FCC votes for net neutrality
Anyone surprised at the vote? Didn’t think so. The general trend is for greater and greater control by agencies in matters that may seem innocuous, technical, and/or unimportant at the time but can have wide-reaching effects especially when they are followed by ever-expanding restrictions.
The net neutrality rules don’t sound so bad. And maybe they’ll stay that way. But I wouldn’t bet a dime on it.
Here’s the “neutrality” part:
The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers””including cellular carriers””from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.
Trouble is that it gets the camel’s nose in the tent (actually, I think the nose was already in the tent, but I think you know what I mean):
The most controversial part of the FCC’s decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.
Chairman Wheeler tut-tuts concerns:
This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
So, which is it folks? Hint: Obama and the Democrats are for it, and Republicans and Libertarians seem to trend against it. Therefore my guess is “a plan to regulate free speech,” step by step by step. A certain step may seem perfectly fine and even reasonable at the time. But objections are not, as Wheeler so elegantly says, “nonsense,” because a step is almost inexorably followed by another and another and another, until a point is reached that isn’t fine at all.
Wann dem Fé¼hrer wuste!
Fé¼hrer befiehl, wir folgen dir!
Wir sind die Zukunft
how things repeat…
Assume the mantle
then what?
So, which is it folks?
free speech is the thesis… so the antithesis is…
welcome to the dictatorship of the proletariat
nothing to do now… its been game over for a while
all we have been watching is Gleichschaltung
the game here is to impose on everyone, then give out waivers to their friends… say hello to my little friend.
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/concept72_gleichschaltung.htm
As a totalitarian regime the Third Reich developed its own language, a perversion of the German language. The control of hearts and minds, to which totalitarian political systems aspire, necessitates such a perversion of the normal use of language. Meaning is twisted and distorted in such a way that the citizens of a totalitarian state can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood. They are reduced to such a state of confusion and impotence that they can be fully manipulated by the dictatorial government.
i was one of the first to bring up this term way way back when… very quickly a few others figured it out too…
I’m no legal eagle, but one thing for sure, the statists have got their legal eagles, who will scour laws and regulations and will get sympathtic judges to rule in favor of outcomes that were never intended to be outcomes.
Of course, with the advantage of decades of experience, we realize that “never intended to be outcomes” is practically tongue-in-cheek. Dollars to doughnuts the statists have already begun the scouring to see how they can use these innocuous-appearing regulations to exercise more control over us — for our own good, of course; to be sure that information disturbing to our sense of serenity never reaches our tender eyes and ears.
These rules are a cure for a nonexistent disease. It’s like the politicians saving us from global warming with new taxes
It’s Obama’s World and we’re just spectators. Thank you stupid white people that voted for him.
Net “Neutrality” = Net Favoritism for the Left. Lather, rinse, repeat. Orwell was, as ever, right.
Meanwhile, by Imperial Edict, Lord Hussein has decreed that the most common AR-15 rifle (America’s most popular) bullets (5.56 mm), are now under His Interdict:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750
Top of page at Drudge; foregrounded by Rush Limbaugh.
And so it begins…. A man called in from Pennsylvania, owner of a sporting goods store, who said the regime’s edicts have been killing his business since 2010. Some people are saying “it’s only this one bullet … they can’t take all our guns, there are too many….” and the Leftists just sit back and laugh, as they take us down by increments.
Best description that I’ve seen
Net Neutrality is put forth as a battle between Big Corporations vs. Big Government. But Big Government is responsive to Big Lobbying and Big Contributions, and Big Corporation gets a Big Say in what Big Government does. Elementary economics will teach you that the one common goal of all firms is to restrict entry into their line of business; the easiest way is to get Big Government to impose Big Regulations which require compliance officers and cost money making the cost of startup much greater. Adam Smith wrote about that…
This is also a good example of “Corporatism”, Mussolini’s implementatation of Socialism.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/oil-cars-lobbyists-and-net-neutrality-robots-and-jobs-hydrogen/
First rule of Statism: tut-tut concerns.
Re Wheeler’s subtle, nuanced, interpretation of the 1st Amendment:
“If in fact we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults and stand shoulder to shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are targets of such attacks,”
B H Obama – National Prayer Breakfast in Washington
Neo-neocon’s commenters may soon be obligated to condemn Neo-necon’s disposition to take Obama for what he, demonstrably, is.
Everything’s copasetic.
… But objections are not, as Wheeler so elegantly says, “nonsense,” because a step is almost inexorably followed by another and another and another, until a point is reached that isn’t fine at all.
The safest road to hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
CS Lewis
Unlike phone service and or common carrier rules; this also has a ‘broadcast’ component and FCC has discretion to set some content restrictions for broadcast medium. So; yes… you should have every reason to doubt that the ‘if you like your open internet you can keep it’ long term. See hate speech rule campaigns.
There are also the free market problems. By mandating equal access… regardless of bandwidth consumed… you’ll create a bandwidth shortage…. even if things don’t grind to a halt; you’ll slow the growth of the internet’s speed by not allowing providers to charge heavy consumers more… so; we must all subsidize them to pick up the slack. If the cost of that goes above what we will pay; then growth / expansion will take longer to fund… typical socialism.
“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”
Ah. Now I understand.
The First Amendment to our Constitution – the primary document establishing the place and power that government shall be allowed in our country – tells government to stay out! – that it has no power to regulate our speech. It tells government to mind its own business, which said business it has already described and delimited in the main document.
The FCC’s new rules take over the administration and supervision of the newest, most foolproof guarantee that our speech is truly free – the internet – and empowers government to tell us what we may and may not say while using it.
A perfect parallel!
We must be forced to be free, right?
From John Fund at National Review:
The battle for control of the Internet isn’t over. Over two-thirds of the House and Senate are on record as opposing FCC regulation of the Internet, and a new president could change the policy overnight in 2017 even if the courts don’t block it.
Just one more reminder of how important the 2016 election is going to be.
Fund goes on to say:
But for now, the “media reform” movement led by McChesney [head of Free Press, a liberal lobby] and his allies can claim bragging rights for their Saul Alinsky—style outflanking maneuver on Internet regulation. They financed the research behind the idea, installed their political allies in power, got the government to consider them experts on the issues they cared deeply about, and finally ran roughshod over both Congress and an initially reluctant FCC chairman. Conservatives should study how the Left won on this issue even as they acknowledge and fight the illegitimacy of many of the results.
Soros, Ford Foundations ‘Lavish’ $196 Million to Push Internet Regulations <–Clicky
Er war die Zukunft:
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that’s—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not—not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t—you don’t see the connection. But it was—it created no—no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c—I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was—well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets—that if I weren’t there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would—would—would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the—I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
Soros Helped The Nazis During Holocaust
TWICE!
P.S. Start establishing web sites – even empty ones – now, before the approval process makes it impossible.
Soros certainly sounds like a sociopath in that quote.
The Market Ticker has a post about net neutrality. Apparently, companies like Netflix and Facebook stand to be big winners, since their bandwidth will be subsidized by other users.
So yes, corporatism.
Conservatives have not lost this fight yet.
The FCC, BY LAW, is required to publish (make public) their code fully 30 days before making such a decision as was made today.
It is reported to be upwards of 230 pages long.
They have yet to make it available.
That is in violation of the law.
This will be used in litigation of this issue.
That is not the only way to defeat this move by the FCC, however, suffice it to say, this fight is not yet over.
Maybe one way to put a stop to use of executive orders is for states to pass laws allowing its citizens to ignore them or in some cases criminalizing federal enforcement. Wreak havoc! Obama may be able to veto bills or ignore enforcement at the federal level, but he cannot do the same with respect to state laws. Maybe he’s just forcing states to start standing up for themselves.
Small players will be losers in this decision, should it not be defeated.
“Barrier to entry” is an element that large corporations stand to benefit by in this.
The downsides are too numerous to list here.
If one is interested, more information can be found at,
http://www.AmericanCommitment.org.
Clarityseeker:
Their defense will be they are only doing what Obama does, therefore it’s okay. Remember the Bergdahl swap? He was supposed to give 30 days notice to Congress, but he ignored that and went ahead and did it anyway because it was such great deal.
A Polish friend of mine, sixty years old, who was in Solidarity, admitted shamefacedly that she regrets having voted for Comrade Zero; and said “all my Polish emigre friends vote Republican.” So why did you vote for the Left?!? I asked her.
“Because I couldn’t believe this [the socialist takeover] could happen in America,” she said. “It makes me so sad to see it happening here.”
That was five years ago.
I also asked her, “What is it like to live under a Communist dictatorship?”
“Well,” she said with some embarrassment, “you keep your head down, you try not to attract Their attention, and you just concentrate on your own work, your own art. . . .”
So there’s that. I found it interesting that she was embarrassed, of all things. As if she felt, with some justice, that they should have known better.
KLSmith Says: Thank you stupid white people that voted for him.
sorry… it was white women that tipped the scale by voting differently from white males…
2008
Unmarried women–a group that includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed women–voted for Obama over Republican opponent John McCain by a whopping 70 to 29 percent in yesterday’s election – usnews
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong.
Women – who have historically formed one of President Barack Obama’s key constituencies – once again united behind him in large numbers and helped fend off defections from white male and independent supporters.
much as it was in germany (the men died in WWI… so there was not enough of them to out vote the women who didnt die in WWI… )
Everything’s copasetic
no
its coprasetic… 🙂
Artfldgr:
How white women voted in 2012:
Note the writer’s snobbery—it can’t be the well-educated white females who vote Republican! Surely not!
First, it was money that grows on trees and generated with electric signals. Now, it is infrastructure that is conceived, born, and evolves at the government’s pleasure. The Democrat, including not a few Republicans, juxtaposition between commodities and children is revealing. I wonder how many will bitterly cling to their pro-choice or selective principles as they follow the secular profits.
At the Atlantic, some interesting findings from the 2012 election on white female voters:
So he lost those white college-educated women the snooty New Yorker guy thought may have voted for him, and by quite a bit.
Neoneocon: ->Begin rant<-
You got to go with the numbers. They womyn, as a constituency put the Obamaniac clique over the top, TWICE:
Women’s vote carries Obama to victory on historic election night
Neocon, it is your blog but, pretty please with a cherry on top, don’t do that dancing about the bush. Historically and nowadays, the sisters have been and are an existential problem on such matters and it can only be resolved within the sisterhood.
Bluntly, they go for the bad guy. Romney is too goody, goody and too good a provider, not enough of a 50 Shades of Grey flavor to him.
[US is about 4% of the worldwide sheeple population, 25 out of 100 million copies bought here.]
Because of the explosive dimensions of all this I clearly put my patriarch foot down in my circles. The first whiff of Libtart sentimentalism or, f.a.g.h.a.g.e.r.y for that matter, and you are out. I want only Palin, Bachmann, Malkin and Coulter types around me. Period. No nuances. Existential.
Same with Islaaaam. Them womyn should be infuriated and on the rampage, snatching hijabs off heads in the streets of America and nagging moooslime phalloc.rats mercilessly.
->End rant<-
Nothing new:
WOMEN AND THE FINAL SOLUTION: “500,000 women had front-row seats to the Final Solution, where they watched and benefitted from the rapidly declining ‘racially inferior’ masses. And yet their presence, and their atrocities, have been largely ignored for the last 70 years. Twenty years ago, Lower was researching in Zhytomyr, a city in western Ukraine, leafing through the normal stuff of archives, the fading ink and illegible handwriting on tattered paper, some of which had bootprints and charred edges. It was there, among the German records that had been inaccessible under the Iron Curtain, that Lower began to notice an abundance of women’s names among the empire-builders. . . . There is link between the shockingly cavalier testimony given by these women and our collective ignorance of their actions in the Nazi East: genocide is usually considered the business of men, and thus, when it came time to call Nazis to account for their crimes, prosecutors were less interested in these women than in their male colleagues and husbands. . . . Jewish survivors have consistently described German women in the Nazi East as violent tormenters, not innocent bystanders.”
Here
The good old days, pre 9/11, cough, cough!:
Vagina Monologue allright!
Imagine Madison Square Garden brimming over with 18,000 laughing and ebullient women of every size, shape, age and color, along with their male friends, ditto. Imagine that in that immense space, usually packed with hooting sports fans, these women are watching Oprah, Queen Latifah, Claire Danes, Swoosie Kurtz, Kathleen Chalfant, Julie Kavner (voice of Marge Simpson), Rosie Perez, Donna Hanover (soon-to-be-ex-wife of New York’s bigamous mayor) and sixty-odd other A-list divas put on a gala production of The Vagina Monologues, Eve Ensler’s theater piece about women and their mimis, totos, split knishes, Gladys Siegelmans, pussycats, poonanis and twats….
…Ensler led the cast in a chorus of orgasmic moans, and Close got the braver members of the audience to chant “Cunt! Cunt! Cunt!” at the climax of a poetic monologue meant to redeem and reclaim the dirtiest of all dirty words… Burp!
Geez!
The 19th amendment … hmmm …
Basically my thesis is that Socialism got entrenched largely due to the women vote…
There seems to be a lot of mixed opinions about net neutrality, and not strictly along ideological lines. I think this short piece from Eric Raymond is quite informative, although 6 years out of date and google has changed sides.
g6loq
I’m not dancing around any bush. I was responding to Arfldgr when he wrote [emphasis mine], “it was white women that tipped the scale” for Obama in 2012. I was not pointing out that it wasn’t women that tipped the scale (they very much did). I was pointing out that white women went for Romney by a large margin, although not by as large a margin as white men did. My entire point had to do with the voting habits of white women in the 2012 election, and I addressed Artfldgr by name in my comment so that it was clear who and what I was addressing.
You completely ignore the point I was actually making, and act as though I was talking about women in general, which I clearly was not.
That’s my point, and it’s factually correct. I am well aware that women as a group voted for Obama, but it was a subset of those women (minority, single) who voted for Obama in truly overwhelming numbers.
I couldn’t care less about defending the voting habits of women as a group. Or even of defending the voting habits of white women as a group. I was offering some facts to clarify the actual behavior of white women in that election.
OK, Neoneocon , point well taken.
I’ll go dig into the fine points some more.
Although, anecdotal, around me when in Maryland, they were all Obamaniacs and aggressively so.
My thesis is that it has to be the sisterhood resolving this amongst themselves.
Their lack of assertive uproar over Islam is … depressing.
Thanks, sorry for distracting you from your routine.
Best, Jean
Yes, because allowing monopoly corporations like comcast and verizon to suck as much money as they can from their customers while at the same time making it absolutely impossible for anyone to compete with them must be a good thing, right?
http://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor-to-comcast-is-basically-impossible/
Artfldgr – THANK you!
A year ago, “Liberal Fascism” author and lawyer Jonah Goldberg lectured at the University of Colorado at Boulder. During the Q & A, after thanks for that revisionist history, I suggested that he update his thesis covering the Age of Obama and the theme of Gleichshaltung.
Goldberg had already mentioned it during his talk, and Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit had made it a recurrent reference point in 2013 (or even 2012).
In his response, he didn’t take up my suggestion for consideration. Yesterday, I commented online at his column, that he might now reconsider.
I am utterly frightened and aghast at the sinister neologism, “net neutrality.”
‘John Smith” misses the forest for the trees in complaining that this is “allowing monopoly corporations like comcast and verizon to suck as much money as they can.”
WRONG! The vested interests wanting to ‘protect’ through onerous regulation of ObamaNet is Google, Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon – Big Silicon Valley Business that makes up half of all downstream internet traffic. Why? Because they want YOU the customer to make it free for them to use the internet!
Innovative rivals – who will, if left alone, be threatening them sooner or later – will be crippled!
“it would be unfair…[for] Silicon Valley giants if any business voluntarily could pay for faster Internet speeds and for more usage — like consumers already routinely do. Thus the supposed ‘fair’ policy would be ‘equal’ corporate welfare from the FCC in the form of a permanent zero-price for downstream Internet traffic.” (See Scotto Cleland here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/02/who-pays-for-net-neutrality/)
ObamaNet regulation means the mighty state will pick winners and loser for YOU! THINK of the billions of dollars lost because of Obama subsidies for wasteful solar power! The same will now happen to the internet. Political favoritism will triumph over your free consumer choices.
Innovation will get stifled to subsidize Big Silicon Valley Businesses because stable and simple rules help small scale innovation. Bit Regulation favors Big Tech that hires armies of lawyers and lobbyists by the billions of dollars.
neo-neocon Says: One of the least commented-upon aspects of the election returns is that well over fifty per cent of Caucasian females voted for Romney, too. Not as many of them as white men, of course, but a solid majority.
feminists always have to come to the rescue of the sisterhood.. for many its a pavlovian response to anything negative said about women… of course these same people dont come running to spout when something negative is said about men, and the men dont respond pavlovian either… (i have tested thsi more than once by adding a comment, you have bitten several times… most women do… its now a culturally trained response… of course everyone denies such things work, they deny advertising works, but those who know, know that it does work regardless of the denials of those who act upon it and pretend their reasons are otherwise!!!!!!!!!)
your point leaves out that this cohort was the married white women cohort… but note how its written propagandicly… they leave out details your not adding, and so, are using as proof..
white MARRIED women voted almost as much as white men for Romney. White UNMARRIED women voted in landslide for obama…
your paragraph does not break it down… and post feminism there are more unmarried women than married women…
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup’s History
Obama wins women’s vote; Romney has eight-point edge among men
President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%
Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952
Prior to this year, the largest gender gap in Gallup polling history was 18 points in the 1984 election that saw Republican Ronald Reagan win a second term in office. Majorities of both men and women voted for Reagan in that election, but he won among men by 28 points (64% to 36%) and among women by 10 points (55% to 45%).
Single women voted overwhelmingly in favour of Obama, researchers find
Nearly a quarter of the voters in Tuesday’s election were unmarried women — and Obama captured more than two-thirds of their votes, 67%,
“Unmarried women were the drivers of the president’s victory,” said Page Gardner, the president of WVWVAF.
And marital status was crucial. “It’s all about the marriage gap,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and pollster.
The unmarried women of the 2012 make up almost 40% of the African American population, nearly 30% of the Latino population, and about a third of all young voters, or 32.7%
More and more Americans are single. Singe people are now the majority in about 15 or 16 states — several of them the swing states that decide presidential elections, said Celinda Lake, the Democratic
pollster and strategist.
Among women, unmarried women made up about 20% of the electorate in the 2008 elections. By 2012, about 23% of voters were single women — and they opted overwhelmingly for Obama, giving him 67% of their votes http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/09/single-women-voted-favour-obama
Gender Gap: Voting Choices In Presidential Elections
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GGPresVote.pdf
Lists percentages of women and men voting for presidential candidates 1980-2012. The gender gap in voting refers to the difference in the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for a given candidate. A gender gap in voting for presidential candidates has been apparent in every election since 1980.
Gender Gap: Party Identification and Presidential Performance Ratings
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GGPrtyID.pdf
Polling data from 1981-2014 on differences between men and women on party identification and presidential performance ratings, from Ronald Reagan through Barack Obama.
Gender Gap: Attitudes on Public Policy
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GG_IssuesAttitudes-2012.pdf
Polling data from 2012 on differences between men and women on selected policy issues.
I dont have a life, i dont have a future, i have lots of time to read and memorize things others dont even know exist…
I am sorry to rant, but I would really like to say a few things, not so much specifically in response to anyone or anything in this particular thread, but more as general considerations.
Try though I may, I consistently fail to understand what is the problem with “women” for a part of the readership here and, to a much greater extent, on similar websites that most of us here seem to read.
Maybe I am the overly sensitive one (or I am finally waking up to some things I have been warned about but had too promptly written off as unlikely), however this intense negativity associated with things female and “feminized”, concentrated precisely in those corners of the internet where I found large groups of people of similar worldviews and political dispositions, has been rubbing me the wrong way for quite a bit now.
I have reached a temporary conclusion that we must be living in two distinct social and symbolic “worlds” and that the divergence between those “worlds” cannot be fully attributed to any geographical or cultural differences that may have been exacerbated by my having grown up (and still living) abroad.
Nor can the venom be discarded as an occasional idiosyncratic happenstance, since it seems to be _concentrated_ in some circles – thereby making it a reasonable possibility that it is an integral part of the shared optics.
Recently I took some pains to research this resentment and, frankly, what I often see as pure ill-will towards American women. My suspicion that there were two such coexisting “worlds” only grew stronger. For reasons the complexity of which must be out of my intellectual grasp, the blame for the state of moral and aesthetic degeneration of one of those “worlds” is selectively placed on women, although men of the same “world” to me seem at least as obstinate in advancing the very same sort of degeneration.
I have also not been able to come up with a sufficient explanation for the apparent hobby horse of digging out _specifically female_ crimes, past or present, with no greater purpose than to point to their existence, as if one dealt with an anthropological novelty. I would have thought just reading, say, Medea would suffice to convince that female crime existed, was depicted in literature and was present in the collective imaginary throughout history. And that it would be proper to address it _qua crime_ (as opposed to _qua female_) where relevant.
The Vagina Monologues? Fifty shades? If it were not for the ads or an occasional reference I stumble upon, I would not know those _existed_ – and as a young woman I am the _intended audience_. In my world it is not a cultural reference nor it has sufficient relevance for a need to be preoccupied with it (on any level) to even form. While there is always a possibility that cladestine, guilt-pleasure consumption of such material may be greater than I suspect, whenever I ask anyone what they read lately, or see what books go through their hands, there never seems to be material of such reputed degradation. I know that the high selling figures must come from _somewhere_, but again, it is apparently a different world which must coexist right next to me.
Voting for tyrants? Men can be just as deficient in appreciating how those slippery slopes work as can be women, and are wilfully blind to vote just as much on account of convenience and opportunism (in whichever direction it happens to take them). I am not sure I ever detected a significant difference between the sexes here; if anything, the most vocal proponents of any political option of which I know seem to be men. Nota bene, that includes all shades of socialism.
Our “problem” as a decaying civilization is not – except in an exceedingly superficial analysis – the fact that a half of population subject to the same laws but with a somewhat different core sensibility and some sex-specific needs to take into account HAS that vote.
A _part_ of our problem may well be how to balance out the two generalizably distinct (but largely complementary) sensibilities of which the humanity is composed – taking into account both the specific contributions and the moral pitfalls more closely associated with each – but the anti-“womyn” venom is not only counterproductive to improving that, it breaches into the offensive.
As a purely practical concern, any such generalized mental association of the anti-“womyn” rhetoric with specific political options only risks appearing disagreeable enough to the women to be less incentivated to even research it as a political option in the first place. Consider that, perhaps, that is also a part of the bigger picture of the women’s greater propensity to find themselves, politically, elsewhere. It is a part of the sensibility you have to take into account – maybe the other side, other than offering some cookies that are properly resisted, happens to know that, too.
and the feminists also defend against the actual data of the 1933 voting given the outcome… proud before hand, not proud later… they always give the figures as percentages… and then people are way too lazy to look up the population figures behind the percentages (we have had this before, and i have gone over these figures over and over from many sources over the years)
if you have 1 million women.. and you have 100,000 men, you can hide the points by never saying the actual quantities… so then its easy to say, only 20% of women voted… but that 20% is double what the 100% of males was in the extreme example here. THIS is the propagandic game played when discussing that period and who voted.. regardless, women do not want to be responsbile for ANY negatives they actually cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! family break down? its the patriarchy, not women… welfare state expansion which serves single mothers and poor women (ergo most homeless are men)… not women voting… obama, not women…
women are sugar and spice and everything nice and the best part of being a feminist is neer actually being held responsible… even if you are.
its extremely hard to get the numbers on this, which is why i dont hold it against anyone… just as one has to read or translate german to read the articles on disparate impact (not using that term) that are used to fire up the population to attack jews or at least be indiferent to their plight!!! (i linked it here once after searching for a few days, and you deleted it as it was past the length limits… i never was able to find it again!!!!!!)
German Weimar Republic Data, 1919-1933 (ICPSR 42)
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/42
you have to understanf that there is a huge cadre of people who spend inordinate amounts of time picking and reinacting that period… they are experts at it… from the ammunition loads and differences, to the population differences, etc.
WWI decimated the male population….
WWII decimated it even more…
even here in the US, the decimation of males from WWI, and WWII leads to the baby boom… and leads to women having to work to make up for not having enough men… and for them to get angry at the demgraphic fact that when there are too manyw omen and not enough men, the system favors the fewer… (which is why hookup culture in college dominates.. once the women got rid of most men, its the women who have to compete to get the attention of the few males remaining… unlile before when there were fewer women, and the many males had to compete for them!)
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
germany feilded 11,000,000 men WWI
1,773,700 of voting age died
1,152,800 of voting age disappeared or were prisoners
64.9% of the force were casualties.
its not just the war as men dont live as long as women do… and in the war civilian males died faster than women given sacrifices and punishments meted out.
after all, vichy women got their hair cut off post war in france, the men were hanged. that leaves the complicit women to go on and vote once their hair grows back, the dead men, no voting for them.
Notable features before that time are fertility being extremely low during the ending years of the Weimar Republic, when it dropped down to about 1.1 child per woman in 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Statistics_since_1900
in a close race, the dead men not voting made all the difference… (and weimar gave women the vote).
Who Voted for Hitler? By Richard F. Hamilton
you will notce that its all in percents. it always is…
as percents can tell a story, but leave out details.
Except for some cities with heavy industry, all german cities had a rather imbalanced sex ration with women FAR outnumbering the men. Berlin had 1,169 women per 1000 men
Wlmersdorf 1414 women per 1000 men…
Zehlendorf 1343 women per 1000 men
there is no way for the men to win the vote and prevent who the women were voting for as long as enough voted… if 71% of the women in wemersdorf voted for hitler, 100% of the men voting would not be enough to cancel it out..
given that elections are not 100% to one side…
if 70% of the men voted against hitler, it would only take 50% of the wome voting for hitler to win…
THIS is why it turned out the way it did… and why the promises of a renewed state and welfare for women captured the vote.
american feminsits and statists learned that women could be bought by welfare… and did not have the morals to turn it down or side against it!!! like the genesis story in the bible, they can be bought…
you can see it by them voting for free birth control over freedom for the people…
the book mentioned above at least gets the actual numbers into the argument… every feminsit based book i have ever read on it, avoids the numbers which would reveal what percentages dont..
its easy to make it look like women didnt vote as much as men for things when the demographics skew so badly… you could easily say that 60% of the men voted against hitler and only 45% of the women voted for him… and without the numbers you would not know that there were so many more women that 45% beat out the 60%…
the propagandic games are legendary…
you HAVE to look for them to get a real answer
ok… you win..
white males voted for the system to disenfranchis them, turn them into pariahs, take their jobs and have the state favor other races beating them up with no legal recourse.. women didnt vote for it.. they didnt vote for more womens programs, and more medical money, and free birth control, and favoritism above men, and moremoney for stem, and school favortisms, and so on.
you win… i am tired… too old to care.. and am waiting to die, and need not be a unpleasant ride to the end… for what? to be worn down?
lets just do the PC thing and give up guys. we lost, we are not a protected class and women would never vote for advantage and free money, and so on..
and men are too stupid to vote aginst being put upon by the state and negated, pushed out and so on.
if momma aint happy, no one happy…
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
1. Women were the majority of voters. According to exit polls 53 percent of the voters in the 2012 elections were women–more than one out of every two voters across the country was a woman. Moreover, 55 percent of those women cast votes for President Barack Obama. Women who voted for President Obama made up 29 percent–nearly one-third–of the electorate.
2. The gender gap grew to 10 points. The gender gap is defined as the margin between men and women’s support for a candidate. It’s the best way to measure how men and women’s voting patterns differ. According to official 2012 exit polls, President Barack Obama had a 10-point gender gap over his Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney–higher than in most (but not all) presidential races since 1980.
3. Women decided the election. This past November women determined the outcome of the presidential election. Only in President Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory did a candidate succeed by winning with women and losing with men. Again, according to official exit polls, in both of their first terms in office, President Obama and President Clinton won with both genders. In neither of his campaigns did President George W. Bush win with women, although previous Republican presidents did.
4. The gender gap extends beyond women of color. The gender gap widened considerably with Latinos and African Americans this year, but also with whites. While President Obama’s support with white women declined, his gender gap among whites grew and was the same as former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s gender gap in 2006 and larger than President Clinton’s 1992 gender gap among whites. It was also larger than the gender gap among whites in the last four midterm elections
etc
for some reason i cant find one article that says something opposite of above… but i know it must be tthere… after all, what happened is craptastic, so they wont take credit… but if it was utopian, they would line up for it…
Artfldgr:
I’m not in a contest with you, so “you win” is an odd statement for you to make.
I was adding some statistics on how white women voted, and part of the reason I was doing it was to clarify the statistics for the readers who might have thought that you were saying white women as a whole voted for Obama. I also included the fact that there was a gap between white women and white men when I wrote, “Not as many of them as white men, of course, but a solid majority. ”
I also added, “but it was a subset of those women (minority, single) who voted for Obama in truly overwhelming numbers.” Not single minority women, but minority women AND single women was what I was trying to say.
Your misunderstanding of my point has led to a barrage of comments that argue over something I was not saying.
I’m sure you could find women who are intent on defending the “sisterhood.” I couldn’t care less about defending women as a group (or men as a group, for that matter, or attacking either as a group). You should know that from reading my writing.
Anna:
Interesting discussion. I don’t have much time today, but I may take up some of your points in the future.
Art’s got some trauma with the SJ whores he deals with in real life, so he thinks arguing with any other woman just like that fight, except he also knows it isn’t since he avoids conflict with those SJWs that can really hurt him at home.
I have reached a temporary conclusion that we must be living in two distinct social and symbolic “worlds” and that the divergence between those “worlds” cannot be fully attributed to any geographical or cultural differences that may have been exacerbated by my having grown up (and still living) abroad.
So you think feminism isn’t a problem in France or Germany because what, nobody talks about it there with you? And you think it’s a new problem in the US because people are not yet accustomed to the slave choke that they are complaining about it on open net communication channels?
http://neoneocon.com/2014/04/30/new-math/#comment-768244
JJ, I’ve heard similar stories about Khan (an education institution on the net). Khan is an example of internet no tax freedom that allows individual solutions to apply to social groups and customer market shares.
This is why the MPAA and the Leftist alliance will overturn the control of the internet, and put it back under the plantation and slave master’s control. With high taxes, 50%, to ensure that no competition will arise to challenge Hollywood, the ATF, Democrats, teacher unions, or anybody else on the Leftist alliance for that matter.
Some things are obvious to people who look at and analyze intel/data/information.
Ymarsakar:
The French of the analogous worldviews and political positions indeed do not seem to have nearly as large-scale preoccupation with explaining away their society’s ills using the ambiguous label of “feminism” nor attributing them specifically to _women’s_ choices (of literature, of lifestyle etc.) as the sole or the definining factor that causes damage.
While they will agree to the existence of specific issues that may be partly due to a proposed victimhood perspective sometimes framed to appeal to the female interest, the discussion will generally be much more balanced and more moderate in its tones. That, in turn, will make ME more attentive to what they have to say, more responsive and more willing to collaborate on what are largely the shared goals, as I will not be antagonized by all of those derailing women-are-the-problem insinuations.
On a side note, I suspect much of the modern European feminism to be “imported” anyway, even its very language does not have an “authentic” flavor to it . The key expressions are clearly translated, the cultural references invoked are all Anglo-American, and sometimes when I read their material I literally feel the English substrate from which it takes and on which it is built.
As a result it is awkward, less credible, as if you attempted to transplant “issues” and “solutions” that arose in one cultural and political context to another to which the analogy cannot be fully applied. Consequently, I do not think people take the “feminism” label as deeply and literally _telling_ and are much less prone to impute all of society’s ills to “women”, or to women having the vote, or to the presumed dynamics of the female psyche.
That is my impression, which certainly may be flawed by a sample bias or an error in my thinking that I have not yet found.
While they will agree to the existence of specific issues that may be partly due to a proposed victimhood perspective sometimes framed to appeal to the female interest, the discussion will generally be much more balanced and more moderate in its tones. That, in turn, will make ME more attentive to what they have to say, more responsive and more willing to collaborate on what are largely the shared goals, as I will not be antagonized by all of those derailing women-are-the-problem insinuations.
Feminism arrived in the US when it was hijacked from its original goal, being turned into a PR get out the vote department for women. That’s because the Communists could not win in the US politically, so they had to get PR and go stealth to control the culture.
The evidence of France and Germany is that the Left there did not need to overturn your culture. Because your Politics was already Leftist controlled from early days. The EU being only one notable example of that.
The Left, having won in Europe, will allow the peasants some cultural icons to keep. The Left, waging the war at the front in the United States, cannot afford such luxury.
Playing for keeps:
On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That’s when he learned his account and page had been locked for “suspicious activity.”
Here