Categories
'bating cringe evil sexy ladies irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny NoFap not a cult precious bodily fluids reddit semen

Fellas! Don’t let the temptresses get their hands on your cup of everlasting spooge power, Reddit NoFapper warns


Never give the temptresess what they want (your spooge)

By David Futrelle

Sometimes I get the sense that Reddit’s most-devoted semen retainters — the guys who give up both masturbation and sex in order to protect the mystical power of their pent-up love goo — aren’t just embarking on a slightly odd form of supposed self-improvement.

No, it seems like at least some of these guys also might have some less than positive feelings about the biggest threat to their semen-retention streaks: sexy ladies who make them horny.

See if you can detect the subtle hints of misogyny in this long screed posted a couple of months ago to both the Semen Retention subreddit and the somewhat harder-core “PureRetention” subreddit.

In the former subreddit, the semen-filled Redditor called Lightpowerwithin titled the piece “Assert Power Over the Woman,” which is already a bit of a hint right there.

He began by preparing his readers for a wild ride.

Some might think, I am sounding a bit anti-woman. …

But for the sake of ones own progress in life, hear me out. …

I must unserstand that the clarity of all that is Good in consciousness comes from abstaining from the woman. …

For when we partake OF the woman, the seal of spiritual power is sliced, depending on the depth of indulgence.

THE SEAL OF SPIRITUAL POWER

Good, Bad, I’m the Guy with the Gun.

The “Gun” being – “The Power.” – the power is like a cup filled with everlasting life. It is pureed to the tilt.

PUREED TO THE TILT!!!!

One mis-step can lead a spill in the drop of life. The “Pretty” faces we see in our day to day life can easily cause us to “mis-step” with our cup of everlasting life.

DON’T MIS-STEP WITH THE CUP!! BECAUSE THINGS COULD GET MESSY!

Being overly emotional, or even slightly passionate in the beginning stages of the ‘path’ can cause a drop in the everlasting life. Mindfulness of our thoughts is paramount. Holding our ‘cup’ as we traverse forward, getting stronger each day.

JUST DON’T DRIP THE CUP!!!1

Some fools re-joice in the presence of the lady. Their hearts jump when she bats her eyelashes and throws her hair.

BEWARE THE EYELASH BATTERS!

These same fools who hold their cup of life would give their power away in the blink of an eye.

THE BLINK OF AN EYE!

The womans presence can often have a man question his lifes direction. WHAT is more important to you? Steadfastly focusing with white-lighted intent forever burning into the timeline of life with your purpose?

STEADFASTLY FOCUSING WITH WHITE-LIGHTED INTENT!!

Or using your power to be given away to a lovers fling?

BEWARE THE LOVERS AND THEIR DASTARDLY FLINGS!!!!!

Blessed and righteous..

Is he who holds his power and integrity for himself. You cannot fake ‘the power’ – it is only given and accumulated with time and purpose, mindfulness in the midst of the feminine presence and what not.

AND WHAT NOT!

Today, a righteousman is few and far between. Bombarded with imagery of concubines the the ‘other’ life that leads to dependency and misery.

BOMBARDED WITH IMAGERY!

Be the man with the gun. Righteous walk, righteous talk, and righteous intention.

RIGHTEOUS WALK

Rise above the woman.

RISE ABOVE!!

The true nature of man is to lead. Rise above the devils that have taken hold of our minds. Kick down the exhaulted image of woman. The false idol that has been put above us. Destroy that Golden-godess image and walk forward.

DESTROY THE GOLDEN GODDESS IMAGE!!1

Never give the temptress what they want.

NEVER GIVE THE TEMPTRESS!

They are the tools of the devil. Get them out of your way. Let the temptresses that feed off trickery and attention be trampled and bombarded by our boots of righteousness.

BOOTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!!

Even with the power, we develop the senses of discernment. We discern righteous women who loom youthful and fully of life. Be cautious. Assert domimance [sic] and put them to work. They have much to prove in this life.

ASSERT DOMIMANCE!

No, that’s Dom Deluise. We’re looking for DOMINANCE.

Ok, that’s better.

Walk the path of light. Do not fantasize about romantic notions and bullshit that will tie you down. If a woman cannot be chaste, cannot back your play, or get behind and support you, kick her out of your way. Cast her down to the weak and unrighteous.

CAST HER DOWN!

Walk your rignteous path of power and achievement. Be free. In the days of old, the women tended the gardens, prepared the food, maintained the household, weaved baskets, and other womanly duties. Such is her place.

The men fought. Killed. Hunted. Built structures and negotiated the deals. And lead the family. Nothing has changed from our primitive instincts other then technology softening the man.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM OUR PRIMITIVE INSTINCTS!!

Kick the notion of woman down and become the strength. The blood. The power. The force. Through clear mind, clear will, a chaste heart. Assert domimance [sic] once again like the days of old.

ASSERT DOMIMANCE!!11

No, that’s Dom Deluise again.

No, that’s Dom Perignon.

Eh, I guess that’ll do.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

88 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Valkyrine
Valkyrine
1 year ago

Valkyrine
Valkyrine
1 year ago

Welp that didn’t work… :/

Nequam
Nequam
1 year ago

I don’t know how to get through to people like that.

High-speed cordless drill?

Allandrel
Allandrel
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer

My favorite bit of Sad Puppies nonsense was when Brad Torgerson, one of its founders, wrote a lengthy screed about the dismal state of science fiction that hinged on two unacceptable things about “modern” scifi.

One: Science fiction is not as predictable and homogeneous as a brand of breakfast cereal. That’s not me mocking him, that’s literally the analogy that he used.

Two: You can’t judge a book by its cover. He said this, not as a simple observation of fact, but as an accusation of injustice and oppression.

Basically, if a book shows a spaceship on its cover, then it should be a space opera that is EXACTLY like previous space operas, and anything else is the Worst Oppression Ever.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Allandrel:
Yes, there were a lot of moments that left people gaping and going ‘Do you have any idea what you actually just said as if it made sense? And you call yourself a writer?’.

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

@ Alan,

I am about, sort of! I lurk. About the Prevent thing… welcome to the club, I guess? Maybe we could have weekly meetings, and badges to earn?

What would a combined animal-rights-Muslim-possible-terrorist-Girl-Scout badge look like, I wonder… 😄

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

O/T, but i just read this and am feeling really upset:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-passes-secularism-law-after-marathon-session/amp

I didn’t stay in Europe at least in part due to this kind of thing. So sad it’s now come to Canada.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Bookworm in hijab:
Been hearing about that, yes. And everything I’ve been hearing suggests it was pretty much forced into law, especially the adding of active enforcement amendments. And once again Quebec is the only province to have made active use of the notwithstanding clause.

Arrg. I’m all for secular, humanist government, but this sort of thing does far more damage to the concept than good. It is guaranteed to inspire backlash. It’s like they’re not actually secularists, they’re secularismists, in that they’re treating secularism almost as if it were their religion.

And while they say that it includes Christian religious symbols as well, this sort of relatively vague description is going to be a magnet for differential enforcement.

That article says that they’re removing the crucifix over the speaker’s chair, so at least somebody is making an attempt to not look hypocritical.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

@Bookworm

All sympathies/condolences/whatever the correct term is here. If I happened to work in the public sector in Quebec and own a hat, I would be keeping said hat on all dayin protest, but alas neither of those things are true.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

I’d also start flagrantly wearing a Masonic pin. Not that I’m a Mason, but since those presumably don’t count…

Or possibly start ostentatiously wearing a crucifix, and then argue that they can’t ban me from doing that because I’m actually an atheist, so I can’t be proselytizing.

Or, third option, start a campaign to ban people from wearing Canadiens de Montreal gear, on the ground that hockey is a religion in this country, and the law clearly bans religious symbols.

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
1 year ago

And once again Quebec is the only province to have made active use of the notwithstanding clause.

I thought Doug Ford did as well….

Doug Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause reduces democracy to majority rule
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/doug-ford-notwithstanding-1.4821302

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

@ Rabid Rabbit,

start a campaign to ban people from wearing Canadiens de Montreal gear, on the ground that hockey is a religion in this country, and the law clearly bans religious symbols.

Thanks. That made me smile. Of course, we all know that Leafs gear has been banned in Quebec for years

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

@ Rabid Rabbit,

start a campaign to ban people from wearing Canadiens de Montreal gear, on the ground that hockey is a religion in this country, and the law clearly bans religious symbols.

Thanks. That made me smile. Of course, we all know that Leafs gear has been banned in Quebec for years

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Fishy Goat:
Hmm. I wasn’t sure if he had actually used it or not, or had just threatened to use it once the original law was struck down by the courts. You’re probably right.

The whole notwithstanding clause was (to my understanding) originally created as a method of creating deliberately restrained versions of things like the older War Measures Act: you could pass laws that overrode rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but only within certain boundaries, and only as long as they had an explicit sunset clause so they would end without active continued support. Using it on one-shot amendments like this (where the sunset clause was pointless anyway) wasn’t something anybody thought was a consideration.

The fact that Ford has gone on record saying he’ll happily use the clause again if thwarted shows that neither he nor any of the people working with him actually cares what other people might think. He’s playing the Trump game of trying to be tyrant. Except he’s smarter than Trump is.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

@Allandrel

I thought he was just envious that his dreck was passed over for the Hugo Awards. Or was that one of the other guys? I can’t recall, I know it wasn’t Vox Day because he came in later.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer:

He’s playing the Trump game of trying to be tyrant. Except he’s smarter than Trump is.

Not a very high hurdle, mind you.

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

@ Surplus,

Not a very high hurdle, mind you.

Is there such a thing as a subterranean hurdle? Because I think it’s about that high.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

@Bookworm

What, you haven’t heard of mole-racing?

epitome of incomprehensibility

@Bookworm in hijab – I didn’t hear that it was passed. Ugh, that’s so unfair. It will affect at least two of my past students. :/

@Jenora Feuer – I wanted to write something with the word “notwithstanding” in it and then be all “Here is my notwithstanding clause! It’s a dependent clause!” but I’m too tired to make it funny. 🙂

Anyway, more seriously, I’d add that Bill 21’s proponents are going against secular values by putting religion in a special category.* E.g. from a materialist point of view, is wearing a hijab** worse than putting a scarf around your neck? Of course not. (And the second is more of a choking risk!)

*To me at least, secularism means not making value judgments on religious expression unless it gets in the way of other rights. If the government really wanted to separate state and religion, they wouldn’t try to police religious symbols.

**Mentioning hijabs specifically because that’s what Bill 21’s supporters focus on. Although it’s totally not accurate to call them racist. 🙄

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

@epitome

Oh, absolutely. It’s like, have you ever noticed how proponents of “bathroom bills” are never concerned about women invading the sanctuary of the men’s bathroom? It’s always “Pervert men sneakin’ up on OUR WIMMINZ!” But they’re definitely no more transphobic than Bill 21’s fans are racist.

I just hope that next time Trudeau has to go to Quebec City in an official capacity and meet Legault, he’ll specifically request that his RCMP detail be made up entirely of Sikhs.

Scanisaurus
Scanisaurus
1 year ago

@Valkyrine
That’s a great villain song, though it’s kind of depressing to think that a 90’s Disney movie gave a more accurate portrayal of the incel mindset than most newspapers today.

@everyone else discussing the religious symbol law
As others have pointed out, the biggest problem is defining what counts as a religious symbol. Will Goths be banned from wearing 90% of their jewelry? Where do they draw the line between a hijab and European.style headscarf? Could a muslim woman get away with wearing a headscarf if she wears it tied together under her chin like queen Elisabeth II of England instead of wearing it like a typical muslim hijab?

Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

@ Scanisaurus,

As others have pointed out, the biggest problem is defining what counts as a religious symbol.

I’m pretty sure it will be an “I know it when I see it” thing. ☹

@ Valkyrine,

I’m with Scanisaurus. That song is alarming in its accuracy.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

@ bookworm in hijab

welcome to the club, I guess? Maybe we could have weekly meetings, and badges to earn?

Ooh, I’d be up for that. We could have tea and cake. I’ll bring vegan.

Sort of related to Prevent; I’ve just being doing some courses that allow me to have direct interactions with clients; it’s a really useful qualification for the animal rights thing.

But as part of that we have to look at all the terrorism finance provisions. Basically lawyers have to run checks on clients and report to the National Crime Agency if certain criteria are met; and it an offence to “tip off” your client you’ve done that.

You can imagine the problems that causes. Apart from anything else it creates an inherent suspicion of lawyers; which inhibits activists seeking legal help.

But I’ve checked with the Bar Standards Board; and so long as I do anything like that pro bono; they say the regulations won’t kick in. Cool!

Allandrel
Allandrel
1 year ago

My favorite bit in “Hellfire” is when Frollo goes into the “it’s not my fault” segment, the background chorus follows his claims with “me culpa” (roughly “the fault is mine”). He knows he’s lying to himself.

solecism
solecism
1 year ago

What would a combined animal-rights-Muslim-possible-terrorist-Girl-Scout badge look like, I wonder… 😄

@Bookworm in Hijab

That sounds related to something from G. Willow Wilson’s GOH speech at WisCon this year: “This Da Vinci of hate mail…accused me of being a part of the socialist, homosexual, Muslim attack on America. At the time I thought, ‘This is not a thing, but it sounds fabulous!’”

Clearly, this organization is international!

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Anonymous:
It was one of the other guys. Specifically, it was Larry Correia that got passed over for the Campbell award. (Not strictly the Hugo award, and selected differently, but handed out at the same time, so a lot of people get confused.) From the descriptions I’ve heard, Correia’s Monster Hunter series involves a group of gun-happy Southern U.S. monster hunters that pretty much started as escaped slave hunters pre-U.S. Civil War, and still revered their founder. That should tell you most of what you need to know about his politics.

@Surplus to requirements:

Not a very high hurdle, mind you.

I thought that part rather went without saying.

@Rabid Rabbit:
*bwahaha* I recall the whole political mess when Sikhs fought for the ability to wear their turban despite the official RCMP dress uniform. Yeah, that would be a fun slap, especially since the bill presumably only applies to civil servants of the Province of Quebec.

@Alan Robertshaw:
That’s a careful balance people have to worry about. It’s the sort of reason why the Toronto District School Board went with their own Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on immigration status; undocumented immigrants keeping their children out of school for fear of getting caught doesn’t help anybody.

@solecism:
It’s like when people scream about ‘nazi commies’ or something like that… it’s not a thing, it’s not actually possibly a thing, but to the people saying things like this words don’t so much have meanings as they have emotional content, and both of those are words for bad people, so of course their opponents are both.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer:

Yup. And they fixed it by saying “OK, you can wear a turban, but it has to be a specially designed one to fit the uniform.” And guess what, it turned out great. Strange how obvious the solutions can be, aren’t they?

Re: Claude Frollo, other great segments from a different musical of the story.

Male gaze! (thee types)

Blame the women!

Oh noes, I’m a priest!

And also, just for fun: Damn, I’m so hot I’ve got all sorts of women running after me. Whatever will I do? (With spectacular dancing.)

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Rabid Rabbit:
Yes. Odd how ‘reasonable accommodations’ often actually are as reasonable as they first sound, despite the whining of some ‘slippery slope!’ folks.

(There are actual slippery slopes, but making simple accommodations to a fitted uniform to match simple religious requirements generally isn’t one of them. And the benefit of having a police force that is actually as diverse as the people they’re policing is one of those things that really should be better acknowledged. And attempted.)

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
1 year ago

Soeaking of which, Legault just answered some questions about the bill. His main point? They could have made it a lot worse.

Also, you have to take the majority into account, because they’re feeling spurned, and “a lot of people are a little racist” and don’t want to see religious symbols, so you should pay attention to them. I give him credit for admitting it’s racist.

But yeah, a bit victim-blamey. You have to give a little to prevent extremism, people! And immigrants have to prove they’re integrating somehow!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-religious-symbols-law-legault-interview-1.5180353

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

@Rabid Rabbit:

Appeasement? Since when has that ever prevented extremism, as opposed to encouraging and emboldening it?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

As others have pointed out, the biggest problem is defining what counts as a religious symbol. Will Goths be banned from wearing 90% of their jewelry? Where do they draw the line between a hijab and European.style headscarf?

Oh, there’s a very easy rule that will be applied in those cases. Is the person wearing the accessory white? Then it’s an approved secular accessory. (Same goes for things like, say, the giant effing crucifix that hangs in the government buildings which is going to be staying put because of ‘historical significance’. If someone white installed it, it’s all good.)

If someone with brown skin is wearing an accessory, it’s clearly a religious item and either the item (or ideally the person) must be removed.

Easy peasy.

Now excuse me while I take a few moments to scream about the fucking trans-mountain pipeline approval and wallow in despair about how frigging awful my country is.

tim gueguen
1 year ago

As I’ve said before this supposed religious neutrality law ignores that if you’re white large numbers of people will assume you’re Christian, unless told otherwise.

Some Quebec government rep said this morning that the law is no different than someone being told they can’t wear a bikini to work. If someone knows of a religion that requires women to wear bikinis, please let me know.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

Well, yes, the whole thorny problem of ‘how do you define a religion’ is precisely why governments that allow for freedom of religion have historically tried to avoid stepping into this mess.

@Fishy Goat:
Based on the Wikipedia article on the notwithstanding clause, it wasn’t actually used by Doug Ford; it was threatened, but the Court of Appeals stayed the lower court’s decision against the original law, so the amended version of the legislation using Section 33 was never actually passed.

According to that page, Saskatchewan is the only province other than Quebec that has actually used the override. So we were both wrong. (Alberta tried to use it to make same-sex marriage illegal in Alberta, but the definition of marriage is a federal matter, so the law is ‘ultra vires’; it has no effect because it does not fall within the powers the province has.)

Hmm… I wonder if that’s an avenue of attack on it, but probably not. The main limitations of the notwithstanding clause are the time limit on it which is only as long as the maximum Parliamentary session, and the specific subset of ‘rights’ that can be overridden. ‘Freedom of expression’ is Section 2, so that is one of the rights that can be overridden by Section 33.

Honestly, the big problem with the clause in Canada here is much like the big problems currently going on in the U.S. and the U.K.: the political system was set up with the fundamental assumption that while the parties might disagree on policy and how to implement the system, they all agreed that the basic system of society and democracy were good things.

That assumption, unfortunately, is no longer valid. Systems that could prevent a single individual from dragging the country off the deep end don’t work when the entire party is helping pull, and has convinced a sufficient portion of the public to prevent anybody else from stopping them.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
1 year ago

@Jenora Feuer:

Honestly, the big problem with the clause in Canada here is much like the big problems currently going on in the U.S. and the U.K.: the political system was set up with the fundamental assumption that while the parties might disagree on policy and how to implement the system, they all agreed that the basic system of society and democracy were good things.

That assumption, unfortunately, is no longer valid. Systems that could prevent a single individual from dragging the country off the deep end don’t work when the entire party is helping pull, and has convinced a sufficient portion of the public to prevent anybody else from stopping them.

In fairness, it’s probably impossible to create a democracy without that fundamental assumption. And every time there’s a sufficiently major crisis a party will arise that breaks that assumption. In the Weimar Republic both the Communist party and the NSDAP were anti-democratic. Needless to say that didn’t end well. There’s shades of it now with Brexit, and the US Republican Party has been anti-democratic for a while now — arguably since Nixon and the “Southern Strategy” and certainly no later than 2000 and the Shrub’s questionable election to office.

Such parties will always be able to find ways to throw sand in the gears, cause the system to be discredited in the eyes of more and more of the public (thus potentially drumming up more recruits), and directly sabotage representativeness (see also: voter ID laws and gerrymandering).

The historic track record here is not good: once such parties become a large enough percentage of the political system, the only way to fix things seems to involve the use of force. A landslide victory by pro-democracy forces, followed by prompt reforms to the voting system and to the underlying causes of grievance, might be able to save things if it’s soon enough. In the US this would pretty much require a strongly progressive result in 2020 (e.g. Sanders/Warren with hundreds of AOCs elected to the House and Senate) and for the resulting administration to kill voter-ID laws and gerrymandering dead dead dead as well as doing some major and concrete things about job quality and affordable housing: giant FDR-style public works projects to build out green power, housing, and fiber-to-the-home might do it, both creating oodles of quality jobs and lowering housing and connectivity costs while also making concrete steps to address climate change. We’re talking AOC’s Green New Deal times a hundred here.

It won’t happen, of course, which means Civil War II is probably about 10 to 20 years down the road, if even that.

Dalillama
Dalillama
1 year ago

@Jenora Fuer

the political system was set up with the fundamental assumption that

…only white gentlemen would have the vote, and they would all agree, at bottom, on advancing the interests of white gentlemen.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Surplus to Requirements:
And we’re getting far too much of that in Canada with the modern Conservative parties. At the federal level the current Conservative party was formed after the Reform party split from the previous Progressive Conservative party because they actively wanted a more regressive setup, and then after a couple of elections of split votes the Reform/Alliance Party executed a hostile takeover of the original party.

The same sort of thing happened in Alberta with the Wild Rose party splitting off and then engaging in a takeover.

In Ontario there wasn’t that sort of split and takeover, the Conservative party just went pretty much straight to semi-fascist after the NDP (labour/union) managed to win a term in government. Because they didn’t have the break and regroup, they still call themselves ‘Progressive Conservatives’, even though there hasn’t been anything Progressive about them since before Mike ‘the knife’ Harris got into power.

(Quebec politics are different because of the Federalist/Sovereignist split being one of the more defining lines, though the Sovereignist tend to align with the regressive types.)

Most of the other provinces didn’t have splits either; the provincial conservative parties have just followed the lead of the federal party over the last few decades, while at the same time taking lessons from the smash-it-all types in the U.S. on how to exploit male fragility for votes.

One thing I’ve noted before is that part of the problem isn’t just that the anti-democratic types cause people to lose faith in the system: they also create their own echo chamber, and as a result over time the folks who are anti-democratic for the grift slowly get replaced by the next generation of folks who actually believe and who actually do want to break the system because they’re annoyed at the previous generation failing to do what they promised just as a way to get votes.

@Dalillama:
That’s less of a specific issue in Canada than it was in the U.S.. (If you’d said landowning gentlemen I’d be more in agreement, and that requirement does usually block out non-white people.) Canada wasn’t formed until after slavery was banned across the British Commonwealth, and the U.K. legal system predates a lot of that being an issue at all; U.K. democracy sort of built off of the previous feudalistic setup where the landowners were the ones represented, and most of the slaves/serfs/peasants were white as well.

Not that we’re all that much better, but a lot of the current political racism is either implicitly imported because we get inundated with U.S. entertainment and news, or explicitly imported because politicians want to scare people.

Dalillama
Dalillama
1 year ago

If you’d said landowning gentlemen I’d be more in agreement, and that requirement does usually block out non-white people

Landowning is implicit in the term ‘gentlemen’ in this context, and there is no point in Canadian history where a non-white person would have qualified as such. The UK version is more fundamentally classist than racist, but the point I was getting at is that none of these systems were ever built on principles of universal suffrage or anything close to it. It’s axiomatic that all voters will have class, race, and gender in common with one another, and will all agree that the advantage of their ingroup is thw paramount concern.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 year ago

@Dalillama:

the point I was getting at is that none of these systems were ever built on principles of universal suffrage or anything close to it

Fair enough. The path towards democracy in the U.K. was mostly started by barons who didn’t want the king telling them what to do, and they would have been more than happy to stop it there if they could.

(Heck, during the American Revolution, it seems pretty clear that most of the southern plantation owners were more interested in being barons than in any of the relatively liberal attitudes of the people who wrote the Constitution. And given that their economic support was required to finance the Revolution, well, we got things like the 3/5 compromise.)

I wonder how much of the path towards democracy in the U.K. was changed because most of the ‘troublemakers’ left to go to what would become the U.S.