More Blind Lunacy.
This place has got some serious right wing nut job vibes.
Oh they think they’re being so very clever not saying specifically that they want to repeal women’s right to vote.
This reads more like satire, but I don’t know the author.
It reads like satire, but there is a real faction that are trying to repeal the 19th amendment.
Oh absolutely, but I haven’t seen people sincerely saying the way to remedy it is by removing single men’s suffrage. The vibe I got was that this was using the real opinions and arguments of the people who oppose women’s suffrage then humorously turning it on its head by arguing against men’s suffrage, which is an equally reasonable (completely unreasonable to be exact) remedy to the arguments as what those people will claim.
And no fault divorce, don’t forget that one, they want to re-enslave women.
wonder how the Venn diagram looks with incels
It’s a circle.
It’s definitely satire. Wanting to take away single men’s right to vote and ending with Trump’s sign off are obvious giveaways.
Unfortunately, it’s rarely obvious anymore if you don’t know the person posting it.
It is. A few far right morons are starting to tout the whole, “Women dont vote right we should repeal the 19th” out loud instead of just thinking it privately. This is pretty clearly mocking that.
That being said, fuck it, no one gets to vote. Were going ancient athens and just doing it by lotto. You can do your year and go home and face the repercussions without security and pension for a life.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone’s stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give “campaign contributions.”
I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law?
Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me.
I don’t think this system was meant to be perfect. It’s just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you’re values twisted by establishment political relationships.
Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets.
What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two.
A parliament is still an additional layer. What I’m describing is a Jury system for passing laws.
How fascist do motherfuckers have to get before you stop going ‘I bet they’re joking?’
Being in the platform it’s not.
It’s a shame this cesspool is the only place to get tech industry tea.
LinkedIn should be destroyed for the blight that it is on working people, but strawmanning the obvious, self-conflicting satire is not the move
Is it a strawman when this is being treated as a legitimate position these days?
“Taking away single men’s right to vote” is not treated as a legitimate position by anyone
Taking away women’s right to vote is.
yes the joke is that you expect that to be the point but they subvert it by targeting an even more vulnerable group instead (/s since we need that here apparently)
No one is confused about it being a joke. What we’re saying is that it loses its humor once you realize repealing the 19th amendment is a real possibility.
lol
Right??? Single men was totally the reason the 19th was passed to begin with.
Won’t someone think of the poor, single men who can’t vote for their whole family?! /s
Yes it’s a about erasing women from the thought process regarding the 19th amendment.
Human rights are indelible. They exist as something you really are entitled to by virtue of the fact that you exist as a human being.
That said, legal rights which is what we discuss here, have only ONLY ever happened after a fight. No shit. All of them only come to us after a fight. Look up the history of the 19th. It almost didn’t happen. It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t a forgone conclusion. You need to realize that, internalize that, to fully understand what we are talking about here. None of this is something that cannot be legally ripped from us.
Fully agree. It’s terrifying to see our rights slowly eroding before our very eyes, rights that our mothers and grandmothers fought for not long ago. We can’t be complacent.
I mean… it’s a White House account. What do you expect?
It’s not. “White House & Policy” is just the forum topic
Ehh. What do I know. I have never once opened a LinkedIn page on any divining my life.
Oh. My. God.
The corporations knew this was coming! That’s why they always say “we’re a family”!
He’s being sarcastic, right?
Right???
Then you’d better give me back every single fucking penny I’ve paid in tax you fucking nazi
They’re so desperate about the midterms lol. Ever consider NOT being racist, bigoted, hateful, fascist pieces of mule dung?
There will never not be a subset of men who feel entitled to us, our lives, our bodies, our output of work.
I dated a guy (oh so briefly, never moved beyond the interviewing stage) who said on the 2nd? date he did not want a woman who used her energy on other people at work, specifically the human professions like teaching, psychology, or healthcare, because he felt that energy only belongs at home, with the family. I guess he was starting to relax enough to talk about how he really felt. Called Poe “nazifem” music over that meal as well. That whole meal wasn’t a Hello but a Goodbye. A final one.
I dated a guy (oh so briefly, never moved beyond the interviewing stage) who said on the 2nd? date
The second date? How many interviews do you typically do?
Dating is a series of interviews until you both decide to enter an agreement essentially.
That sucks. I hate interviews.
Most people hate dating, too lol
Yeah, I dread job interviews. They trigger my anxiety something fierce, and if I don’t get the job, I get depressed because I feel rejected. First dates are like that, but even worse! Unfortunately, I need a job in order to pay rent, but there isn’t anything forcing me to date, so I don’t do it.
Multiple, depending. Most ended as 1 date wonders, because of dumb shit like this being uttered on the first interview. Granted, I’ve been out of dating for over 20 years.
Apparently being all of that gets you elected
This post is about taking away men’s right to vote - how is that desperate for the incel vote in the midterms?
Do you know what the 19th amendment is?
Yes. It prohibits the disenfranchisement of any citizen based on sex. At the time that really only had impact on women, but the amendment doesn’t specifically grant voting rights to women.
The post is clearly a joke because they start by appearing to advocate for an awful thing, and then turning it around at the last second by advocating for the awful thing for the people who most often actually advocate for the first bit.
It’s not super funny or poignant, but it’s obviously a joke.
Take away the chads’ right to vote.
Agreed, men could spend more time at the gym if they didn’t have to consider any sort of political implications. It would be better for them.
just all good reminders of something more important than your vote:
the constitution is not permanent or immutable and there exist people and groups who know this and want to change things. in bad ways.
the constitution does not “give” rights, it only takes them, and rights themselves are something that exist outside of all power structures.
hit the gym.
the nazis are.
the constitution does not “give” rights, it only takes them,
The Sixth Amendment?
that outlines rights a gov “pinky promises” not to interfere with. it can “easily” be overridden with a later amendment. see the 18th and 21st amendments.
i mean i want to say the rights are guaranteed when they’re made explicit and the powers to protect those rights are delegated from the citizenry to the government, and if that doesn’t make it clear i’m a bit of an idealist i don’t know what else will. like, you don’t get to choose where you’re born so you don’t get to choose what you “voluntarily delegate” to the government, and emigration is rarely easy so your options when society chooses opposite you are limited.
hooray.
or when society votes in some nazis that amend those rights and now you are a non human.
the theme is: all govs are pieces of shit.
Take away all men’s rights to vote, we don’t deserve it. Women need to make all major decisions from now on.
Today I learned that people without families are entirely unaffected by their governments and so shouldn’t have a say. Also that individualism and “selfishness” are incompatible with Capitalist American ideals…
Families having more influence is based. Voting ages should be removed.
I would argue that lowering the age would make sense, but removing it altogether would not.
Why not?
Below a certain age, a person would literally be incompetent to place a vote. They would, at best, be voting as a proxy to a parent and wouldn’t be able to reason well enough to represent their own self interest.
Plenty of room for arguments to be had about what age that is though.
We could argue that it could be whenever they can independently present their ID, pick up their ballot paper, mark it, and submit it in a ballot box (this is the procedure in the UK)
be voting as a proxy to a parent and wouldn’t be able to reason well enough to represent their own self interest.
This already happens in the UK with the voting age at 18 (16 for local and devolved elections in Scotland). Provided they still have a right for an anonymous and independent vote, I don’t really see much issue with this. Parents generally do have rights over their kids. While I don’t believe a parent should be able to literally submit a ballot on behalf of their child without consent, it is quite standard that children follow their parent’s beliefs if/until they know otherwise. The vote is still representing a living, breathing, human. A citizen/voter of or residing in said nation. It’s just that they are under their parent’s domain and purview until a variable age. A parent can just as easily convince a somewhat disinterested or disengaged 24 year old child to vote for a poor candidate as they can convince a disengaged 14 year old to vote for a good candidate. Or the 14 year old could be more politically engaged and informed than many 24 year olds (I believe this actually is the case) and they would want to vote for a candidate, while a disengaged 24 year old is just voting for who their parents told them to vote for.
I genuinely don’t think it’s a bad idea. I think the only restrictions there really should be on voting is citizenship and residency (in the UK, voting is restricted to Commonwealth, Irish, or EU citizens who settled before Brexit and are residing and registered to vote in the Kingdom at the time of the election)
Obligatory Man Show bit on ending women’s suffrage.
I propose a new amendment that does not allow single men to vote. If you aren’t protecting and providing you aren’t man enough to decide where this country goes. This does not apply to single women. Women need to care and nurture at all times so they always have a vote.
Someone can sell that to a chud I am sure. We should try it
I’m sorry, what is this supposed to be?
Quick Edit: Oh it’s blind! I pity anyone who feels the need to look at Blind. I read it as a descriptor, “blind lunacy”
What is “White House & Policy,” why does it say “slync[dot]io” under it?
A shocking number of people seem to think this is from a White House account, but there’s no real source.
What is “this place”?It might be. It’s certainly in tune with maga.
This post trying to shift the language. Words matter.
Women’s liberation is exactly what it says. We were legally tied to men, dependent due to legal issues, up until the 1970s. Due to only 50 years of liberation in which we had to fight against significant societal inertia for while, well, a subset of males are still flailing after that shift, not knowing what to do or how to identify themselves after losing their life crutch shaped like a human being, specifically, a woman. Fueled by the prior generation, their dads, grandpas, and uncles, saying: women weren’t like this back in my day. An honest statement, because we weren’t financially liberated from men and that creates a certain level of dependence that, by necessity, changes behavior.
Anyway. Using the word “family” while avoiding the use of the word “woman” is an attempt to erase women from the thought process regarding the 19th amendment.
It might be.
This could have been posted by someone in a different country, or even an LLM. Blind is anonymous and therefore useless. It’s been a joke in tech for over a decade now. You can sometimes get real information but it’s not often.
This post trying to shift the language. Words matter.
Words do matter. This post is garbage spewed by no one. It could even be a fake screenshot.
Sources matter just as much as words do. You’re giving a screenshot far too much power when it has no source.
It’s alarming how many people upvoted this meaningless Blind post, because people get caught up in the drama instead of realizing what they’re responding to.
Did you not notice it ends in “taking away single men’s right to vote”?
It might be public policy I can get behind, but it’s a shitpost.
That’s how they’re being cheeky about it, but make no mistake. Women’s right to vote is absolutely under attack.
A. I am triggered by any talk that brushes up against rolling back any piece of women’s liberation.
B. I’m just off a long work stretch of 12s and engaged in not moving from where I woke while viewing crap on my phone right now.
C. This is the Internet.
But keep it for single women? Aren’t they both their own families if they head the household alone?
You’re missing what the 19th amendment fundamentally is:
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States and its states from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex, in effect recognizing the right of women to vote. The amendment was the culmination of a decades-long movement for women’s suffrage in the United States, at both the state and national levels, and was part of the worldwide movement towards women’s suffrage and part of the wider women’s rights movement.
I have no interest in a conversation with you Velma, I’ve told you that explicitly. I guess no doesn’t mean no to you.
Why not expand it? I mean single families can’t really see the big picture and might want some arbitrarily different things. It should be an entire community gets one vote so things average out. We’ll work together for a collective good that benefits all.
Wait…
That is effectively how the Senate works.
Is supposed to work*
