Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14797316
They retracted the piece after they allegedly couldn't trace the author. :lol: Also, they said the piece was going to be reviewed by an ethics ombudsman and stated that they adhered to journalistic 'anti-discrimination' statutes.

Funny thing is, they had already backed the original piece, and basically implied that it did not infringe on anything.

Huffington Post SA has removed the blog "Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?" published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.
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.

We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that, until now, have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on, bloggers will have to verify themselves.

We will hold discussions on putting in place even better quality controls.

In addition, we note the commentary on the content of the blog post and will submit it to the South African Press Ombudsman Joe Thloloe for his analysis of the opinion we carried.

Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: "We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity."
We further understand that universal enfranchisement followed a long struggle and we fully support this.
In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.

5. Discrimination and Hate Speech
5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people's race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people's status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.
5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

We apologise for the oversight. We welcome further discussion. Please email [email protected].

Huffington Post (archive)(and that's why people use 'Archive', in that you can still read the original. :lol: )
#14797319
Blogging; because who needs research.

This goes back to dumb things like CNN's... what was it called, where they let people upload reports on their own. iReport or something? That is dumb. I know they need to make money, but credibility should be the first step in reporting.
#14797323
You do if you present it as a report without cites or evidence. Especially if you don't actually exist.

That is exactly why you can't trust blogs. They are opinion. You can't cite them.
#14797331
Zagadka wrote:You do if you present it as a report without cites or evidence. Especially if you don't actually exist.


The sorest problem with fake feminist opinion pieces appears to be Poe's law.

In other words, if this was indeed satire from some anti-feminist prankster, it still seems tame compared to the kind of things you say to become a distinguished member of the gender studies faculty.
#14797332
Pants-of-dog wrote:Except that holocaust denial is perpetuating an ongoing tradition of anti-Semitism that has been part of western societies for centuries, like racism or sexism.

No Semitism is the racist lie that the creator of the universe is a Semitic nationalist. Judaism and Islam are racist filth. They project racist nationalism into the sky. Anti-Semitism means to oppose the racist ideology of Semitism. Christianity is also Semitic racism. We Pagans are not responsible for the murderous conflict between Judaic derived religious groups. We Pagans are the victims of three thousand years of Judaic oppression going back to the genocide of the Caananites.
#14797406
Saeko wrote:You're completely missing the point as usual. Your "congratulations on finding yet another way to act like victims" comment is offensive not just to white males but LITERALLY EVERYONE since, as I've said, it could be equally well applied to holocaust survivors or whatever. It's such a generic statement, that it could be used to legitimize any sort of injustice.


I understand why some white men want to talk about their feelings of being persecuted. And my amusement is based on the fact that these feelings are the entire argument.

The difference between white men and LITERALLY EVERYONE else is that white men do not actually need to worry about this while the rest of us have had to do so.

-----------------

Rapperson wrote:What are you saying? If it's tradition it's OK?


Actually, what I am saying is almost the exact opposite of that.
#14797408
Pants-of-dog wrote:The difference between white men and LITERALLY EVERYONE else is that white men do not actually need to worry about this while the rest of us have had to do so.


It is largely a matter of interpretation. Any discrimination or racism that whites face will never be taken seriously and will most often be dismissed. If it is acknowledged it will only be done in a "serves them right" capacity.

Most whites will believe that they have privileges because they want to be good people. However this soon starts to disappear when they realise that there is nothing in return for them bowing their heads to this narrative.
#14797420
Pants-of-dog wrote:The difference between white men and LITERALLY EVERYONE else is that white men do not actually need to worry about this while the rest of us have had to do so.

Check out the proportions of WIGs (White infidel Goy) at America's top universities and you will see there is massive discrimination. I think you will find the discrimination against male WIGs is even greater than against female WIGs.
#14797425
Political Interest wrote:It is largely a matter of interpretation. Any discrimination or racism that whites face will never be taken seriously and will most often be dismissed. If it is acknowledged it will only be done in a "serves them right" capacity.


It is not a matter of interpretation. There is no way of reinterpreting history to make it look like white men were denied the vote, or shipped wholesale as slaves to a different continent, or had their lands taken from them while they suffered from disease.

The only discrimination they have faced in this case is a satirical article. Why should we take that as seriously as religious persecution or racism or sexism? These actual forms of discrimination have been houng on for centuries or millenia, and have had significant effects on modern society. Have white men suffered similar persecution? No.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with some "serves their right" mentality. History is the same regardless of our feelings towards white men.

Most whites will believe that they have privileges because they want to be good people. However this soon starts to disappear when they realise that there is nothing in return for them bowing their heads to this narrative.


I doubt most white people believe in privilege becase they want to be good. Most white people have not even thought of privilege.

And of course you do not get anything out of realising you have privilege. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with bowing your head.
#14797438
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not a matter of interpretation. There is no way of reinterpreting history to make it look like white men were denied the vote, or shipped wholesale as slaves to a different continent, or had their lands taken from them while they suffered from disease.



Are you for real? There's plenty of evidence for all of those things.
#14797442
There is no way of reinterpreting history to make it look like white men were denied the vote


:lol:

My great granddad didn't have the vote until the representation of the people act in 1918 just after the war. At the start of the war he was good enough to be conscripted and sent to get wounded to make money for arms companies but not good enough to vote. You know nothing whatsoever about history PoD. Britain did not have universal male suffrage till 1918. There were property qualifications on the vote until this date. All but the richest working class people have only had the vote for less than a century in the UK and you claim that they were never denied the vote. If it was a non white in that situation you and your kind would be foaming at the mouth but as it is a white you are probably glad it happened and see the day he got the vote as a great tragedy.
#14797445
Rapperson wrote:What is it then?


There is a continuing tradition of prejudice and discrimination towards people of colour and women. Thus, when someone targets women or people of colour with prejudice and discrimination, they are perpetuating this tradition.

There is no continuing tradition of prejudice and discrimination towards white men. Thus, when someone targets white men with prejudice and discrimination, they are not perpetuating this tradition.

Now, do you want to know why this difference is important?

Rapperson wrote:Are you for real? There's plenty of evidence for all of those things.


Please present evidence that white men have been targeted with the same prejudice and discrimination faced by women and people of colour. Thank you.

----------------

Decky wrote: :lol:

My great granddad didn't have the vote until the representation of the people act in 1918 just after the war. At the start of the war he was good enough to be conscripted and sent to get wounded to make money for arms companies but not good enough to vote. You know nothing whatsoever about history PoD. Britain did not have universal male suffrage till 1918. There were property qualification on the vote until this date. All but the richest working class people have only had the vote for less than a century in the UK and you claim that they were never denied the vote. If it was a non white in that situation you and your kind would be foaming at the mouth but as it is a white you are probably glad it happened and see the day he got the vote as a great tragedy.


So when some whie men did not have the vote, neither did people of colour and women. And this was only for poor people, and other white men did have the vote.

Sure. This does not contradict my point at all as white men still had the vote.
#14797450
It was for nearly half of all males, hardly just the poor. :roll: When facts and your myths collide you just ditch the facts. It is the same as you people talking about whites having slaves at a time when a tiny minority had them and a great many in eastern Europe were still essentially slaves themselves (serfdom).

You are no different to a klansman claiming all black people are criminals because some are in prison. The logic is totally identical, social justice warriors and normal garden variety racists will be reeducated in the same camps when the working class take over.
#14797452
Decky wrote:It was for nearly half of all males, hardly just the poor. :roll: When facts and your myths collide you just ditch the facts. It is the same as you people talking about whites having slaves at a time when a tiny minority had them and a great many in eastern Europe were still essentially slaves themselves (serfdom).


Were they denied the vote because they were white or because they were men?

No.

Were people of colour and women denied the vote becase of their race and/or sex?

Yes.

You are no different to a klansman claiming all black people are criminals because some are in prison. The logic is totally identical, social justice warriors and normal garden variety racists will be reeducated in the same camps when the working class take over.


Yes, if you completely ignore history, then criticism of racism and sexism is just as bad as actual racism and sexism.

Lol.
#14797453
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is a continuing tradition of prejudice and discrimination towards people of colour and women. Thus, when someone targets women or people of colour with prejudice and discrimination, they are perpetuating this tradition.

There is no continuing tradition of prejudice and discrimination towards white men. Thus, when someone targets white men with prejudice and discrimination, they are not perpetuating this tradition.

Now, do you want to know why this difference is important?



Please present evidence that white men have been targeted with the same prejudice and discrimination faced by women and people of colour. Thank you.

----------------



I am not your private tutor. This is a place for you to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
#14797455
Were they denied the vote because they were white or because they were men?

No.

Were people of colour and women denied the vote becase of their race and/or sex?

Yes.


What the fuck are you tying to prove Spaniard?

Were blacks denied the vote because they were working class?

No.

Were working class people denied the vote because of their class?

Yes.

Now what has that proved exactly?

See it's easy anyone can post like you do. Just string some words together with no actual meaning or evidence or even a cogent point behind them. I guess when other people are reading history books you are "busy" having your siesta. :lol:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

@47 Knucklehead Then I still disagree with it.[…]

As a simplification of the state welfare system a […]

Gun regulations and libertarianism

@47 Knucklehead Just so you know, the moderat[…]

If he went to business school, is he doing anythin[…]