Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by driveway

Racism implies an inherent power structure.

No it doesn't. That's just something reparationists want the world to believe to absolve them from their hypocrisy.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

An article extolling the 'virtues' of denying people the right to vote purely based on gender and/or race should receive visceral anger. I would be more concerned for society if the reaction was anything but this.

Would you be angry if you weren't a White Man?

[MelBridgeman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shel...se_a_22036640/

We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.

Sneaky HuffPo!!!

[GGG]

So was this written by an actual Masters student protecting her identity, a run of the mill feminist wanting to bolster her credibility with fake credentials or a alt-right meat head running a false flag operation.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

So was this written by an actual Masters student protecting her identity, a run of the mill feminist wanting to bolster her credibility with fake credentials or a alt-right meat head running a false flag operation.

There's a reasonable argument for either, sadly.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

So was this written by an actual Masters student protecting her identity, a run of the mill feminist wanting to bolster her credibility with fake credentials or a alt-right meat head running a false flag operation.

Difficult to say, as radical dogma is often indistinguishable from satire.

[northcrunk]

Why even post this racist garbage here?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Why even post this racist garbage here?

My first thought was why would the Huff Post even publish something like this, but then I thought maybe I don't read the Huff Post enough and it was par for the course.

I am glad they took it down and explained their mistake.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Difficult to say, as radical dogma is often indistinguishable from satire.

It feels like you used to be able to distinguish on the basis that "obviously no one would really support this", any more than they would eating Irish babies. Am I just looking at the past through rose coloured glasses, or is this far more the case now? I think there are reasons to suspect it isn't just recency bias and things are actually trending in this direction.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Difficult to say, as radical dogma is often indistinguishable from satire.

But just as fun!

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It feels like you used to be able to distinguish on the basis that "obviously no one would really support this", any more than they would eating Irish babies. Am I just looking at the past through rose coloured glasses, or is this far more the case now? I think there are reasons to suspect it is trending in this direction.

A+ reference to the king of satire.

That said, I think it's a little overblown. If you think that idea was really going to gain considerable traction then I don't know what to say, except to point to it as an example of the "classic" liberal's untenable fear of everything left and right of them. Old Liberals might be the most scared class of people on earth, when the earth seems the least frightening it's ever been.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My first thought was why would the Huff Post even publish something like this, but then I thought maybe I don't read the Huff Post enough and it was par for the course.

I am glad they took it down and explained their mistake.

As long as it has it makes for good clickbait and pushes their ideology, modern media has no issues publishing inaccurate or unverified material, this is commonplace now.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That said, I think it's a little overblown. If you think that idea was really going to gain considerable traction then I don't know what to say, except to point to it as an example of the "classic" liberal's untenable fear of everything left and right of them. Old Liberals might be the most scared class of people on earth, when the earth seems the least frightening it's ever been.

There's an argument that it's overblown, but not for this reason. The apparent increase in quantity and intensity of extreme positions is likely contributed to by the internet making the crazies more visible (e.g. you can find people backing any view on the internet). But the issue is that that's a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more exposure these things get in the sense of ease of access to people who believe in them, the more they gain traction, because people congregate in ideological groups and you become more radicalized when you talk exclusively to people you agree with.

As to your last sentence, I think it's both naive and a straw man at the same time. I don't think anyone would argue that we're not better off as a species than we were 50 years ago. But there are some potentially very serious negative social ramifications to trends that currently exist, and it would be dumb to ignore them.

Some of those effects will be political and social, some won't - take, say, the effect on the average person's attention span of having boredom relief in their pockets at all times. But to say the world's the safest it's ever been, and people should stop being so scared of what's happening seems analogous to saying we shouldn't worry about global warming because we're reaping benefits of our energy usage like never before and have barely begun to see any negative effects as yet.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Matata

As long as it has it makes for good clickbait and pushes their ideology, modern media has no issues publishing inaccurate or unverified material, this is commonplace now.

The blog post was so anti-Mandela though, that I don't think it really pushed their ideology. The Huff Post is definitely a liberal publication, but in the past, they were not liberal fascist.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The blog post was so anti-Mandela though, that I don't think it really pushed their ideology. The Huff Post is definitely a liberal publication, but in the past, they were not liberal fascist.

Who knew that Ariana stepping down would have such a massive ramification on their publication.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That said, I think it's a little overblown.

Overblown, sure. But not nearly as overblown as the reaction to a column in Brietbart calling for the U.S. to remove the voting franchise for all black citizens would have been. The mainstream media would have been all over that column, with analysis of what it means to democracy, the slide of the America into fascism, etc.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you think that idea was really going to gain considerable traction then I don't know what to say, except to point to it as an example of the "classic" liberal's untenable fear of everything left and right of them. Old Liberals might be the most scared class of people on earth, when the earth seems the least frightening it's ever been.

If liberals are anxious it's because liberal principles are under assault from both the left and the right. These are certainly the most polarized times I've seen since I started following public affairs thirty years ago.

As for the most frightened people on the planet, I'm not sure what media you read but it obviously isn't leftist outlets like the Guardian or CBC radio, who since Brexit and the election of Trump have been in DefCon 4 crisis mode.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The blog post was so anti-Mandela though, that I don't think it really pushed their ideology. The Huff Post is definitely a liberal publication, but in the past, they were not liberal fascist.

You'll never find a unified front for any ideology, ideologies are highly vulnerable to "no true scotsman fallacies" and breed infighting as people clamour to make their own interpretation be considered the 'true voice'. Even if it is as simple as a single figure trying to enforce a specific ideology, they're ultimately still herding cats and will produce missed results.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But just as fun!



A+ reference to the king of satire.

That said, I think it's a little overblown. If you think that idea was really going to gain considerable traction then I don't know what to say, except to point to it as an example of the "classic" liberal's untenable fear of everything left and right of them. Old Liberals might be the most scared class of people on earth, when the earth seems the least frightening it's ever been.

Are you saying they're snowflakes?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If liberals are anxious it's because liberal principles are under assault from both the left and the right. These are certainly the most polarized times I've seen since I started following public affairs thirty years ago.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a weird feeling when you have politically identified with the left for years, yet people who are now vocally on the left are completely unidentifiable as having anything to do with liberal principles.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Overblown, sure. But not nearly as overblown as the reaction to a column in Brietbart calling for the U.S. to remove the voting franchise for all black citizens would have been. The mainstream media would have been all over that column, with analysis of what it means to democracy, the slide of the America into fascism, etc.



If liberals are anxious it's because liberal principles are under assault from both the left and the right.

lol, you ought to pay attention to Brietbart more often, there have been way more numerous outlandish articles on Brietbart and you don't be even have to look to an obscure blog post from the South African version to find it.

I think my issue is that, as sort of stated above, old liberals hold so strongly to the idea that their ideology is pure and perfect that they end up in this weird state where they're more scared of the left than the right. They're more scared of the people that took liberal values and distorted them further left than they are of people who are opposed even to the idea of a liberal at their core, which is hilarious.

It's like a liberal chef saying "This is the way you make a pepperoni pizza (subbed in for old liberal utopia)."
The further left one uses ham instead of pepperoni, and they just add a ####load of ham. And then pineapple. They made a Hawaiian pizza.
The further right one makes shepherd's pie.
The liberal chef then looks at both, shakes their head and shrugs their shoulders at the shepherd's pie, and turns to berate the chef who made a Hawaiian pizza. It's a pizza, it's the same general concept, they just made one that nobody else seems to like, which makes people angry when you insist they order Hawaiian pizza and you have one slice. Anybody want leftovers? No, because it's Hawaiian, so I guess Marxist Jim in accounting gets all the leftovers because he's the jerk who made Hawaiian.

Where was I going with this? Right. Liberals complain ad nauseam about Hawaiian pizza when pepperoni is the only pizza that will do, but are generally reserved about criticising the chef who made a shepherd's pie instead of a pizza at all.

We're sitting here discussing an obscure blog post from South Africa, when there are plenty of crazy toxic "news" sources in our backyard that are partially responsible for getting a dangerous populist president elected who is DEFINITELY not a liberal. But sure, this blog post is important... I guess. Downfall of liberal values and the society we've all come to know and love, and all that. Not saying we can't react to both, but the response shouldn't be measurably the same or worse for the blog post from Africa.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

But... but I like Hawaiian.

Anyway, that whole scenario you've come up with is actually not that surprising at all, is it? If you have a pizza purist guy, well, pizza is his thing. It's what he knows well, what he identifies with, of course he's more likely to criticize other peoples' pizza than some dude making shepherd's pie. And if you look at a cook who sets out to make a pepperoni pizza and ends up with shepherd's pie, I mean, where do you even start? How does that happen? That dude is so far gone that there's not even any point in trying to figure out how to get him back on the rails. He's clearly bat#### insane.

... This analogy works surprisingly well. Except now I'm hungry.