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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 14, 2017.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Right wingers ain't good at comedy or satire. It's like when people insult and then pretend it was a joke. not really. How you know is they take themselves too seriously and never laugh at themselves or even can make fun of themselves too but if it's another group, they are accused of being too sensitive.




    When some types of white people complain of political correctness gone extreme, they forget once it was others who had to make sure no one stepped on their toes or their revisionist history or how they defined society and those within it. for instance, from silly crap such as columbus discovering america and no one dare say what they were thinking or knowing it would mean not towing the line or how whites are the most attractive and everyone else was ugly by their standards etc, marginalizing other's unique qualities unless it fit their mold entirely etc.

    Then race issues were just centered around black/white diaspora as if no one else experienced racism or that it was an unspoken meme in society that those 'others' don't matter as much. all this is political correctness that can be negative or untruthful affecting different factions at any given time. this is why political correctness just aimed at one group also can be marginalizing, scapegoating or exploitive of others. it's important to understand that everyone should be politically correct towards everyone, then no one has a complaint and until then, whoever is slighted will and that includes whites as well. but it's important to understand what political correctness means and the various ways it can be used for positive and negative.

    There is no race on earth that doesn't have the capacity for racism, prejudice and any other human character faults. There are times i've been racist and/or prejudice as negative experiences can cause bitterness toward a group but then you need to sober up and realize you have to consider people as individuals or even if you don't care for a certain culture or people as much does not give anyone the right to harm or inhibit their right to life, liberty and happiness.

    Take for instance this example, i knew she was treading on non-politically correct ground by calling out that it's not just 'white' people who can be racist or prejudiced in any society. Think about how people or groups can all become entitled to a point that they become blind to the fact it's not limited to just one race or they know but don't care because it's just about them and no group or race is exempt from this insensitivity. This girl spoke the honest truth but it's important to not accuse one race as the only one capable of prejudice because it is not true. The focus on white racism was because they had/have most power but it's still important to remember that tendency is not based on race, it's a negative human tendency wrought by negative experiences or just a sense of entitlement/selfishness.



    This woman is right as well and she defended someone of another race because it is about humane values.

     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No, not his "immoral behavior" his economically deficiencies, and we need to push our solutions over his non-solutions. The American people are willing to elect the devil himself (or Cthulhu in this case) just so long as he gets them better jobs, we need to point out he is on track to do the opposite, and that we know how to get them better jobs instead.

    Erase no, reduce yes. Human instinct will not be erased only suppressed (not unless we erase it cybrnetically or with genetic engineering). I don't know how to explain this any simpler to you, this is a basic understanding of psychology under Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If people are too busy worrying about their own needs they are not going to give a fuck about anyone else, in fact they will be inclined to demonize others to justify taking all they need for themselves.

    Also my parents were well of, educated, they did not mind marrying across religious lines. Seriously what do you think it is that makes people egalitarian, less racists and less hateful? I'm saying being secure and educated, you say what?

    More so all this is about WINNING THE GOVERNMENT BACK, we need the votes to do that, once we have the goverment back, we can setup extermination camps or what ever it is you think would be effective against the bullies and bigots, but until then we are in no position to bully the bullies, they have all the power now.

    Hey I didn't give a fuck about it at the time, but now that Trump won, we have to go over everything we did wrong.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    like being assholes to people on side for no god damn reason because princess thats a lesson you still haven't quite figured out? you don't get to talk about how we need to talk about what we did wrong when you don't know yourself and are intending to use the loss to perform an ideological purge.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,264
    Moreover, he's fucking lying, as usual, as he clearly did give a fuck about it at the time and even as far back as 2013 (at least)--as evidenced by his whiny posts in >>>this thread on feminism. <<< Also linked to four pages back, so the dumbass can't claim amnesia.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes. Of course. Why do you ask?
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Oh please, I'm the one being accused of not being a democrat here, I'm the one who was called a sexist misogynist by tiassa, what hypocrisy that now I can't purge people for choose unelectable tactics and candidates.

    Why can't I claim amnesia? Do you remember everything you posted years ago? ... and where in there did I talk about manspreading?

    No, your delusional, it was the elders of zion, they made left wing journals post article after article of this stuff for their nefarious jew schemes.

     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,264
    Go ahead and claim amnesia, just keep in mind there are plenty times 'twixt 2013 and the present where you've aired like grievances. Are you gonna claim amnesia for everything up to the 2016 election?

    Edit: Also, I linked the thread and quoted a post of yours from said thread just a few days back. You responded to the post, so presumably you read it? Are you claiming amnesia for something for something you read/wrote less than a week ago? Are you also epileptic? That would certainly explain some things, but I'm refractory and seize all the fucking time--often with retrograde amnesia--yet I'm don't seem to be having these "difficulties."
    You realize that you don't have to actually use the term "manspreading" in order to be talking about it, right?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,264
    Aahhh, very clever. Now you've got your example of an alt-righter alleging satire.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Funny thing is, I'll bet I could find that allegation made with perfect sincerity by one of his sources, one of those he supposedly gets the viewpoint of the "other side" from - along with his vocabulary and the framing of every issue.

    I wonder if he knows that's where he got it from, how it came to come to mind?

    The Poe's Law crowd. Maybe that's why they can't register satire in others - they can't tap into the self-awareness that informs other people's take on things.
     
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,264
    What bothers me is that I simply can't figure out how or why they would lack this insight. Certainly understandable with respect to some--the ultra- privileged, the most sheltered of the ivory tower academic types, the congenitally stupid--but EF doesn't really strike me as any of those.

    I was thinking about the Bandar-log reference you made in a related thread. Kipling could not possibly have anticipated what was to come. Maybe he should have read more William Blake, or even H.G. Wells. But his critique/satire of democracy, while classist, is effective and remains relevant.

    Incidentally, we have an Indian pariah dog named Mowgli--he was named Mowgli by the Indian woman who rescued him, as a pup with distemper, from the streets of Old Delhi. We have no direct contact with this woman, and so no idea at to why she chose the name, but I've hypothesized aplenty--and I tend to be overly generous towards those who devote their lives to rescuing dogs in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and so I suspect there are layers and layers of meaning and implication in her naming.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click to settle on slightly lesser things.

    You're doing a super job convincing us↗ you don't care↗ what I think.

    You have no idea what you're on about. Start with the basic facts that kindness can be found among the poor, and bigots can be found among the rich. Okay, so ... what, then? A bunch of exceptions and proscriptions? A steaming heap of loose revisions in hopes of excluding enough reality?

    I'm saying it's not so simple, else we would see better evidence of it in the world, today.

    The problem with not addressing bigotry and supremacism is that it screws up the bit about education and econmic security.

    Education and economic security are cornerstone coordinates, but not the whole answer.

    We're at the "magick" phase of thesis development, here: Education and economic security, and the irrational bigotries just magically evaporate? It's one thing to ask the crackpots to explain how eliminating the Federal Reserve actually makes anything better; again, as near as we can tell, everything magically gets better. That is, nobody can actually explain it.

    There's a big fuckin' "Trust Me" written in clownish crayon, stuck on with cheap masking tape. Why is the solution always to ask the victims of injustice to wait, perpetually, for the beneficiariees to magically come around amid being rewarded for the injustice they inflict?

    Explain how it goes.

    Explain where purity and ownership cult go. That is, education and economy explicitly without making supremacist conservatives uncomfortable, and they just suddenly, magically stop grooming women for abuse↗? How the hell does that work?

    And when conservatives have taken away abortion and birth control, because, hey, let's not make them feel uncomfortable, right? Let's just empower them because a rising tide lifts all boats, right? When we have erased the quality of life improvements in women's lives owing to birth control and abortion access, how much more will society need to give traditionalist comfort before women can have that quality of life back? Oh, right: They can't.

    When the black men are dead or in prison? Look, we've seen how this goes.

    Your would-be thesis lacks any consideration for history or humanity. We absolutely must address bigotry and supremacism, as part of the education aspect of what needs to happen, and unfortunately, that's going to make the supremacists uncomfortable.

    Bottom line: If I'm going to suck off a supremacist, then it better damn well be for some better reason than reassuring the emotional comfort and security of his heterosexual masculinity.

    We'll set aside your right-wing parody of making a point, as well as your advice that now is the time to panic according to the if you can't beat 'em join 'em surrender.

    When it comes to winning the government back, how would you deal with the proposition that enforcing equality is itself supremacist?

    So tell people of color: "We don't want to make the white supremacists uncomfortable, so we're not going to call out racism. Not even when they're murdering you."

    Go ahead. Tell them. I dare you. Because the next thing you're going to say is, "Trust me, this is the only thing that will work. Nothing else will work. We have to let them do this, and then things will magically get better."

    You want a more practical challenge? Something a little easier than asking people of color to trust white supremacists to lead the way to justice of the course of generations?

    Okay, look: At what point are any liberals or leftists prepared to start forcibly separating parents and children for parental ideology? And before anyone says it's already happening, it might behoove them to take a moment in order to consider just how much fucking bullshit is out there.

    Seventh-Day Adventists, for instance. There's a cottage industry in expecting the government to come for people. Purity and ownership cult? Racial segregation and supremacism? Antivax?

    No, really. At what point are we willing to start pulling potentially millions of children out of their homes because their parents are completely full of shit? And the only reason the question actually demands an answer is because that excrement is part of the problem your inchoate wannabe poseur thesis fails to address. Being full of shit and passing it on to our children is a God-given American right, and it's going to take some making of certain people uncomfortable to convince society to explicitly acknowledge otherwise. So is there a better way to wean ourselves from shit traditionalism? There damn well better be.

    Meanwhile, what are you prepared to give away in order to win the government back?

    Would you let the state dissolve your family?

    Are you willing to give up your right to make decisions about your own medical care?

    How about your life, at the hands of a police officer, for no better reason than he's scared because he got himself all worked up?

    If you can say yes to any of those, or simply scoff at them, why?

    Because that's pretty much what you're asking of other people. That's what your surrender to the bullies asks of your fellow human beings.
     
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    America is a melting pot, which means all the ingredients of all the different cultures, sexes, races, religions, etc., of the world, are blended together to make a human stew. Like a stew there are the meat and potatoes which are the main food components. There are also secondary components like a carrots and onions that add nutrition and flavor. There are even tertiary components like salt, pepper and spices which are there for extra unique flavor. A minor spice can make the dish special, while too much of the same spice can make it hard to eat, so even the meat and potatoes is wasted.

    The white male, the British culture, and Judeo-Christian religion are the meat and potatoes of the American stew. These are the demographics who founded the country and wrote the Constitution. The idea of replacing the meat and potatoes with secondary ingredients and extra spices will not make the stew as nutritious. People from all countries, what to come to the USA, because the meat and potatoes is what makes the stew as healthy as it is.

    Women are the peppers, onions, celery and carrots added to the stew that makes it a complete and balanced meal. The LBG community and many minorities are the spices that creates unique flavors, but which takes a sense of proper proportions to optimize flavor.

    We could make a low cal veggie stew, without meat and potatoes; feminized, but that type of stew is not as hardy and is not as useful to anyone who needs to work and exert a lot of energy to pursue the American dream, as a self standing pioneer.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The modern Klan is very wimpy, compared to the Klan of old, when the Democrats founded it. The Klan, was originally founded to be the muscle of the Democrat party. It was let loose on anyone it deemed was not with their program. They use different muscle today to undermine and intimidate. One can see their modern muscle in affect against Trump; media and lawyers. Trump is treated like the Democrats treated the blacks of old; mischaracterize, hate and attempt to undermine, even when Trump is minding his own business and trying to do good in his own way.

    Today the weaker and more law abiding Klan is not much different from any other racial and sexist centric activist group. This may have to do with the Klan no longer being associated with the Democratic party. All these groups complain about the others and/or tend to promote their own, instead of all. When was the last time the feminists, the blacks and/or the gays promoted male, white and straight rights? How is this different from the modern Klan who does the same thing?

    All these groups should be treated the same. However, due to the revisionist history scam, a distinction is made for the modern Klan. Somehow time and space can be made overlap to create physical impossibilities that appeal to the irrational left. Somehow the Democratic muscle of old has a perpetual life, through a type of perpetual motion machine, that can overcome the physical limits of space and time. Physics tells us that perpetual motion is not possible, so this must be scam.

    That muscle of old is not the modern Klan, but has appeared in a different space called the main stream media and trial lawyers. Picture Trump as a successful black man of 1890, being shaken down by the Klan because he poses a threat. They will lie about him and falsely accuse him and even burn down his business if that will drive him away. The violent demonstrators that prevent free speech look more like the old Klan, than does the new Klan.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Do you have your own radio talk show or something?
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    When was I talking about manspreading in there?

    Oh I care about vengeance, I care about sucking what ever joy I can out of president trump, and reminding you ever day of how you and your ilk helped cause this makes me a little happier.

    Yeah and? Do you live in absolutes?

    That just what you did: you proclaimed an exception to claim the theory is untrue.

    When I worked in Africa, the locals were generally very nice and giving people, generally happy too, they appeared happier then educated rich western people in cities even. None the less they had huge social divisions, Catholics and protestants (generally of a wacko type like 7th day) don't get along, a farmer proclaims his daughter is dead to him because she ran off and married a catholic from that catholic village down the road, we don't trade with them. People were believe to be shamans and killed, I saw with my own eyes an old lady attacked and beaten by teenagers because she was a believed to be a witch.

    People naturally tribalize, that is what they do, not everyone, not always, but generally. And if things get tough then the tribalism does not outlet like stable but poor Zambia, no then it outlets like genocidal chopping people up and eating them Congo.

    And how are you addressing the bigotry and supremacism: in a productive way or a way that gets Trump elected? To ask the question is to know the answer.

    How the fuck is not free healthcare, free education and a basic income paid for by the rich not going to reward the injustice of the victims?

    Generation after generation of affluent educated people lose all their backwards traditions. This is not any more magical then the printing press.
    1. Exposure to new ideas and philosophies on morality and justice replace instinctive feelings on right and wrong.
    2. Time and energy to seek out higher priorities in life then "us now, fuck them"
    3. Exposure to the prospective of others, makes empathizing easier

    As for making conservatives uncomfortable, no we sell them what they want up front: JOBS and economic security, and not mention that in a generation or two their child and grand children will find their beliefs disgustingly backwards.

    I said nothing about letting them take away abortion and birth control, your confusing willly nillly calling everyone racist and misogynist and sexist with standing for a principle. Standing for a principle is respectable, even conservatives respected Bernie because at least he stood for what he believed in, attacking and shaming people with slander on the other hand is not constructive, it is in fact destructive.

    When a conservative says abortion should be abolished argue with them constructively, ask them how they plan to pay for all those unwanted children, have they adopted a black crack baby yet? "Why not pay for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy and thus less abortions? That would be much cheaper then all the orphanages." Pit their desire for fiscal thriftiness with their belief in Jesus loves all the little children.

    Any consideration for history? have you not read the works of steven pinker? Providing kids books and movies that exposes them to other worlds views does not make conservative "uncomfortable", at least not as much as calling them racist and misogynist!

    When have I asked you to do such a thing. By the way how is trump on the gays?

    Easy, by focusing on the one inequality even many conservatives admit: money. Taxing the rich will bring more benefit to everyone then calling people racists because they support some pig shooting a black man. Make that our primary priority does not mean we stop supporting abortion, birth control, gay marriage, police regulation, etc, it merely means that we make more of a fuse about republican plans to give tax breaks to the rich, then about trump garbing pussy with his tiny little hooves.

    I will tell the people of color: we are going to get you free healthcare, free education and a basic income and we are going to make the rich pay for it (who are generally white people), oh and will make the rich pay for cameras on cops and better trained cops.

    Demand more money for better public schools then! They have been degrading funding for public schools for decades now, so they can say there private religious schools are better, and we on the left just laid down and let them, no more!

    Nothing really, it is a matter of salesmanship that all.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Low end helps.

    Yes, yes, we know. Priorities. You make the point for me.

    What does that even mean, anyway? It seems more a petulant evasion than anything else.

    Like this. How interesting, but also how utterly useless.

    A steaming heap of something, that much is for certain.

    Taking you as sincerely as possible, you seem to have achieved a non sequitur.

    In a manner that fights against bigotry and supremacism. Trembling appeasement has its historical precedents.

    What does that even mean, anyway?

    Or, in other words, you don't have a clue how what you advocate actually works.

    Meanwhile, your plan to win back the government through appeasement of the bullies and supremacists appears to simply presume that supremacist bullying will have no effect:

    Well, see, giving them what they want is the only way to not make them uncomfortable. It would seem that in the face of real implications, your advocacy for bullies and supremacism falters.

    And your reliance on right-wing narrative is telling.

    Yeah, that worked in 1986, didn't it?

    How about in 1991? You know, the Summer of Mercy?

    1993?

    How about 2009?

    What makes you think repeating what doesn't work and only makes conservatives uncomfortable for denigrating them will suddenly, magically, have the effect you pretend?

    Between history and the Einsteinian definition of insanity, the only real question is which manner of ignorance mixes with what degree of prideful identity politicking.

    Let's try 1973. You think maybe, in nigh on forty-four years, someone might have thought of that along the way, or would you depict yourself as some sort of intellectual pioneer?

    Are you able to write a reasonable political thesis? Do you have any argument other than sloth and superstition?

    It's all over your advocacy for supremacists. You know, let's not make them uncomfortable by calling discrimination by its name.

    Dangerous, to measure by policy results.

    In other words, address the problem by ignoring it. Yeah, because history shows us how well that works, right? Which is why you can explain how well history says that works—right?

    (chortle!)

    Good luck.

    Don't forget to tell 'em to trust you.

    No, seriously, what are you going to do to mitigate the effects of racism in the meantime?

    (guffaw!)

    Okay, okay, okay. Let's lay this out as we've got it:

    (1) "Free healthcare, free education, and a basic income"

    (2) Enlightenment (apparently to be self-inflicted -regulated)

    (3) Don't lose at the ballot box or legislative vote

    (4) Repeat history

    (5) Read Steven Pinker (or watch a video, but certainly don't expect an advocate to explain what the hell that means)

    (6) Ignore history

    (7) Repeat ignoring of history

    (8) Tell people of color to trust those who advocate for bullies and supremacists, because it will all magically work out

    (9) Demand more money for better public schools (see point 1 above)​

    Have we covered it?

    Because you're going to win healthcare, education, and basic income how?

    And this will rationally convince supremacists to give up their supremacism how?

    And as even in absolute victory these things can only happen so quickly, you're going to tell tomorrow's victims of the injustice we're not addressing in order to not lose votes that everything is going to work out how?

    And you're going to raise tomorrow's dead the day after how?

    See, that last is important, because—

    —your blithe "salesmanship" ignores the ongoing damage you would have people pretend to ignore in hopes of winning votes from supremacists.

    See, a generation later, the supremacism and bullying will still persist, and will still constitute a major complication about the rising tide lifting sabotaged boats. And that is a reasonable concern compared to history.

    Struggling for justice is an everyday thing, and deprioritizing it for the sake of aesthetics preferring injustice just doesn't make for a compelling argument, especially when that pitch requires ignorance and the concomitant unfortunate repetition of history:

    "I said nothing about letting them take away abortion and birth control ...."

    "When have I asked you to do such a thing."

    Your refusal to account for the implications of your political advice is another thing history tells us plenty about; you are hardly original in this, either.
     
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,264
    You'll note, in the post before I said that you've "aired like grievances" in said thread, and elsewhere. So not manspreading specifically, just you bitching and whining about similar rightwing manufactured non-issues, or grossly exaggerated issues, consistently and repeatedly over the past five years or so. Alas, I've lost patience with lying ignoramuses like you, so I get sloppy and lazy.

    Also I read this:
    Not surprised--re: the born-rich part, not the educated bit--and it exacerbated one of my petty bigotries, which I am quite open about and unapologetic.

    Unlike you, I was shit poor, white trash who somehow managed to attend an elite private Uni on an insanely generous academic scholarship which covered not only tuition, but also all fees, room and board, and a crazy bigly stipend--so bigly, that I travelled throughout South Asia on the remainder for like 8 months. Anyways, I was also rather naive back then and could never quite figure out why there so many dullards at this University which ostensibly had high standards. Turns out, the dummies were all born-rich and mommy and daddy bought their way in. Good for lining certain people's pockets, I suppose, but Big Picture: not real good to have a bunch of idiots with degrees from some of what are supposed to be the best universities, 'cuz that's how you end up with people like W. or Trump in positions of great power.

    Not fair to hold this against people like you "and your ilk" (heh.), but that's why I call it a "petty bigotry." It's just that in another thread you described yourself as "educated," and I'm all like "how?" and "in what?" And I'm also wondering if you've actually read Steven Pinker, or just watched some of his ramblings on youtube. He's all right--in his fields--but he's just kinda wack when it comes to politics and his social theorizing.

    /end rant
     
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    your analogy is incomplete or missing something like most all of your posts and just like your stew. no one is trying to replace the white male and too much power or warped representation is the antithesis of a nutritious stew whether it's white, black, yellow or purple in a melting pot scenario. minorities and women are not tertiary or secondary as if they are frivolous because they are individuals and people. plenty of minorities and women that you demote fill important positions in society from academia, research, science, medicine etc. it's based on the individual because there are plenty born and and bred in america who are not minorities or immigrants that don't have much substance as well including white men because they are people like anyone else and their are grades of different people even in one's own race.

    your whole framework is based on entitlement, not actual merit which is a problem when worth is assumed by race and/or gender only.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523


    aaAAAaaah so much text to read, bored, so bored. Ok Tiassa just merge this one with the how not to deal with republicans one.
     

Share This Page