution, no matter how idiotic and useless of a solution it is, and he can condense it into a 3-4 word slogans:
4. Build a Wall. Make America Great Again.

What do we got going for us? The patriarchy is harming women? Transgender bathrooms? America is already great? Bernie had it figured out:
1. The middle class is stagnating, yet the rich have gotten only richer,
2. the millionaires and billionaires have rigged the system
3. We need to tax the rich to finance free healthcare, free education and debt relief
That was his primary position and this elderly, hunchbacked, independent, jew, skyrocketed to nearly taking over the democratic party on that. But alas we needed to to vote for Hillary because we need a women in the white house.

And now we got nothing like that, not even a shriveled old man, just a pig boar.

To late as I'm in the party. Is it possible for you to understand how toxic feminism has become? The words "sexist" and "misogynist" have become so over used that they were useless on a pig boar running for president that openly proclaims he can grope women without consent and with impunity.

Considering trump is president and the republicans control everything, no, no there is a lot wrong. Sacking one editor after the fact is merely damage control.

 

Nope. This is a right wing attack on feminism itself.

 

Hey if the right wing say 2+2=4 it does not make it untrue.

We lost, and one reason we lost is the cultural backlash caused by the SJW/regressive left crowed. These people openly rank social issues where the needs of whites and most of all white males are on the bottom, and as a result we lost that demographic (even white women) to such a degree that they got an ignorant narcissistic pig boar elected. Had we instead focused on classicism first, poor verse rich, we would have won.

 

The only embarrassed people around here are embarrassed for you. This isn't rocket science.

I'm trying to imagine a world in which the Republican core voters have become so familiar with such vocabulary from feminists that it no longer registers its meaning - all that endless repetition in the journals, the overwhelming barrage of invective delivered in those lectures from visiting scholars, it just numbed them after a while.

So they voted for Trump.

I'm trying, as I say, but not having much luck. I can handle the planet where the future Trump voter is surrounded by feminists throwing around words like "sexist" and "misogynist" all day long, maybe with consumer alerts projected on the stage wall between pole dancers, stuff like that. But my imagination keeps breaking down at the transition - the part where the word "sexism" has lost its former sting, and so - - - - - for that reason - - - - pussygrabbing becomes ok where it hadn't been before. Like, back when "sexism" really meant something, down at the bar, pussygrabbing was of course despised, but those foolish feminists kept overusing the word - and pretty soon pussygrabbing was just something one expected from Presidents and other real men.

Because if you can't call it "sexist", there's nothing wrong with it?

I can't make that part work. In particular, I'm having trouble making it the fault of the people who call it sexist.

 

Huffington Post South Africa was launched in November of 2016--less than six months ago--so I couldn't find any data on readership; but being as it's HuffPo South Africa, I'd venture the numbers aren't very big, ya? Tumblr and Facebook? You can't be serious.

So I've asked you repeatedly to provide some sort of evidence for your contention that this "man hating" variant of feminism is somehow a prominent strain of modern feminism, and all you've given me is some dumbass editor with poor reading comprehension from Huffington Post South Africa. Try harder. Give me some names. Give some texts. Give me some other kind of media, so long as it isn't some random ranting dumbshit on youtube.

Of course, I'm being generous here with the "prominent," as you seem to suggest that all of modern feminism is characterized by misandry:

Name some alt-righters who claim that their anti-semitism is satirical.

How is that consistent with this:

???

Again, do you understand the difference between analysis and proposal?

 

If the right wing says 2+2 = something other than the left wing says it equals, the smart money would not bet on the right wing's answer.

 

We will lose even further by giving up the things that differentiate ourselves from the cretins.

 

What if the left wing says 2+2=3?

Again would facebook and tumblr count? I'm talking about popular image, that is what the public sees in general.

Oh boy the "not all" fallacy, no I suggest that modern feminism as seen by the general public has been part of ideological trend or "ziegiest" that has been detrimental to leftism, and that this article is a perfect example of denigration of the left, by the left.

Individual feminist may be wonderful people, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (yes I had to look up how to spell her name)... less so Naomi Wolf.

Do trolls I personally talk to count?

I don't see an inconsistency there. We can cite evidence that white males have a disproportionate amount of money and power per their share of the population, we can cite evidence Jews have a disproportionate amount of money and power per their share of the population. Ergo what should be done?

What does that have to do with the premise of my argument?[/QUOTE]

Giving up what exactly? we are still pro-choice, still pro-equal rights, what exactly are we giving up?

 

nobody cares what your anti progressive says. your dealing in strawmen using a neocon snarl word

first that view point is generally held by the right wing most people don't have that view of feminism except the right wing. also Ayann Hirsi Ali is known to be fraud and is akin to an actual regressive leftist rather than the people you use it as a slur against because they want to deal with issues you want to ignore because it won't let white males maintain their privilage. i mean perhaps if you want people to belief your actually a progressive aplauding people who work for neocon think tanks is not the way to do it.

you have an argument? since when is throwing a temper tantrum about something you have repeatedly shown to not understand the full context of an argument.

we are your not.