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

Depends on the media, but sure why not.

it

What? Do we need to see her political party registration? As for authoritarians, bingo on who has helped us lose to trump!

A few? That certainly explains why we won in the last election. I found left wing moderates, salt of the earth types talking about this, and they don't see it as satire:

So now your saying this article does not exist?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Love this refrain.

"We should be marching to support science? I guess that sort of advocacy explains why we won in the last election."
"Women's rights are important? That attitude explains why we won in the last election."
"Peace is better than war? Those sorts of views explain why we won in the last election."
"Rational discourse is a good thing? Yeah sure. It certainly won us in the last election."
"You shouldn't drive drunk? Great idea, genius. I mean, advocating responsibility won us the last election."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That wouldn't help. The presumption of her lefty nature is handed to us without solid evidence, is all -

and we all know the rightwing feminist 1) exists 2) has the same tendency to miss satire as righties in general. So honest reporting would have checked

And then, directly after the colon, you post that youtuber? That parade of wingnut vocabulary and presumptive rightwing reactionary cluelessness is your example of a salt of the earth "left wing moderate"?

Dude - - - - That's another example of a reactionary rightwinger missing the satire boat. Which is one of those mysteries we encounter so frequently it's kind of surprising we don't have a good explanation for it.

Look, there is a wide range of leftiness - lots of different kinds. But the left is not everybody who talks, ok? There are a couple of minimum features or attributes without which the classification "left" is simply wrong.

Example:

Whoever is talking there is not any kind of lefty. Not a moderate lefty, not an extreme lefty, not a progressive lefty, not a reactionary lefty, not a conservative lefty. The minimum requirements for the label "lefty" are not met. If that's your idea of "left", you don't have one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How on earth do you interpret that as "left wing"?

And how on earth do you not grasp that offering a handful--or even many, many handfuls--of youtube videos, facebook posts, and the like is in no way demonstrative of anything? Do you not grasp scope? Do you not see that even a few dozen such posts would not even--literally--constitute a drop in a five gallon bucket when there are presently nearly two billion active Facebook accounts? You'd need a swimming pool.

 

If it's a matter of commandeering more space in public transport than a woman, how is that not a feminist issue?

 

all this is blah, blah, blah. parties change because they can swap members for various 'political' reasons. what you say is hypocrisy as you can't hold liable those who had nothing to do with the past. today, it's the republican party that attracts the most racist members and that is a fact you want to skirt around.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yes-democrats-supported-slavery-but-that-misses-the-point/

 

because people are racist as allfuck and people like you want to stick your head up your ass rather than deal with the damn problem. not any of the shitgibbonery you go on about. and your twisting what i'm saying. when are you going to start being honest? never did i say it was wrong for being right wing. I was pointing on the flaw in you claiming to be progressive when you use the slurs of the other side and generally act like a person from that side so as usual your wrong.

 

Oh by all means tell me how you are going to deal with the damn problem? Going to snap your fingers and make racism disappear?

Here my solution: we need to raise the standard of living, provide a stable present and prosperous future that people can have faith in. Content happy people are giving, kind and benevolent, because they can afford to be.

What is your solution? Call out people as racist? Talk about striping white males of rights? Have protest? Punch nazis? Chomsky pointed out what is wrong with that recently:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Those tactics are why we now have trump as president. You want to be an authoritarian, well the right can double that and win.

Oh so you want to call me a conservative? A conservatives that wants to tax the rich to finance free healthcare, free education, basic income guarantee for all people, and of course all the other liberals want, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalized pot, pro-liberty, and a member of the democratic party and elected director of my county's district democratic party committee. So call me not a true progressive all you want, I know my values, I know what I want: I want to us to win.

What are you talking about?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How about just more space in public transport for everyone, more subways and more buses and more trains financed by raising taxes preferably on the only demographic that has been growing, the rich? That way EVERYONE can have more space to sit how ever the fuck they want. If you want to commandeer space for women via say segregated train carts and buses, you will be limiting liberty, we will lose the male vote to the republicans and the result will be everyone will become more oppressed.

Because he is left wing. Because this is the best we got for sampling of the general public, by all means if you can do a survey and get thousands of responses, please do.

Your arguement is like a slippery slope and strawman had a baby.

 

You aren't getting it, public transport is supposed to be crowded. Too much space for all would mean we spent too much on it. But if men take up more space than a woman, or intimidate people into sitting next to a woman instead of the man, then it's a feminist issue. A man can take up more space with his legs than a woman with extra baggage. Certainly this is not a central issue to feminism, and it's importance is debated. But they fact that you would call out this minor thing as the reason feminism is "toxic" is pure nonsense.

 

The "do nothing" solution has done exactly nothing to help, so far. You still can't explain how empowering bigotry makes it go away.

I would suggest that apathy is no solution, but the louder voice right now scoffs at the proposition that you intend any solution other than the preservation and continued endurance of prejudice and hatred in society.

You can try explaining how your solution is actually a solution, but that's the thing. Nobody will blame you for ducking out of an argument you can't make. But that also means you need to stop promoting bigotry. Your argument is insupportable.

 

I just did, by not having to worry about their healthcare, their debt, their job, they have time to give a fuck about other people. People would not be inclined to vote for "build the wall" if they had job security and did not feel as if immigrants were the reason they have such poor wages.

The rise of human civilization would disagree.

So your a republican than?

A minor thing that its plastered all over the internet to get the left laughed at and disparaged? What are the solutions you propose for manspreading, come on I want to hear them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Insupportable compared to history.

#startmakingsense.

 

I would recommend reading the works of Steven Pinker.



Again if people have their needs met, they are more inclined to help others. When people do not have their needs met they will tribalize and get more brutish and bigoted. I will keep repeating my self until it starts to make sense to you.

 

Great plan; everyone wants that, right? I guess that explains why we won in the last election.

 

Except as your fallacy does not note: we did not implement that plan, we instead proclaimed everything is great and anyone that disagrees is a racist and a sexist and a bigot.

 

For no good reason. Stop buying into their memes. As I explained, we can use ridicule too. This isn't toxic feminism, this is a minor issue blown up in order to undermine feminism as a whole. Shame on you.

 

How did this become a meme? Was it the rightwing just making shit up? or did self-proclaimed liberals thinks this was an issue important enough to spam all over social media? You can't blame the right for this.

The ridicule we should be using is pointing out donors of republican politicians, is pointing out how trump put goldman sachs in charge of our economy, instead of pointing at manspreading.

 

Obviously, people care more about manspreading on social media than important issues. It seem you do too.

 

You make the point when all you can do is argue insupportable right-wing narratives in lieu of putting any genuine effort into anything.

And you're nearly out of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth.

That is to say, the reconstruction of society such that poverty is impossible is, indeed, the proper aim, but just as we have yet to answer Marx on Gotha, neither has anyone answered Wilde on socialism; that is, nobody has explained how that rational outcome attends the irrational challenges that would disrupt it. It's one thing if, say, the white working class voter stuck in a cycle of retrospective wait unemployment is no longer fuming over at lazy Negroes and dirty Mexicans who took his factory job, or the shifty Asians where the factories actually are, these days. But there are reasons Wilde couldn't prescribe the end of bigotry; that part just doesn't work that way. Economic security does not spell the end of contests to measure comparative godhood, for instance. And, in truth, I think affluence actually has shown to wreck religious cohesion. It's one thing to argue that one's god's dick is bigger than another's, but affluence and excess makes these authoritarians lazy. Nonetheless, they are determined.

And here's another one. So, you know how people get married, and many would then start a family. That's not the trouble; rather, consider, please, the idea that some proprietary sentiments run so strong that one might say, "Hey, Mom, look, uh, you know, the new wife and me were talking, and sure she has two kids from her first marriage, and I have three from mine, but we were thinking to start a family of our own, except she had a hysterectomy during her first marriage, and we don't want to adopt because we want a family of our own, so we were wondering if maybe we could borrow your uterus as a surrogate for our zygote?"

And, you know, as an adopted child raising his unplanned but welcome offspring, it's not that I don't have some context about this bloodline thing, and I can certainly find a few things to say disdaining such proprietary sentiments, but more to the point is the proprietary sentiment itself. Because we're going to look at another, related sentiment.

If my God's dick is bigger than his God's, and would rape the shit out of her Goddess, then what about those who say, "No daughter of mine"?

You still haven't explained how material security erases people's supremacist sentiments and behavior.

There's a reason why.

No daughter of whose will what? Marry a Jew? A Muslim? An Arab? An African? A Tutsi? A Dalit? Have a brown child? Spread for a Mexican? What part of material security will address supremacist bigotry?

Certain aspects of supremacism and bullying transcend the wisdom of once upon a time. We will sooner solve the dictatorship of the proletariat than compel supremacism to behave according to reliable and rational precept.

Please note: Reducing effective scarcity and perceptions thereof only undermines rational assertions of scarcity. Reducing effective scarcity has no direct effect on irrational perceptions and assertions of scarcity.

Furthermore, when appealing to a societal, generational endeavor, it helps to give at least some consideration to the ordinary human beings living through the mundane days that would otherwise witness such extraordinary processes.

 

Yes, we should definitely keep pointing out Trump's immoral behavior. Great plan - I guess that explains why we won in the last election.