Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Vote?

[Dug]

Maybe I should give this internet badass thing a try. Hey Europeans that are calling for a genocide of liberals! Come at me bros! I got lots of guns grrrr /flex /flex

Did I do it right?

[TheFirstOnes]

...

Eh?

What? How?

Did they forget who made america? I am Part Native America, and Mostly European. However, this "White man is the Villain" business really ticks me off.

Without the White-man: There would be NO Democracy! Without the White man, The 4 Father's wouldnt've helped with the Progressives (Note, that ALL Of the Presidents were White guys, and they helped other people get through their Progressive shit, Remember Abe Lincoln?).


I swear man, some people just don't know their Research...

[melodramocracy]

That's sure to be the dumbest article I'll briefly scan all day, even though it is quite early.

[Bullettime]

Surprised this thread is still up when it's a gender thread and we've had multiple posters now advocating liberal genocide and killing anyone who disagrees with them.

[Draco-Onis]

Just sayin even I, the communist bleeding heart libcuck, doesn't hear or read this crap unless it's posted here by people like Xarim.

That's because you aren't looking for things to feign outrage by, it would take 2 seconds to find something outrageous on infowars or breitbart and post it here but most people here aren't that stupid.

[Kalis]

Most of the people here aren't discussing the topic. Difficult to have a conversation when most of the posts are trash.

To be fair, the article is so poorly thought out, there is not a lot more you can do than mock it.

For example...

"This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population."

That paragraph (ignoring the assumptions made without evidence) would not support disenfranchising all white men, only those who are wealthy. She is effectively making a jump from "wealthy people are white men" to "white men are all wealthy", whereas that is obviously not true.

[Dug]

That's because you aren't looking for things to feign outrage by, it would take 2 seconds to find something outrageous on infowars or breitbart and post it here but most people here aren't that stupid.

Not that I read that shit anyways but I know better than to give them free advertising. Guess the outrage crew hasn't learned that yet.

[Gamer8585]

I read that as "A Modest Proposal" type of satire. I really hope it was.

When you start talking about disenfranchisement without due process the logic train has clearly gone off the rails. Since there is nothing intrinsic about "whiteness" or "maleness" that perpetuates the stated inequities blanket punishment would be a clear and egregious human rights violation. It's the same train of thought racists use when talking about minorities committing more crime and believing that all minorities are criminals.

There is also no guarantee that this would solve the systemic problems at all. Even without the vote those in power would still exude influence because of their wealth and connections. They'll still communicate their interests and the status quo will be persevered.

Even if we were to round all of the rich white men up and stick them on an Island in the middle of nowhere and redistribute their wealth there would unlikely be a meaningful long term change. The system is designed to encourage hording of resources and chasing ROI. Even if the system improves short term there's going to be a regression back to where we are now, the only difference is that they're may be a better demographic spread in the Upper Class.

Ultimately all people are created equal. Its not only white males that are disposed to becoming brutal despots. There have been brutal Latin-American and African Rulers, ruthless Queens, Warmongering Native Tribes, etc. The ignoble dominance of European peoples is only really salient to us because:
1) Its relatively recent. The conquests of European empires took place over the last ~2-400 years, and we're still dealing with the knock on effects.
2) We have a fuller picture. Due to the cultural relevance most schools will teach the history of Europe and its socio-political evolution as opposed to that of other regions (Africa, Asia, etc.) And so we're more prepared to critique the missteps and excesses.
3) They were really good at it. Both the reach and duration of conquest rivaled the largest in history. Britain may have had the largest empire ever at its apogee.
4) Many of our current social inequities stem from the consequences and attitudes of European adventurism.

Jumbling resources around may spread them better, but people are still going to be people (read: Assholes), and I think its more important to focus on crafting a socio-political-economic model that better rewards the sharing of resources as opposed to hording them. Theoretically Capitalism encourages the constant cycling of resources because the economy performs better, and everyone is better off, when money is circulating. However there are countervailing pressures that make hording the "correct" decision from an individual standpoint leading to a more inefficient economy and exacerbating the problems of wealth disparity.

[Tijuana]

Note:

For some people who got confused, I did not write the article below, I copy pasted it verbatim, and it does not represent my own views on the subjet


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



Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

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

This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth.

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.

It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren't white or male (in particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof's terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why are you posting racist shit here? Why is this even allowed? Change the words from white to black, and it would get you banned. This is outrageous this hasn't been locked.

[Shibito]

Generally he finds some outlier Feminist article, with some stupid shit that is not main stream, then uses to bash feminism. That is his M.O.

Feminism is retarded these days, and you get triggered every time by him its so funny to watch you people trying to bash Xarim for brining up the retarded lefties agenda by beeing triggered yourselves.

[ati87]

That's the overreaction I'm talking about - and if you think it's bad now, it's going to get so much worse. Infowars and Breitbart is peanuts compared to what's coming. There's a reason these sites are getting more and more popular. There's a reason for the anti-immigratration sentiment across the European continent.

White europeans have correctly identified a huge threat to our society. One of them is far left progressive politics, and the other is radical Islam, and we have all quite rationally come to the conclusion that these two things are conspiring to enslave, or even kill, us all. The more you push, the more we'll push back, and it's not going to end well. Stop provoking us.

What do you mean with white Europeans? Maybe the only reason why you are getting provoked is because you want to be provoked by anything you don't agree with?

the so called ''right-wing white European males'' didn't solo build Europe or the US after WW2, but they sure trying their hard to destroy it.

But you know by just what you wrote it's rather easy to see which side you're coming from.

White europeans
far left progressive
conspiring to enslave,
or even kill
we'll push back
end well.

Please crawl back to that little hole you came from, it's a bad combination when you are generally this aggressive and paranoid. Nobody is about to get you, go outside, go buy some good döner kebab (it's the food of the gods after all) and relax.

[Dug]

Feminism is retarded these days, and you get triggered every time by him its so funny to watch you people trying to bash Xarim for brining up the retarded lefties agenda by beeing triggered yourselves.

Ride harder my dude

[Deleted]

"Sins of the father" is Old Testament, so it is funny to see someone labelling themselves as a progressive applying old school religious ideology.

Are you talking about OP or about me? I dont label myself as progressive.

On another note, old testament is the Jews holy book right?

[Strangebrew]

Doesn't really make them any better then, does it?

It absolutely does, one side is condoning stupidity, anti-scientific bullshit and general regressive crap.
The other side is being outraged over that, that makes them vastly much better.

and before you go b-but conservative are dumbbbbbbbbbb! (which i agree on)

Most people you and the rest of the SJW's on this forum like to claim are conservatives for pointing out the bullshit, is left-leaning and liberals themselves.
Me and Xarim included, he have repeatedly said he's not right-leaning, you people just can't handle it when someone points out the fucking utter stupidity and regressive bullshit that modern feminism is.
Don't have to look further than this thread to see you people losing your shit over what Xarim posted.

It's not that hard to find things to get outraged by, welcome to the internet.

It stopped being "just the internet" when it started seeping into education, the media and even politics years ago.


Case in point

Here's the hypocrisy of conservatives....

This is no different than

[Kalis]

Are you talking about OP or about me? I dont label myself as progressive.

On another note, old testament is the Jews holy book right?

The article.

You described what is known a "Sins of the father", i.e. guilt is passed on through generations, which is from the Old Testament.

[Bodakane]

Here's the hypocrisy of conservatives....

They'll tout one editorial as a way to blast all liberals and scream about reverse racsim...blah, blah, blah, even though few, if any liberals, actually feel this way.

Meanwhile, they'll actually elect (into the highest office, no less)people who have ideologies just as flagrantly heinous then chafe when you accuse them of having those beliefs, all while pushing voter ID laws that do exactly the opposite of the editorial.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

See, this is the madness that gives progressives a bad name.

[Dug]

Most people you like to claim are conservatives for pointing out the bullshit, is left-leaning and liberals themselves.
Me and Xarim included, he have repeatedly said he's not right-leaning, you people just can't handle it when someone points out the fucking utter stupidity and regressive bullshit that modern feminism is.

Sorry but I don't buy the "i-i'm not a conservative" bullshit but whatever you are what you are... Independents™. Anyways, I really don't care how much you guys like to get angry over stupid articles like this. It's just predictable who the posters always are and it's funny that for people so outraged at certain media outlets they are more than happy to give them free advertising. Do you see me going out and posting Breitbart/Infowars threads? No? Wanna know why? Because I know better than to give a fuck what those retards have to say.

[Scroff]

No taxation without representation

[JohnBrown1917]

See, this is the madness that gives progressives a bad name.

Random internet writers?