Why I hate the PuffHo

Why do I hate PuffHo? Let me count the ways. One is that they don’t even pretend to look at the news objectively, so all their “news” articles are really opinion pieces. They have an agenda, presumably dictated by Arianna, and they hew to it religiously (word intended, since one of their briefs is to extol faiths of every kind). At least the New York Times, also a Left-leaning paper, tries to present the news objectively, clearly making a distinction between reporting and opinion (usually confined to their Op-Ed page).

But the headlines in this morning’s PuffHo really infuriated me. Look at the bit I’ve circled below:

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 10.06.20 AM

This is virtue-signaling, pure and simple. “Look,” say the privileged post-college white women who edit the rag (see below), “We’re calling out the Democrats for racism!” Are these people unaware that the Democratic Party just ran a black candidate for President twice in a row, and brought him to victory? Are they unaware that now we’re doing it with the first woman Presidential candidate from either major party, and one who will likely win? No, that’s not enough: they have to start an #ElectionsSoWhite campaign.

What, I wonder, do they hope to accomplish by this? Are they trying to make black people feel bad about the slate, or show that African-Americans have once again been marginalized? If so, why didn’t they support Ben Carson as a Republican candidate? Or are they trying to make white people feel guilty that neither the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates are people of color? What, in other words, do they hope to accomplish by this?

I don’t think they know, really. All they know is that they have to say something bad about whiteness to demonstrate their ideological purity. It’s reprehensible.

Party of diversity? Give me a break. Here, have a gander at the Editors of Diversity, posted by Liz Heron, one of the editors:

Yeah, I notice that there are no black people there—among 14 editors shown. That’s a lot less diversity than the two-person Democratic ticket, which is gender-balanced with a woman at the top.


  1. Cindy
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink


    If they really want to virtue signal..

  2. Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    One correction – the first female candidate for US President was Victoria Claflin Woodhull – Hillary Clinton is merely the first for one of the big two.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      Yes, that’s what I meant. I’ll add a few words to make that clear.

  3. Bernardo
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Not only are there no black people, there are also no men. They are the typical anti-men feminists who think female empowerment equals getting rid of men. Nice message

    • rickflick
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      Wait, there is at least one Asian. Does that count as balance?

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink


        • jeremyp
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

          TH woman behind the Asian woman with only half her face visible might be black.

          • Ken Phelps
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:38 am | Permalink

            You mean there at the back of the bus?

            • jeremyp
              Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

              Yes, right there at the back where I had to zoom in to check.

          • jeremyp
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

            TH => The

    • jeremyp
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      Also, everybody in the photo looks to be in their twenties or early thirties – no people of age present.

    • bluemaas
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      To be accurate, Mr Bernardo? .This. exact and total gender imbalance — flipped / reversed — is nearly ALL in my entire lifetime that I have ever every day viewed in media’s pictures. And, of course, elsewhere. Without its nearly ever before at all, then, being called out as woman – loathing sexism perped by men. Why that particular notice of gender, now, w / this picture?

      Very recent (y2014), still disturbing research from SEEjane.org:

      IF 17% women, men in group think: it is 50 – 50 —

      IF 33% women, men in group ‘see’: .more. women in room than men —


      • Taz
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        Why that particular notice of gender, now, w / this picture?

        Maybe because they sanctimoniously called attention to it?

        • bluemaas
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          To be accurate? Maybe she just called attention to it.

          As I had.

          Maybe tshe, the editor – tw**ter, did it sanctimoniously OR maybe she did not.

          What evidence is there for the label of sanctimonious?

          Maybe the query, provided in the post’s tw**t, is one alluding to something else entirely?

          What evidence from this post is there for the query being directed by the tw**ter to gender at all?


          • Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

            Sorry, but are you blind? What else could it be? Look at the icons that Heron has inserted in the tweet: the flexing muscles and the “dancing” emoji (also called “red dress woman” emoji). If you don’t think that Heron’s comment refers to “we’re all women!”, then you’re the only person in the world with that take.

            • bluemaas
              Posted July 23, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

              I am not blind.
              I do not know or use or look up emojis.

              I have often been “the only person in the world with a take,” it seems: https://goo.gl/3BrUyb

              Done with defending.


              • Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

                I agree with you that it’s only fair to see a gathering of professionals that includes no men. When there are no women included, well, that’s just business as usual; nothing to get exercised about; maybe next time! But when no men are included, then those women have gone too far; that’s not equality!

                I do, however, think that if this group wants to make points about diversity and where it’s lacking, they should be walking the diversity walk a little better than they appear to be.

              • bluemaas
                Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

                I quite concur, Musical Beef.

                A roomful of only and allegedly (&, for sure, ALL smiling) working women ?

                Why, they can’t possibly be up(pity) to a thing more than sanctimoniousness, not ? (I mean: the opposite [for clarity and since I happen to loathe sarcasm, my having only ever experienced & endured far, far more of such discourse than my deserved share]).

                As to any one or most of these women’s competence in their works, however, .that. is exactly at where I am in agreement with almost everyone else: I never, ever read PoHuff. I do not seek it out; I do not read its sites forwarded on to me from others. Its headlining clickbaiting is only ignored. I do not read it.


              • Diane G.
                Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:44 am | Permalink

                I second Blue & Musical Beef.

                Good link, Blue.

              • bluemaas
                Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

                For, and with you both, Ms Diane G and Musical Beef, please join me for one more, thus: http://www.goo.gl/U8tH4l


              • Diane G.
                Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

                Ha Ha, love it! 😀

    • somer
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:54 am | Permalink

      Yes arguably a sexist board as well as *white* and very middle class. No wicked white males, or even males. Also female SJWs are perfectly happy to lecture women in particular to be both all caring and all succeeding. So be career high performers or have demanding jobs then come home and be a domesticon practising your domestic skills (even if u aren’t married or don’t have children). You must also be concerned and active in the *right* issues and have the *good* views. They will actually question you for your views even if you are trying to avoid raising politics and falling out of line especially regarding Islam you are likely to actually be called immoral. It is (like most people find) oppressive – both silencing and burdensome. The same people are usually caring in many ways but very middle class and talk about their regular overseas trips, successful children, expensive entertaining and/or elaborate meal preparation etc. Bad thoughts! I must go off and get an expensive new age exorcism to cleanse myself of my impurities – colonic irrigation perhaps?

  4. Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  5. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    … If so, why didn’t they support Ben Carson as a Republican candidate?

    Haven’t you heard? Ben Carson has forsaken pediatric neurosurgery and politics for demonic spirit-conjuring.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      That speech was as bizarre in its logic as his “the pyramids were grain silos” one. It also contained several lies about Clinton (surprise, surprise!).

      I’ve always got the impression that Ben Carson thinks that because he’s cleverer than most people that any conclusions he reaches in his own mind don’t need checking, and he can say anything and everyone will automatically believe him. Even Fox was jumping on that speech.

  6. Historian
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    What is curious is that as I write this at 11:10 A.M. CDT the headline links to a general article about Kaine being selected. If it previously linked to an article dealing with diversity, it no longer does so, at least for now.

    Whatever the case may be, the Huffington Post was quite stupid in posting that link. How can this supposedly liberal site possibly help Hillary by posting this headline?

  7. Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink


  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    That picture — are you shittin’ me? Looks like a bachelorette party waiting for the Chippendales to arrive.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      + 1

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink


    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      That’s some seriously funny sh*t, Ken.

      (But I’m a girl. I’m not supposed to talk colloquially.)

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        You did pretty good right there, Charlene.

        I’ve always appreciated women with the knack for cursing a blue streak. I’ve been in knock-down, drag-out arguments with a woman when she’ll turn to me and let loose a stream of invective (usually importuning me to perform an unspeakable act on an anatomy-part she does not possess) which will cause me to breakout laughing. At first, my laughter will make her even more angry, until she sees I can’t help it, at which time she’ll breakdown laughing, too — until neither of us can remember what the hell we were fighting about in the first place.

        • Filippo
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

          A few years after I “flew the coop,” I learned that late one night my two youngest brothers purposefully kept repeatedly being loud and laughing and boisterous, because they knew that it would (sooner rather than later, she being the way she was) provoke their mother into cussing a blue streak, and they had the cassette recorder at the ready. After a few recordings, instead of they themselves further cutting up, they played the recording of her invective at full volume. She couldn’t help laughing at being the victim of this practical joke.

        • Diane G.
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

          I’ve always maintained that cussing is more satisfying than crying, and taught my daughter accordingly. Recently I heard from the mother of one of her friends that she (my adult daughter) swears like a sailor. Hmmm, perhaps I need to rethink this…

          OTOH, her grandfather–my Dad–was a sailor, and he could be pretty entertaining…we could claim cultural inheritance, I guess.

        • Diane G.
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

          “…which will cause me to breakout laughing.”

          Cry or cuss, we can’t win.

          I guess I’m not doin’ myself or my “sisters” any favor, here…

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:02 am | Permalink

            Crying is no fair. I’m rendered powerless by the sight of a weeping woman — not proud of that fact; it’s just the way it is. “There’s no crying in sexual politics!” is what Tom Hanks should’ve told his ballplayers.

    • Diane G.
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:47 am | Permalink

      First time you’ve disappointed me, Ken.

      (Not that we have to agree on everything. 😉 )

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:33 am | Permalink

        Pains me to hear that, Diane. As I was hitting send, it occurred to me the comment might provoke that reaction. If we sat and talked, I’m pretty sure we could hash it through. Let’s let it go for now, but I hope some day, some place, maybe at some function somewhere, we have that chance.

        • Diane G.
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          My sense of humor may have had a hiccup, there, my bad.

          (I hasten to claim I don’t identify with these, er, editors. It never occurs to me to visit HuffPo at all; in fact, I only go there when Jerry posts something from it. I guess it’s like theology–Jerry keeps up with it so we don’t have to.)

  9. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    All white and very young. Maybe they could use a little age diversity?

    • Kevin
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      Gender does not bother me it’s the age of these teenage looking editors. Newton may have learned calculus at age 21 but there’s only been a handful of people in our history who are that smart.

      I will wait for them to have a kid or a cat for at least 10 years before they acquire any wisdom.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        *Learned* calculus?

        • Diane G.
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:49 am | Permalink

          Srsly laughing out loud!

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

        Actually, I think most people who *learn* calculus learn it around 18-20 years old.

        • Kevin
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

          Unless you lived in Russia in the sixties, you probably picked it up around age 6.

          • Filippo
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

            And I gather that in Russia they do not call one a “nerd” or “geek” for having done so.

  10. Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    The self-righteous, one-upmanship trend of “liberal” self-abnegation is becoming the world’s most tedious Pyrrhic victory.

  11. jamesgart
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    I don’t agree with you!

  12. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Herbert Hoover’s Vice-President was 3/4ths Native American and Barry Goldwater was half Jewish (albeit a practicing Episcopalian), and he was also a honorary member of the Hopi tribe (albeit with no actual Native American ancestry). The only other Presidential candidates known at the time they ran to have Jewish ancestry are Lieberman running with Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry, also half-Jewish, but a practicing Roman Catholic.

    (Only recently has it emerged that Thomas Jefferson may have had some Sephardic Jewish ancestors some 200 years earlier.)

    I’ve never voted Republican, but I’d say that they have certainly beat the Democrats to the diversity punch.


    I liked Goldwater personally, though not politically, and was very amused by a quip attributed to him. When he was excluded from a No-Jews golf course, he is supposed to have said “I’m half-Jewish. Mind if I play nine holes?” (Given that the location has been claimed to be both Maryland and Phoenix, I suspect this is apocryphal.)

  13. Heather Hastie
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    I’m currently trying to write a post analyzing a HuffPo article white-washing Islam. One of the things that’s making it very difficult is the extreme immaturity of the thought processes of the writer. Now I understand why that might be – there may simply be no editors capable of providing the support she requires.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      I think you would want to ID any one of them before serving.

  14. Filippo
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    “At least the New York Times, also a Left-leaning paper, tries to present the news objectively, clearly making a distinction between reporting and opinion . . . .”

    I’m sure the NY Times is much better than the Huffington Post, but, on page one of today’s hard-copy edition, in a news article (about Trump’s effect on the future of the Republican cabal), the reporter twice uses the phrase, “It’s hard to imagine . . . .” Which is to say it is hard for the REPORTER to imagine (whatever the reporter happens to be imagining). Which is to say, write an op-ed piece – or a novel – if you want to tell me what you’re “imagining.”

  15. Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    I used to read this rag. One time, in response a blatantly biased anti-Israel “article,” I had the gall to criticize Palestinian tactics. I was banned. So much for reasoned discoyrse or the presentation of opposing viewpoints.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Sorry about the typos folks.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        I treat typos gently, making them all the time despite proofreading.

  16. Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    “they have to say something bad about whiteness to demonstrate their ideological purity”

    This is a picture-perfect replica (literally, and I mean literally) of who does similar virtue signaling at the University of Washington. White women in their late 20s and early 30s channel/strong> this message. And it is not entirely altruistic or noble. If you want power as a young, educated woman, you’d be foolish not imitate, embody, and push these values. Virtue-dissing of whiteness marks an in-group culture, and you don’t have power as a woman if other women aren’t backing you.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      My attempt to use the bold code messed up…rats

      • rickflick
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        I thought maybe you were just a high-voltage woman.😎

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        Several years ago (WordPress techs must’ve fixed this) one could “italics bomb” an entire thread; that is, render all text coming after yours as italicized by forgetting to close or improperly closing an html italics tag.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      Also my use of literally was my pitiable attempt at humor, as the photo can’t literally capture the same set of women at the HuffPo and the UW. But I was trying to rhetorically claim that both sets of women are part of the same culture.

      And I’m one of them!🙂

      (Obviously. Though I’m a bit more aged.)

      • Diane G.
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:59 am | Permalink

        In your avatar pic you look every bit as young or younger than the HuffPo editors. Which is only to say that some of them may not be as young as some commenters here proclaim.

        (You also look like a fun person, not to mention very cute! [I think I can say that without being misinterpreted, as I’m a straight female?])

        • Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

          Thanks, Diane🙂

          I’m nearly 40 and spinster-esk.

          I certainly hope that I continue to look young going forward and that I get mistaken for being in my late 20s or early 30s. Most men are already taken by the time one is 40! I’m shooting for the divorcees at this point. Or maybe a younger man will surprise me. If I remain cute, maybe somebody will notice that and my MIND.

          I tend to date men who are considerably older than myself, as I’m charmed by decorum and social elegance, skills the young haven’t as consistently practiced. And the men near my age are busy tending the fires of their prime and previous commitments.

          As much as I smirked at Ken’s joke above (it was funny because I could see myself at that table and a Chippendale walking in), his description of the banter with one of his mates is not something that appeals to me emotionally, on the other hand. I don’t like profanity or vulgarity in heated discourse. His mentioning of the mutual laughter redeemed the story, though and I liked that he shared it; it’s nice to get a sense of people on WEIT. (Occasional swearing as an expression of exasperation and release is fine. We all screech out with expletives.)

          The bummer with looking young and fun is that people see that more readily than the thoughtfulness. And there is part of me that wants to defend the young women at the table, for I know they wouldn’t be where they are were they not steeped in thought and thoughtfulness.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

      To me, there is hardly anything more destructive than hating one’s own biology.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink


        Yes. Even if the unconscious convergence on whiteness-dissing is considered to be about figurative “whiteness” (the privilege associated with being white and not the biology), at some point the emotional effect is the same: internalized shame. This may be a mechanism whereby women both gain power but also keep themselves in check. I do not see white men self-flagellating about their whiteness, though there may be some who do. So, this may function to maintain gender roles. I don’t know. I’m free-associating here.

        • Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

          “I do not see white men self-flagellating about their whiteness, though there may be some who do. ”

          I realize now that, indeed, the self-hating whites I know are all female! Also, my observation is that Western women are far more likely than Western men to be positive about Islam and submission to it.

          • somer
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:04 am | Permalink

            +1 they are absorbing traditional expectations of women thinking they are being nice but also somehow they think they can accommodate that well with genuinely progressive humane and human improvement oriented values. Delusional

            • Diane G.
              Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:06 am | Permalink

              Cynicism arises later, but it does arrive.

              For a lot of us, anyway.

    • somer
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:14 am | Permalink

      +1 I agree I also think though, that depending where and what your work is certain socio political views might be considered the team zeitgeist or even part of corporate culture

  17. Posted July 23, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    The smartass comments on Tw*tter are killin’.

    “You all paid too much for your laptops?”

    “You’re all recent college grads who accept starvation wages?” etc., etc., etc.

    • somer
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:11 am | Permalink


    • Diane G.
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:10 am | Permalink

      LOL @ the laptops one!

  18. kelskye
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    “This is virtue-signaling, pure and simple.”
    Indeed. I do wonder, too, what the point of such signalling is when it’s not producing electable candidates. The right has that virtue signalling too, but has a large base to which that signalling is effective.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

      “I do wonder, too, what the point of such signalling is when it’s not producing electable candidates.”

      I suspect the point is about strengthening in-group norms among young, educated women with power.

      • kelskye
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps, though in politics I don’t see the point. Isn’t the goal to get elected rather than to signal righteousness? That means reaching the people on the fence, or on the other side.

        • somer
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:06 am | Permalink

          I think a large slice of the modern left cares more about principles than outcomes, believing POMO and Crit theory style that principles will create their own outcomes.

          • somer
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:10 am | Permalink

            Its the “Big Picture” which is more important than the current reality. Except of course when it comes to their own workplace and staying employed somehow reality is allowed to intrude. But they genuinely believe it and if it isn’t ridiculed and it keeps your circe of friends its “reality”.

          • Diane G.
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:13 am | Permalink

            “…believing POMO and Crit theory style that principles will create their own outcomes.”

            Which they do, albeit not always those desired by said believers.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

      I think most virtue signaling is undertaken first and foremost for personal (perceived) advantage. Candidates? What’re those? *I* want people to see how virtuous *I* am.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:04 pm | Permalink


      • kelskye
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:06 am | Permalink

        “They may have differences A, B, C, X, and Y from the other candidate, but there is no difference between the candidates on Z, and thus there’s no difference between voting for either of them. Or for Hitler for that matter! Fascists…”

  19. Dave
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    It’s the HuffPo version of “fair and balanced!”

  20. Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    I never much liked the term “virtue signalling” because it does not reflect well what is happening. Humans “signal” all the time who they are, as a natural byproduct of existing and expressing themselves. In speech it is known as the expressive function. By even posting this, I signal that I have an opinion I want to be read by somebody, and I communicate my “virtues” as well, maybe being a critical thinker that does not buy into critical race theory (“social justice warriorism”).

    What makes social justice warriors interesting in this regard is that their signalling is very strongly about tribalism, and to an unsually small part about communicating ideas. They further do something like overcoming cheap signalling, which is the act of doing something costly or seemingly detrimental to their interests. That is the whole bridge burning and blocking and “fighting the good fight” that makes a true social justice warrior. Here they again seem to not really concerned about information, ideas or solutions, but want to be seen as caring; and importantly being seen as belonging to the correct tribe. Overcoming cheap signalling might explain the radicalization we see, because those who seem to make sacrifices or seen as “fighting” are climb to the top of their social ladder, and thus are more immune from infighting on the lower rungs, and the policing of each others thoughts and language. But of course not everyone wants to play that game, and they then become the foil and “cannon fodder” which SJWs (ab)use to gain their social justice points.

    Media and corporation often play along by usung the asymmety of how information travels, e.g. you can target messages so that the SJW or general liberal crowd will share it, to signal their tribal affiliations (e.g. look, I share this image of a woman-only staff because I care) while
    at the same time everyone else (incl. conservatives and republicans) won’t care and won’t exposed to it much.

    There’s much more to it, but I find it important to point once in a while that “virtue signalling” in itself is not the problem.

%d bloggers like this: