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

[iceaura]

Gee a Liberal editors is proven to be an idiot and hatemonger, surely can't look bad for other liberals.

I have lots more serious differences with the editorial staff of Huffington Post than their vulnerability to an occasional punking by something that plausibly satirical.

Well, maybe not than the underlying causes of that vulnerability - that the editor didn't put the "author" name in quotes, or make some such indication of alert editing, points to one of my serious issues. But in the article itself - "hatemongering?" Nah. It wasn't nearly as funny or pointed as it could have been, on first reading - but apparently it was only funny and pointed by mistake anyway, which makes it a lot funnier and more pointed in retrospect.

Do you think the author will ever catch on?

 

[parmalee]

A while back I watched an old David Letterman interview with Al Franken, in which Franken described himself as a satirist and Letterman as more of a clown. But there was actually a fair bit of good satire on Letterman, albeit of a very different variety. Letterman was not averse to “punching down” and self-deprecatory comedy and making people feel weirdly uncomfortable were his strengths. Anyways, I actually remember watching the following bit as a kid, unfortunately, I could not find a clip online:

Just as he did with show business, Letterman poked fun at gung-ho patriotic fervor in a way that could be seen as indulging in it as well. In one Viewer Mail sketch, Paul Shaffer responded to a letter from the Department of the Army with a rant against warmongers, saying we should cut funding for the military and use the money to plant flowers and support modern dance. In the middle of this parody of liberal do-gooder protest, Russian soldiers entered and grabbed the band- leader, who converted suddenly, pleading, “Nooo. Army, help me!”

Letterman ended the sketch by explaining that it had been a dramatization to illustrate the need for a strong military, then the screen faded to a clip of a waving flag as the host said, “God Bless America.” The sketch was not right-wing. It made fun of a certain simplistic patriotic view, but it also made an ironic joke rooted in a conservative view of the weakness of liberals.

(excerpt from Jason Zinoman's Letterman: The Last Giant of Late Night here--
http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/letterman-the-last-giant-of-late-night-excerpt.html )

With this “Shelley Garland” piece, were you to ask several people to identify the target I think you would get several different answers. But ultimately the real target of critique/satire here becomes the author. Certainly moreso than the editor. That is way more funny/interesting than the piece itself.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Show me some evidence for this claim.

Read the comments, oh wait you can't, ok read the ones here on this very forum defending this as "satire" of no concern or any importance.

I did read her defense. It was kind of bizarre, nevertheless, her statements re: theory were mostly accurate.

Oh mostly, ok where were they inaccurate?

Taking down feminism? I think you need to remind yourself of some of the things that YOU have said regarding feminism, starting with this thread--http://www.sciforums.com/threads/feminism.134528/page-2

Oh I just figured you would care about modern feminism, I don't, it is garbage to me, and liberals philosophies based around modern feminism is part of the reason why trump won.

And your bizarre claim was followed by equally bizarre justifications in subsequent posts. At one point, you copy-pasta'd a bunch of quotes that were from first-wave feminist texts at least 40 to 50 years old, which I pointed out were not especially relevant in 2013. But at no point did you establish that there is some contemporaneous "outspoken" feminist movement which is all about "getting equality for women but not about getting equality for men."

You say this on a thread about an article asking about taking away the right to vote for men, that a feminist editor took seriously. Should I direct you to articles asking to put special taxes on men, for being male? How about just read Jezebel for a few months?

 

[spidergoat]

Read the comments, oh wait you can't, ok read the ones here on this very forum defending this as "satire" of no concern or any importance.

Yeah, who cares? About white people! All our worst presidents were white.

 

[iceaura]

Oh I just figured you would care about modern feminism, I don't, it is garbage to me, and liberals philosophies based around modern feminism is part of the reason why trump won.

You've bought the whole schtick, apparently - vocabulary and all. And people buying that schtick is an important part of the reason Trump won.

You say this on a thread about an article asking about taking away the right to vote for men, that a feminist editor took seriously.

Somewhere on the planet there is a feminist with no conception of satire - almost as if she were an average Republican, one of the thousands who after two years of Stephen Colbert's sendups still thought they were watching straight presentations of their own point of view.

More than one, actually, would be my bet. I'm sure this is a very important matter. We on the libertarian left have that on file among our other objections to the authoritarian left, for example - no sense of humor, no sense of irony, hazards if provided with power.

Meanwhile, there exists in reality the vote suppression of black women and black men both,

an actual taking away of the "right to vote [for] men" (sic),
not a mistaken perception of a lightweight satirical proposal in an ephemeral blog
but a major and seriously enacted policy of the Republican Party with the cooperation of dozens of State governments
significant enough numerically to have determined the outcome of the last Presidential election.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You've bought the whole schtick, apparently - vocabulary and all. And people buying that schtick is an important part of the reason Trump won.

Oh boy that would explain why I voted for Hillary then?

Somewhere on the planet there is a feminist with no conception of satire - almost as if she were an average Republican, one of the thousands who after two years of Stephen Colbert's sendups still thought they were watching straight presentations of their own point of view.

Pretty sure there are large numbers of feminist that think it is a reassemble to consider disenfranchising white males, just as there are alt-righters that think is is reassemble to disenfranchise Jews. "Satire" is not the problem, actually believing hateful ideologies that justify oppressing others is the problem, of course when caught they may claim they were merely joking, that it was only satire, just as the alt-right claim they are merely trolling about the jews when pressed.

More than one, actually, would be my bet. I'm sure this is a very important matter. We on the libertarian left have that on file among our other objections to the authoritarian left, for example - no sense of humor, no sense of irony, hazards if provided with power.

Yeah so the solution is kill all the authoritarians right?

Meanwhile, there exists in reality the vote suppression of black women and black men both,

The problem with voter suppression is that it is a catch 22, we need enough vote to put liberal democrats in power to improve voter enfranchisement, yet for some reason we can get the votes.

 

[parmalee]

Oh I just figured you would care about modern feminism, I don't, it is garbage to me, and liberals philosophies based around modern feminism is part of the reason why trump won.

Yet first-wave feminism is also "garbage" to you, as you clearly indicate in the linked thread. Is than any sort of feminism which you don't consider garbage?

You say this on a thread about an article asking about taking away the right to vote for men, that a feminist editor took seriously. Should I direct you to articles asking to put special taxes on men, for being male? How about just read Jezebel for a few months?

I assume that you consider people like Dylann Roof to be cause for concern, right? Largely, because there are an awful lot of people "like" Dylann Roof--both in thought and in action. What about Valerie Solanas? How many people are there "like" Solanas--with regards to both their ideologies and their actions?

 

[Randwolf]

it is a reassemble

OK, I have to ask - what the f*ck is "a reassemble" in this context?

Yeah so the solution is kill all the authoritarians right?

Is that an option? Normally I would have conscientious objections, but... Times, they are a-changin'.

The problem with voter suppression is that it is a catch 22, we need enough vote to put liberal democrats in power to improve voter enfranchisement, yet for some reason we can get the votes.

A problem gleefully exploited by the opposition... I'm sure the conversion therapy you seem to advocate will overcome.

 

[pjdude1219]

Read the comments, oh wait you can't, ok read the ones here on this very forum defending this as "satire" of no concern or any importance.

that would be kinda difficult as no one did that. why are you lying. are you seriously that buthurt on missing something that you have to resort to making shit up. neither tiassia nor I ever said it was of no concern or importance. given the definition i posted my views on how satire should be viewed should be obvious. the only person who thinks things should be ignored for being satire is you. you are literally the only person making that argument.

Oh I just figured you would care about modern feminism, I don't, it is garbage to me, and liberals philosophies based around modern feminism is part of the reason why trump won.

nope he won by validating peoples bigotry.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rjmedwed/yes_people_voted_for_trump_because_of_racism

 

[iceaura]

sk - what the f*ck is "a reassemble" in this context?

The poetry of the voice recognition software world is intriguing. My guess: "reasonable"

 

[iceaura]

"Satire" is not the problem, actually believing hateful ideologies that justify oppressing others is the problem, of course when caught they may claim they were merely joking, that it was only satire,

Have you ever caught one, and had them "claim they were merely joking"? The more radical feminists I've met have never, in my experience, made any such claim.

The problem with voter suppression is that it is a catch 22,

That's not a problem with suppression of the white male vote, is it.

Oh boy that would explain why I voted for Hillary then?

It might explain why other people you have had influence on voted for Trump.

 

[pjdude1219]

i would like to reiterate my firm belief that electric the kind of person who would through a hissy fit that swift wanted to eat babies.

 

[parmalee]

Oh I just figured you would care about modern feminism, I don't, it is garbage to me, and liberals philosophies based around modern feminism is part of the reason why trump won.

This is utterly ridiculous. Primarily, because you don't know shit about "modern feminism"--just name one single feminist writer who has published in the 21st century. What you know is pure fabricated bullshit by your creepy-wankery-wingnut youtube buddies. While your busy googling feminist writers, how about coming up with some sort of reasoning as to how someone like Donna Haraway is responsible for getting Trump elected, or how she's all about disenfranchising white males. Haraway is pretty much the Jacob von Uexkuell meets Gregory Bateson for the 21st century and if you can spin that into one your "hatemongering" scenarios, well... Alternately, you can simply stop lying and manufacturing bullshit and attempt to engage in honest discourse.

 

[parmalee]

i would like to reiterate my firm belief that electric the kind of person who would through a hissy fit that swift wanted to eat babies.

Tuck Buckford seems pretty reasonable next to EFetus.

 

[Randwolf]

Tuck Buckford seems pretty reasonable next to EFetus.

Wow. I'm not sure I can follow the infinite regression inherent in that statement... Nice burn though.

 

[ElectricFetus]

OK, I have to ask - what the f*ck is "a reassemble" in this context?

What ever the error checker thinks it is?

Is that an option? Normally I would have conscientious objections, but... Times, they are a-changin'.

Considering the have the advantage of guns, police and the military: no.

I'm sure the conversion therapy you seem to advocate will overcome.

If you mean getting the left energized with a candidate they can believe in, getting independents energize with a candidate they can believe in, getting non-voters energized with a candidate they can believe in, then yes. Disengaging everyone and enraging them by calling them sexist, racist or demanding rights be taken away from them because of their race and sex, does the opposite.

Have you ever caught one, and had them "claim they were merely joking"? The more radical feminists I've met have never, in my experience, made any such claim.

That's not a problem with suppression of the white male vote, is it.

It might explain why other people you have had influence on voted for Trump.

nice burn, but the people I have had influence over aren't even citizens.

This is utterly ridiculous. Primarily, because you don't know shit about "modern feminism"--just name one single feminist writer who has published in the 21st century. What you know is pure fabricated bullshit by your creepy-wankery-wingnut youtube buddies. While your busy googling feminist writers, how about coming up with some sort of reasoning as to how someone like Donna Haraway is responsible for getting Trump elected, or how she's all about disenfranchising white males. Haraway is pretty much the Jacob von Uexkuell meets Gregory Bateson for the 21st century and if you can spin that into one your "hatemongering" scenarios, well... Alternately, you can simply stop lying and manufacturing bullshit and attempt to engage in honest discourse.

Let me get this straight, one feminist author is not the zeitgeist of the whole modern feminist movement is. Second this is honest discourse: that is what the editor said, that the proposal was within the realm of modern feminist theory. Oh and Christian Hoff Summers, didn't need to google that.

 

[Tiassa]

I have lots more serious differences with the editorial staff of Huffington Post than their vulnerability to an occasional punking by something that plausibly satirical.

Yeah, I get on my high horse, occasionally, and give them shit for fashion shaming. It's insane: Even the Huffington Post reserves feminism to the Women page. That is, go to HuffPo Women in order to read what's wrong with fashion shaming. Then head over to Style to gasp in horror because a princess recycled an outfit.

It strikes me that among the myriad suckitudes of being royalty, never wearing comfortable clothes suddenly seems largely overlooked.

Maybe it's just a royal women thing.

 

[iceaura]

Let me get this straight, one feminist author is not the zeitgeist of the whole modern feminist movement is.

You started this thread on the basis of your take on one allegedly feminist editor's supposed opinion of something published on a website, something everybody here read as satirical.

nice burn, but the people I have had influence over aren't even citizens.

So the stories of you doing fieldwork for the Democrats in the last Presidential election are no longer operable, as they say?

Disengaging everyone and enraging them by calling them sexist, racist or demanding rights be taken away from them because of their race and sex, does the opposite.

And you believe that actually happened. So do millions of other Americans.

That fantastic delusion - where it came from, how it is spread, and who's benefitting by it - is the significant issue here.

 

[pjdude1219]

If you mean getting the left energized with a candidate they can believe in, getting independents energize with a candidate they can believe in, getting non-voters energized with a candidate they can believe in, then yes. Disengaging everyone and enraging them by calling them sexist, racist or demanding rights be taken away from them because of their race and sex, does the opposite.

ok lets see if i can follow this abortion of a farce of a logical argument. we lost because we called the bigoted people bigots but you s acting like a raging shitgibbon to other people on the left is somehow going to increase the chance both people on left and right will vote left wing. to reitterate electrics long repeated idiocy here is if we call out bigotry we going to lose but acting like an asshole to other liberals is a winning constructive idea. i think its time to call electric out on the real reasons he has been acting like a shitgibbon since election and why he is throwing this temper tantrum here. he thinks women and minorities need to be keep in their place as subserviant to the white male master race and is buthurt people are willing to strip him of his privilege. he has basically flat out stated that he feels the reason we lost is that we didn't cater hard enough to white males like himself hard enough. has freely stated he believes the oppressed people need to fend for themselves and they are not important enough to matter to his lordship. to all the hillary supporters and other liberals out here who weren't sanders supports i would like to state as a sanders supporter, as a liberal, as a progressive, and as a democratic socialist electric's shitginnonary is not represenative of us and I hope you won't hold it against us as we strive to work together to achieve victory in benefiting us all and not just white males like electric wants

 

[ElectricFetus]

ok lets see if i can follow this abortion of a farce of a logical argument. we lost because we called the bigoted people bigots but you s acting like a raging shitgibbon to other people on the left is somehow going to increase the chance both people on left and right will vote left wing. to reitterate electrics long repeated idiocy here is if we call out bigotry we going to lose but acting like an asshole to other liberals is a winning constructive idea.

Hey I don't need to get you to vote, you will vote my way no matter what: trump is president, do you want 8 years of his presidency just to spite me? Its the "bigots" as you call them or a tiny percentage of them that is, that we need to switch votes or simply not come out and vote for republicans.

i think its time to call electric out on the real reasons he has been acting like a shitgibbon since election and why he is throwing this temper tantrum here. he thinks women and minorities need to be keep in their place as subserviant to the white male master race and is buthurt people are willing to strip him of his privilege.

Sure why not. Not sure if I count as a white male though, but master race indeed.

he has basically flat out stated that he feels the reason we lost is that we didn't cater hard enough to white males like himself hard enough. has freely stated he believes the oppressed people need to fend for themselves and they are not important enough to matter to his lordship.

Again how is advocating policies that help EVERYONE like raising minmium wage, free healthcare, free education, basic income guarantee, etc, how does all that oppress anyone? (ok yes it does oppress the rich by taxing them, but it is better then the poor revolting and putting the rich against the wall).

When regressives like you come out and demand help for the black women, the native american, the transsexual otherkin, what ever, and then the poor white males ask "what about me?" and your reply is "your privileged! you get no help, your a bigot for even asking" He turns around and votes Trump instead, heck even the poor white women turns around and votes trump!

to all the hillary supporters and other liberals out here who weren't sanders supports i would like to state as a sanders supporter, as a liberal, as a progressive, and as a democratic socialist electric's shitginnonary is not represenative of us and I hope you won't hold it against us as we strive to work together to achieve victory in benefiting us all and not just white males like electric wants

Well I can agree on the "benefiting us all" part, everything else other than those words I have problems with. If the Hillary supporters choose another moderate neo-con hawkish corporatist, no I'm not supporting that, sure I will vote for that if I have to, but my vote won't be enough compare to all the others that won't vote for that, we saw that with the election of trump.

Tiassa,

Can we end this thread? This one and the "how not to deal with republicans" thread have basically merge into one.