Up all night. Too tired to scan the manosphere for weird reactions to Obama’s victory.
But here are some scenes from last night as a couple of backwards white dudes attempted to come to terms with the new demographic realities that enabled Obama to win the election despite getting a smaller percentage of the white vote than Michael Dukakis did in 1988.
Karl Rove, on Fox News, responded to the new realities with good old-fashioned denial, arguing with the number-crunchers for Fox after they called Ohio as a win for Obama. Rove must have thought he’d bought the election good and square!
Bill O’Reilly, meanwhile, responded with, well, there’s really no other word for it than racism:
Also, while we’re talking demographics, here’s a nice pithy breakdown of the gender gap, from ABC news:
Women favored Obama by 11 points while men backed Romney by 7; the gender gap has been bigger just once, in 2000 (when men were +11 Bush and women were +11 Gore). Add in marital status and the gaps become garish: Married men for Romney by 60-38 percent; unmarried women (younger, more Democratic, more aligned with Obama on social and role-of-government issues) backed the incumbent by 67-31 percent.
Grouchy entitled white dudes, get used to it.
Angela: This really is bizzaro land. Where ” angela might decide slavery is still legal.” apropos of nothing that had ever been mentioned, is somehow gentle.
Did I touch a nerve?
And of course, we’re all arguing tooth and nail about just how horrible slavery is, but I bring up a little known fact that deserves to be much better known, and ooooh, troll in the dungeon.
No, that’s not what happened. But you stopped wanting to talk about it. And told us… what was it… Oh yes.
I’ve always been able to accept new pieces of information even if it flies in the face of everything I thought I knew.
And then, when you refused to so much as look at any such evidence (I haven’t read any of the new comments and I’m not going to. , you followed it with this little mal mot,
Just, be aware that no matter how intelligent you think you are, there’s always someone else who may have had access to more information than you’ve had.
And you have the gall to wonder that people aren’t treating you as if you were innocent of all offense.
@hellkell, yeah, this isn’t exactly a 101 blog, I forgot to address Angela’s “If you won’t educate me, how will I ever learn?” plaint.
Ha! That really is kind of les mots juste.
Falconer, even if we tried to teach her about misogyny it wouldn’t work, especially if our facts got in the way of her indignation.
I do so love it when our trolls think that each new thread is tabula rasa.
Falconer: Thank you for the vote of confidence. There are times I wonder. It’s not that I can’t bully, and I understand why Angela might think so. She has an iconoclastic view of The Civil War, one that is an apologia for the Confederacy. She argues arrant nonsense.
I can only hope it regularly meets with ridicule, and that must get tiresome. Which is hard, but being wrong will lead to that.
Oh, and Angela:: read for comprehension. I didn’t say I was gentle, I said I was more gentle. A nice distinction, to be sure; subtle, but important.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know I was feeding you incorrect information, Angela. In the comment where I mentioned the Anti-Peonage Act of 1867, the sources I cited were:
1. The website for the law library of the Missouri Bar Association
2. The pbs.org companion page for the very documentary that you commanded all of us heartless blackguards to view post haste.
3. An article written for the Wall Street Journal by Pulitzer Prize winning author Douglas A. Blackmon, author of the book “Slavery by Another Name,” upon which that PBS documentary was based.
Silly me!
Yeah, now that really was unfair. You claimed the hill of repeat things til you’re blue in the face and never reexamine your position no matter what first, after all.
Oh, and learn the difference between obeying the law and not obeying the law. While you’re at it, you could use some training in how to tell a joke website from a sincere one.
As a reasonably affluent white person, I am nowhere close to being Romney’s definition of middle class, nor am I likely to ever achieve that level of affluence. My badly made point is the affluent people who benefit from the Bush tax cuts, and Romney’s future plans are not your average affluent white person. I’m not convinced by save affluent people money they will create more jobs either. There is a limit to what someone can spend based on time etc.
Angela thinks she’s a wit,
and her arguments should be a hit.
“No, ‘State’s Rights’ was the cause –
Now give me applause!”
Fuck off, you apologist shit.
*snaps*
Just popping in to say YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY for Obama winning!
@kittehhelp
Celebratory bubblez?
So Angela’s just going to troll every post on the site whinging about how she’s right and other people insisting on shit like actual facts to build their case is bullying her? Lovely.
Angela, I asked you a couple of questions in the other thread. They’re very simple questions. You bailed from the thread immediately after I asked them. Perhaps you didn’t see them, or perhaps you didn’t dare answer them. But they’re very, very simple questions.
1) Did the South go to war against the Union specifically over the issue of keeping slavery? Yes or no? I kept seeing you say things that amount to “those terrible Northerners didn’t fight to free the slaves”. But you never, ever, addressed what those Southerners were doing. Were they fighting to defend slavery, or not?
I know you’ve said they seceded over State’s Rights. You’ve said that over and over.
2) Was the primary State’s Right that they seceded for “defending the right to own slaves”, or was it not?
3a) If it wasn’t, what State’s Right was so very, very important to them that they felt they had to leave the Union to preserve it?
3b) And if it was, why use the whitewashing phrase “State’s Rights” when you know they really meant “The Right To Own Slaves”?
If you don’t mean to tell us that the South Didn’t Do Anything Wrong, Really; that it was All The Nasty, Nasty North’s Fault, you shouldn’t be saying that the South seceded because of State’s Rights. Because if you do, you give aid and comfort to those who realio, trulio, think that black people are subhuman, and slavery did them a favor. Because there ARE people who think like that. And Every Single One of them says the Civil War was about State’s Rights, not about slavery.
Cally: You don’t understand… her argument (such as it is) is the South went to war over “principle”, and the North didn’t give a shit about slaves. So both sides were just as bad.
If we just listened to her we’d understand, and it’s she doesn’t need to read our citations, or deal with our evidence because she’s right, so we just need to accept it.
And since she told us that, we are meanies for not moving on and agreeing to disagree, even though we are wrong and she is right.
Oy. I really don’t want every topic here to become Angela’s Slavery Show.
Angela, if you want to really and truly participate in an actual discussion here, you need to take in what the people you’re arguing with are actually saying. People here are being short with you because they’re frustrated that you don’t listen.
I’m putting slavery into the fairly short list of Things Not to Be Discussed Further on Man Boobz. Let’s all move on.
Sorry, David.
Stuff and things
This was pretty much how I felt all day after not sleeping much last night:
http://fyeahenglishbulldogs.tumblr.com/post/35093118811
And so, goodnight.
@ David
Thank you for putting a stop to the Angela Makes the Goalposts Dance show. It was getting tedious.
Hey Look, more misogyny!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ake79kuqgy_wJ%3Acmd-n.org%2F2012%2F11%2F06%2Fwhat-the-right-doesnt-get-about-elections%2F+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
@Ben L, Wow. Just wow.
I am…so confused by the world at that Christian Men’s link. They keep going on and on about free birth control pills, but I’m fairly sure a portion of my paycheck is deducted every week. Unless I’m just supposed to think of my health plan as a generous gift from my benevolent overlords?
Also, some dude in the comments makes a straight-faced argument for monarchy. At least that was good for a laugh. I doubt he imagines himself as the guy who brooms the shit out of the privy stools.
Things I learned from the defensive Christian man’s post:
1. Obama won because women saw a photo of him looking hot in a bomber jacket. If it weren’t for that, they would have all voted for Romney because he was totally alpha in the first debate. (P.S. If anyone has seen this Obama photo, can you send me a link? For research purposes. Sexy, sexy research purposes.)
2. Asking a candidate for his position on birth control is one of those unfair “gotcha” questions Sarah Palin used to complain about, back when she was a thing.
3. When feminists talk about “having it all,” they’re not talking about the whole work/family/life balance. They’re talking about GETTING ALL THE HOT COCK. In their VAGINAS.
4. Women and black people vote Democrat because they like having sex, and the Democrats are the party of gettin’ it onnnn. White men hate sex, so they vote Republican. (This is possibly true.)
5. Obama is forcing the Catholic Church to buy birth control for all the white women in America. (AWESOME.)
6. Women get “cash and prizes” for having abortions. (Again, AWESOME.)
7. The Republicans have been running on a platform of education and peace.