Racism, sexism and ageism in HuffPo

In their new mission to be as inclusive as possible, PuffHo seems to have marginalized some groups.

The piece (click on screenshot if you want to read it) is about Jeff Sessions and his new policy, approved by Trump, to increase the penalties for drug offenders, reimposing mandatory minimum sentences. This is a rollback of the more enlightened policies dictated by Eric Holder and Obama, and I don’t like the new guidelines, which could put you in jail for life without parole for trafficking in drugs. An article about that change and its import would have been fine.

But HuffPo, ever ready to demonize white people, old people, and males, saw fit to put in the headline above. It also implies that all the bad things that happen are due to “old white men,” which of course is not true.  It’s totally gratuitous.

This is reprehensible journalism, not self aware at all. They’d never put the adjective “old” in front of “black man” or “black woman”, much less demonize an entire group.  Knock it off, you jackasses.

I left a comment; we’ll see how long it stays up (their commenting policy is to create a “safe space”).


  1. GBJames
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I, too, tire of seeing the “old white man” slur. Of course, I’m an old white man, so I need to check my privilege and keep my mouth shut so others can be safe.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, nobody’s safe with you around. 😉

      [age, colour & gender unspecified…]

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

        You can identify as anything apparently now anyway.
        Why bother specifying when it may change in a moment.

        (Reminds me of Ben Goren’s piece on identity and change a while ago.)

  2. George
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Only five comments on the story. Most recent is two hours old. PCC(e)’s is not there. Do they moderate comments?

    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      Yep, they do. We’ll see if it appears. I’m betting against it.

      • Randy schenck
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        So they are also the free speech police. They don’t want you to view their articles unless you unblock so I choose not to look.

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 5:57 am | Permalink

          I don’t think I’ve even tried to visit HuffPo since installing NoScript, but I’m totally unsurprised to find that they require unblocking for access. Which of course is a prime reason for not unblocking.
          So, it seems that they have censored PCC(E)’s comment. Unsurprising.

      • Denise
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

        Still not there.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      I get to the story but can’t find any comments. What am I missing?

      • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:18 am | Permalink

        In the left hand margin below all the “share in Facebook” etc icons there is a grey speech bubble. If you click it, it opens the comments up on the right hand side.

        By default it shows “top comments”. However, if you sort by oldest or newest first and then click the “load more comments” button until it stops appearing, you will eventually see eleven comments (at the time of writing) none of which is PCC(E)’s.

      • Posted May 15, 2017 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        In more and more sites, finding the comment button becomes a “Spot the…” task.

  3. Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    It as become a reflex. I was watching last nights QI earlier and there was a question about the origin of the tongue-twister ‘She sells sea shells by the sea shore’ and the female guest suggested that it was some ‘old white Victorian man’ talking about a prostitute.

    Prof Ceiling Cat might know this already, but he poem is about the Victorian naturalist and fossil hunter Mary Anning but comedian thought she was making a funny comment about ‘old white men’ even though she was dismissing one of the founders of paleontology as a whore.

    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

      Jebus, they should at least get things right before they start speewing the invective! Was the comedian a man?

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        @PCC[e] The tongue twister honouring Anning is from the London Drury Lane pantomime “Dick Whittington & His Cat” for the year 1908 – the songs in these things changed regularly to reflect events

        Song: Harry Gifford [m], Terry Sullivan [l] – the whole song is very peculiar – I can’t see how the chorus tongue twister fits the song theme from reading the lyrics, but these were written very quickly…

        Anyway @ 15:08 in below link

        Sandi Toksvig [host]:
        “So ‘She’, who was ‘She’ – the woman who sold seashells?”

        Cariad Lloyd [guest]:
        “Was she a Cockney woman who some white, Victorian man made up a nice ryhme about, but actually she was probably a prostitute who died of Syphilis?”

        Cariad Lloyd is a London-born [though that’s a Welsh name] “actor, improviser, comedian & writer”


        • Posted May 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

          She’s one of those people who only ever appear on TV shows like this one. I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to see her live, in show of her own.

          The BBC seem to struggle to find funny women for panel shows. They cycle through Jo Brand, Sarah Millican, Sarah Pascoe and Cariad Lloyd. Brand can be funny when she’s not falling back on lazy stuff about Jeremy Clarkeson and Millican is always good for a laugh but Pascoe can be hit and miss and Lloyd always seems to be scoring points that have nothing to do with the game. It’s not just QI, it’s satyrical shows like Have I Got News For You and (on radio) The News Quiz. Mind you, their range of male guests isn’t exactly broad.

          Channel 4’s 8 Out of Ten Cats Does Countdown seems to fare better while making no attempt at political correctness.

          • Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

            Mind you, I once heard the 59 year-old Sandi Toksvig deliver one of the most QI segues on Radio 4 I’ve ever heard.

            Some time around an anniversary of the first moon landing, the presenter of the show preceding hers asked Toksvig if she remembered what she was doing at the time. Nonchalantly, she replied yes, that she was there.

            Her interlocutor was obviously flabbergasted: Toksvig explained that she was the 10 year-old daughter of a Danish diplomat and that he had been invited to the launch. She went along. Lucky girl.

          • Michael Fisher
            Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

            The BBC Director General chappie now says no all-men panels…

            The women I like are old school now: Dora Bryan RIP, Josie Lawrence [cos I have a crush maybe], Caroline Aherne RIP, Linda Smith RIP.

            Linda had the lightning wit to cope with a panel show format, but women aren’t dragged up to have that skill so they nearly always fail – especially when up against loud bombasts such as Phil Jupitas who can rather take over. I’m tired of panel shows anyway – too much obvious feeding of prepared lines etc.

            I think there’s some talented women in ‘situational’ comedy TV, but I haven’t seen anything newer than the Royale Family.

            I’m also tired of ‘issues’ comedy & ‘identity’ comedy. So I’m left with Stewart Lee for brain busting & some of the silent era guys for slapstick. Plenty!

            • Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

              With the exception of Diane Morgan (aka Philomena Cunk) I find the funniest women on TV to be in American sitcoms: Veep, The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmitt, Parks & Recreations.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        From the London Drury Lane Show “Dick Whittington & His Cat” (1908)
        (Harry Gifford (m) Terry Sullivan (l))

        Wilkie Bard (London Stage Production) – 1908

        I’ve just had a letter to say I’m engaged
        To appear in the pantomime;
        The part I’ve to play is the principle boy,
        So I’m in for a beautiful time.
        The panto’s “Dick Whittington”, I’m Dirty Dick,
        The fellow who once rode to York.
        The manager says I must get a good song,
        About which the public will talk.
        I’ve commissioned some authors tom write me a song;
        A very fine chorus they’ve sent me along!

        She sells seashells on the seashore,
        The shells she sells are seashells, I’m sure,
        For if she sells seashells on the seashore,
        Then I’m sure she sells seashore shells.

        The seashells she sells are a terrible sell;
        And the song is a “sell” also.
        The authors both say it will go very big,
        But I fear I an all that will go!
        I’ve suffered from lockjaw, and stickjaw as well,
        In trying this chorus to sing.
        It’s making me lisp, but I shay to myshelf,
        “The shong’s sure to go with a shwing”.
        I’m dreaming of seashells when I am in bed,
        I only wish she would sell matches instead!

        She sells seashells on the seashore,
        The shells she shells are seashells, I’m sure,
        For if she sells seashells on the seashore,
        Then I’m sure she sells seashore shells.

        [actually I understand it now as a sing-a-long for the audience]

        • Posted May 15, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

          Is that really where it is originally from? So there would be people from the generation of my great-grand parents who might remember the original use? Wow. No idea it was that recent.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

        Surely the relevant point is that the questions are frequently quite obscure and the panelists are expected, where they don’t know the answer, to make up some conjecture, preferably entertaining.

        Therefore the panelist was not deliberately maligning anybody.

        (Though I didn’t see the episode in question, but I’d be fairly confident of that).


        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

          Oh, and if the song originated in ‘panto’, it’s usually a fair bet that there’s some risque/disreputable connotation, because that is the nature of panto; though maybe not in this specific case.


        • Posted May 14, 2017 at 7:49 am | Permalink

          The relevant point is that, not knowing the answer, she went right for the ‘old white man and syphalitic whore’ option because (a) it was the first thing that came into her head, and (b) she thought the audience would approve of the sentiments.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

            Granted but she (presumably) had no idea what the origin was so she was not intentionally ‘dismissing one of the founders of paleontology as a whore’.


    • Ken Kukec
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      “… suggested that it was some ‘old white Victorian man’ talking about a prostitute.”

      I’ve heard something similar about the idiom “the scarlet whore of Babylon,” but don’t believe it either.

    • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:32 am | Permalink

      She was trying to be funny. If she got a laugh, it’s fine as far as I’m concerned. If she didn’t get a laugh, it’s not fine as far as I’m concerned, but only because it was a rubbish joke.

      I speak as somebody who has aspirations towards becoming an old white man in the (sadly) not to distant future.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:46 am | Permalink

        Yeah. It’s a bugger, getting old. The only thing worse is not getting old.


  4. Frank Bath
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    What have the sad old white men ever done for us? ‘Monty Python’.

  5. Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Racism and sexism are moronic enough but don’t these people realise that – if they are lucky – they will one day be old?

  6. Tom
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    But it’s open season on old white men, check your calendar, it began on 19th December when the Electoral College put up the target.
    Please don’t blame HuffPo it is merely following the rest of the media in the US and over here in Europe.
    I expected a ruckus from the Right Wing press when Mr Obama was elected and we got one. Now it seems that the Left think this is a civilised way to act.

    • BJ
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      They’ve been bashing white people and men for a lot longer than that…

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, it’s gettin’ so a straight, white, Christian male can hardly catch a break anymore. Look how hard they are to find in the boardrooms of Fortune 500 companies.

      • BJ
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

        It’s almost like executive at a Fortune 500 company isn’t in any way the normal experience for your average white male *what are you talking about, .0000001% of white men?), and thus has very little relevance to the conversation on whether we should be bashing an entire group of people based on their race, sex, and/or age.

        Like most people generally, yes, it is tough to catch a break. Most people don’t live happy lives most days, white male or otherwise. So maybe we shouldn’t keep bashing on white males just because a few hundred of them make up much of the executive boards of the world’s biggest companies? It seems pretty unproductive.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

          Sure. But on balance, and comparatively speaking, being an able-bodied straight white guy in 21st century America is still a pretty cushy site. I can’t work up any full-steam resentments over the shots sent our way by the Po-Mo crowd.

          • Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

            “Sure. But on balance, and comparatively speaking, being an able-bodied straight white guy in 21st century America is still a pretty cushy site. I can’t work up any full-steam resentments over the shots sent our way by the Po-Mo crowd.”


            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

              Agreed, there’s a grain of truth in it.

              That doesn’t mean the Po-Mo crowd aren’t full of shit.


          • BJ
            Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, all those poor white families in Appalachia are having a great time.

            You should be able to work up sympathy for any type of person who is going through tough times. The color of their skin and their sex shouldn’t matter.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

              None of that is inconsistent with what I said. Sure, white folks suffer, too, and color and sex shouldn’t matter.

              All I’m saying is that, in most instances, white-guy-ness has its privileges. That’s not to say that sometimes white guys don’t get jumped for jobs or school admissions (but not nearly as often as they get an advantage from having the decision-maker be someone of a similar background). And sometimes it’s harder to fire an unqualified black woman (but ditto).

              Still, being an able-bodied straight white guy is an advantage nearly everywhere, save the junior-faculty lounges of certain liberal-arts colleges.

              Let’s apply the “veil of ignorance” test: if you could come back as anything at any time in order to start with the maximum possible advantage, wouldn’t you pick being an able-bodied white male in 21st-century America?

              Don’t know about you, but I feel like I started out with a winning lotto ticket — not a huge power-ball winner, mind you, but a nice little nest-egg of privilege. I’ve spent most of my prodigal life trying not to piss it away. 🙂

              • BJ
                Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

                But none of what you said suggests that we should be accepting of the constant degradation and othering of an entire population based on race and sex.

              • Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

                I wonder if you are confusing being upper middle class with being white. The upper crust of society is a minority of the population. I think it is a bit of a misrepresentation to say that being white is more relevant than being wealthy, politically connected, and college-educated. Even then I wouldn’t want to slur the people who share these attributes with him, but are exemplary people.

                I don’t think bigotry is an effective counter to bigotry. Why could they not criticize Jeff Sessions for the characteristics that make him odious instead of disparaging a whole category of people who have very little in common with him besides their race and gender.

              • Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

                Men are, on average, taller than women. That doesn’t make short men any taller. There’s no trickle down effect that makes short men the beneficiaries of tall men’s tallness.

                The richest 1% in America might own 34% of the wealth but even if every single one of those is white it doesn’t make unemployed white people one cent richer.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

                No, what I’m saying is that, at any level, whiteness is a comparative advantage. There are, for example, short men and tall men, short women and tall women. But short men are taller than short women, and tall men taller than tall women.

                White poor and working-class people are at a disadvantage compared to rich, well-educated people of any race. But, all other socio-economic factors being equal, they have an advantage over non-white poor and working-class people — just as white upper-middle-class people enjoy an advantage over non-white upper-middle-class people, all other socio-economic factors being equal.

                That is the essence of “white privilege.”

              • BJ
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:05 am | Permalink

                But Ken, how do these facts in any way excuse bigotry against this entire group based on race and sex, and make you OK with that bigotry?

                And the essence of “white privilege” is a lie. The white person living in huge amounts of debt in a trailer, not knowing where their next meal will come from, or in severe poverty in an Appalachian area their family hasn’t left for nine generations because of that poverty, more “privileged” than a financially and environmentally fare more privileged black (or any other type of) person?

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:04 am | Permalink

                So a survey may indicate that most black guy’s would choose white. I wonder?

                The same question may not have the same answer in China or Japan.

                America is a white majority country (was?) so there would be a inherent sort of comfort in it.

                Plus, can we divorce our preference from our education and awareness of white cultural heritage.

                And as someone else points out those commenting here may indeed reflect a privileged existence that may not apply to some less fortunate white folks.

                Then, if we go by statistics rather than personal experience it may turn out to be better being Asian.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

                Nothing I’ve said anywhere in this thread seeks to justify bigotry against anyone. I’m all for equal treatment.

                And I specifically said poor white people are at a relative disadvantage to rich, well-educated non-white people. But the poor white person living in Appalachia still has a comparative advantage over the poor non-white person living under equivalent circumstances in Appalachia. To deny that is tantamount to denying sexual dimorphism because some women are larger than some men.

                My veil-of-ignorance hypothetical wasn’t about what people might choose to be as a matter of racial pride; it was about what one would choose in order to maximize their comparative advantage at birth. For that purpose, it would be objectively unreasonable to choose to be anything other than an able-bodied, white American male.

                I do not wish to perpetuate bigotry or prejudice in any form. But that’s no excuse for blinking the reality that in this society white people, on balance, enjoy a form of privilege compared to other groups.

              • BJ
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

                “Yeah, it’s gettin’ so a straight, white, Christian male can hardly catch a break anymore. Look how hard they are to find in the boardrooms of Fortune 500 companies.”

                That was your response when the initial commenter said it appears to be open season on straight white males. If you weren’t trying to imply that we shouldn’t care or that it’s somehow not a problem, what were you trying to imply?

                And your point about a white person and a black person in the exact same spots is fine, except, let’s say that white person is in a black neighborhood in Detroit or territory taken over by gangs in Chicago. Then which one of them has more privilege? These things aren’t as black and white (pardon the pun) as you make them out to be. Furthermore, you’re judging entire groups of people; very rarely are there two people in the exact same position except for their skin color.

                The whole point of this is that we shouldn’t be mocking or perpetuating nastiness against any group, and treat each person as an individual. All this talk about “white privilege” does nothing but divide working people who should be united and intensify racial and other types of animosity. We need to stop putting people into boxes and splitting them up into groups and deciding what their privilege status is. We need to look at each person as just that, a single person. Talk of “white privilege” hasn’t seem to have done anyone good, white, black, or otherwise.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

              “Yeah, all those poor white families in Appalachia are having a great time.”

              How about the poor black families in Appalachia?

              And both of them are shitloads better off than anyone in Sudan or Syria.

              I guess it’s a continuum.


              • BJ
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:06 am | Permalink

                Yes, its’ a continuum, so let’s have compassion for all and not be accepting of bigotry against any group, no matter your preconceptions of them.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

                Well, actually, ‘old white men’ (which is what the original discussion was about) is a phrase aimed at the rich and powerful. I don’t think it’s aimed at poor whites in Appalachia, who (given the current state of healthcare) probably don’t get to be that old anyway, they don’t get to make the decisions* so your comment was off target anyway.

                As for any preconceived bigotry I have towards the rich and powerful, I guess they’ll survive it. They do have compensations. (As Liberace put it, “I cried all the way to the bank”).

                *(other than voting en bloc for an idiot like Trump, which is futile and self-defeating)

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

                I hasten to add that (a) Session’s changes to the drug laws seem to me to be utterly stupid, malign and unjustifiable
                (b) PuffHo’s swerve into pomo invective seems as bizarrely irrelevant and unhelpfully distracting to this issue as, say, criticising Saddam for his Joe Stalin moustache
                (c) ‘old white men’ as used by the pomo crowd is a stereotype and also not useful
                (d) nothing I’ve said should imply any sympathy for the pomos


          • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:40 am | Permalink

            There were enough poor white people pissed off at being told how privileged they are to give us liberal minded people a big FU and vote for a citrus fruit for president.

            • Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

              Yes; and I wonder what exactly they should vote for president to make this “white privilege” nonsense stop? There may be nostalgia for Trump one day!

  7. Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I’m nitpicking, or being a contrarian, but as an old white man I don’t take offense to that headline because I’m not sad, which excludes me from the group.

    • Genghis
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

      In their language “SAD” is a derogatory term, not a description of your emotional state.

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

        I think it’s both. If I said we need more “intelligent old white men”, or “cheerful old white men” in government the phrase would have an entirely different meaning. So while it’s meant in a derogatory sense it’s meant to describe a certain type of old white men. A type that doesn’t include me.

      • Michael Waterhouse
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

        Agreed. Sad is an insult. It reflects an opinion on your various characteristics.
        Your beliefs, behaviours, attitudes. They are not fully valid, they are sad.

        And the generalisation is aimed at us all, whether we are actually sad or not.

        In fact saying that we are not sad is just sad.
        Poor sad old fools.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:54 am | Permalink

          Funny, I don’t feel sad.

          Which must mean I’m just sadly deluded and don’t realise how sad I really am. How sad.


    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

      First they came for the sad old white men. Then they came for the old white men. Then….oh you get the idea.

      Taking gratuitous ad hominem shots at people based on race, creed, or other factors is reprehensible.

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

        “Taking gratuitous ad hominem shots at people based on race, creed, or other factors is reprehensible.”

        Agreed, but if by “sad” they mean old white men who have a particularl mindset harking back to when “america was great” (for straight white males) is it really gratuitous?

        • BJ
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

          You really think that a site like PuffHo didn’t mean “pathetic” by unsing the word sad, and that they don’t consider all white men “sad”? I mean, you’ve read their other articles and headlines and know their ideology, and if you do, I think the logical conclusion is what I’m saying they mean.

  8. Sshort
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    As to my older, white, male privilege (assuming I don’t elect to change my gender, race or species in the future), I briefly belonged to a Shakespeare discussion group and left for two reasons:

    One, the talk was rather tepid and uninformed. Two, I was increasingly aware and discomfitted by the fact that a large proportion of my points were laughed at or waved away specifically… pointedly… because I was older, white and/or male.

    Or all three. With some abandon. And the full-throated support of the middle-aged, female dramaturge leading the group.

    No one thought twice about triggering me. Or, rather, they relished it. Great sport. All the while we sat studying the work and histories of, for the most part, old, white, dead men.

    And not a trace of irony from the younger still-working-on-my-pronouns-and-aggrievements set.

    I wish I had had the wit and the gall to have waved them off with something like…

    “Away, you starvelling, you elf-skin, you dried neat’s-tongue, bull’s-pizzle, you stock-fish!”

    – Henry IV Part I (Act 2, Scene 4)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      There’s small choice in rotten apples, Sshort. I imagine the politically correct machinations in your discussion group regarding Taming of the Shrew could get a bit dicey. 🙂

      • Sshort
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Ha! Had I thought of that I might have stuck with it. Alas, we were doing the Histories as I decamped.

        I believe it would have been well worth it to suffer the tiny slings and arrows, if only to watch the contortions of the regressively assembled parsing Shrew.

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      Having the wit and the gall that often comes an hour and half later, sitting at home ruminating on it, would be handy.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        L’esprit d’escalier?

  9. BJ
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Jerry, you should know by now that, according to regressive principles, you cannot be racist against white people or sexist against men. Those are the rules.

    And it’s what’s being taught by many high school and college teachers now. They’re actually indoctrinating our youth with this garbage (not to mention the indoctrination through the media like this).

    • biz
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Yep, I first heard that said in earnest about a year ago. The argument (such that it was) went like this:

      “Racism requires both prejudice and lack of power. Since white people don’t lack power, it is impossible to be racist against white people.”

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        What if a Hispanic is prejudiced against blacks? Do you have to decide which group is MORE marginalized or less powerful before deciding whether it’s racism? IF it’s not, what is it?

        • BJ
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

          There’s no logic to it, Professor, so don’t try to find any.

          I mean, a Carlos Slim, one of the world’s greatest billionaires, could go on a tirade about disgusting white people in trailer parks, but it somehow wouldn’t be racism under regressive rules because the white, poor people who live in trailers have “power” and one of the wealthiest people in the world doesn’t — all because of the colors of their respective skins.

        • biz
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

          There is now indeed, notoriously, a ‘hierarchy of victimhood’ that is implicitly understood and applied by SJWs/left. So the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

          The hierarchy is somewhat dynamic but at the moment Muslims are far and away at the top, followed next by black people. Near the bottom are gay men and white women, hence, for example, the “grooming” scandals in the UK that have been memory-holed, or the idea that it is genuinely offensive to have a gay pride march go through a predominantly Muslim area.

          For your specific example, if a Hispanic is prejudiced against black people that is definitely racism, but if a black person is prejudiced against Hispanics that is not racism, merely prejudice, and likely the fault of white males ultimately. Such is the illogical and inconsistent mental universe that SJWs/left now inhabit.

          Incidentally, the victimhood hierarchy is precisely ordered in descending order of how much a given group threatens mainstream American culture. Hence Muslims are far and away at the top, way above, say, Christians from the Middle East who have actually suffered much more persecution. And now that they are effectively mainstreamed into culture, marriage, and even the military, gay males are near the bottom.

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, biz. With my online name and the start of my e-mail address as it appears on Twitter being “derryborn”, I never come across this. Perhaps it reminds SJWs that the position of Norn Irn Catholics up to 1998 wasn’t so good after all. You’d hope it’d bring to mind the conditions of Poles, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.

        Maybe, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      More so, being against whites, and especially Jews, is nowadays enlightened.

  10. David Duncan
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    The solution is to repeal all laws against trafficing and using drugs. That way the cops can go back to fighting real crimes, and the PuffHo would have to find another excuse to slag old white men.

    I wonder if they’ve ever slagged Bill C, he’s an old white man with a lot to be ashamed of.

    • jay
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      A huge chunk of our high murder rate is directly tied to drug trafficking. ( Holds for a number of other countries as well).

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, but trafficking in certain drugs does harm peoples’ lives.

        My solution is to make drug USE legal, offer widespread methadone, and legalize marijuana, Heroin addicts can get, perhaps, legal drugs with a license and pharmacies.

        Don’t know what to do about meth and cocaine,

        • BJ
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

          It seems to me that the vast majority of not only violence, but of funding for organizations that terrorize their communities (e.g. the Mexican cartels, or meth gangs in Appalachia) comes from production and distribution.

          The most logical solution, in my opinion, is to legalize the use of all drugs, put production in the hands of the government or outsource it to reputable companies, and sell it by prescription only when it comes to the hard drugs (as in, if you’re already an addict, you can go to a doctor, get that assessment, and get the drugs you need). Addicts will always find their drugs and no matter how many producers and distributors we shut down, someone will always fill the vacuum because there is money to be made. The only way to stop the money from going to groups that use that money to kill their rivals and local citizens is to take away their cornering of the market.

          An enormous portion of organized crime would basically be shut down overnight if we did this. Not to mention opium/heroin, much of the money from which goes to Islamist terror organizations.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

            Both of you (PCC and BJ) are entirely sensible.

            As I recall, the rise to power of the Mafia was directly fuelled by Prohibition and the massive profits it made possible.

            But do the kneejerk ‘law and order’ authoritarians ever learn from that?


  11. Fernando
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    White old men are the new Marranos. Many who demonize them are white old men themselves. And Torquemada had converso ancestors. I’m just saying.

    • Craw
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      Yes. It’s a struggle for a positional good.

  12. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see you’re holdin’ firm on the pledge to cut back on the HuffPo, Jerry.

    Or was that just something you gave up for Lent?

    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      The laws of physics dictated that I couldn’t help myself. Besides, the PuffHo took on a new mission.

      • BJ
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

        It seems less like they took on a new mission and are just being a bit more open about their overt agenda now.

        Either way, I’m glad you’re continuing to report on this crap. PuffHo is one of the most popular “liberal” sites and deserves to be torn to shreds by logical people at every opportunity. What they do is insidious, divisive, and destructive to society.

        • Craw
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

          It is also very, very destructive for the Left. I’m not a leftie myself but I think there is, or perhaps was is a better word, a serious and honorable left being tarnished and driven out by HuffPo — and we need serious and honorable people of all stripes in politics. HuffPo works like Gresham’s Law, where bad left drives out good.

          • BJ
            Posted May 13, 2017 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, no kidding. Remember when the left used to care about working people and their issues, instead of mocking them and making speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece to millionaires and billionaires?

            • Craw
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

              Oh sure, mock me for being old! 😉

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        I’ve just got a thing for needling authority figures, boss. Sorry — after all, who am I to begrudge a man his vices?

  13. somer
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Mooore Puffho fashionista Regressive Juvenilia.

    • somer
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      Regarding the title – that said I think Sessions policies are, well, Deplorable.

  14. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Excellent point. It is specific rich old white men that are the problem not all of us. Just as the IBE (Ideology before Evidence) crowd keeps screaming “not all Muslims” whenever someone points out the latest Islamist atrocity… By focusing on identity politics with more identities popping up every few hours instead of focusing on the very real problems of income and political power inequality between the oligarchs and all the rest of us, regardless of which of the myriad oppressed and marginalize (or allegedly oppressor) identities we inhabit — the IBEs are actively working against the possibility of real solutions to real problems that adversely affect all humans. Social Justice Warriors? Kinda, but sadly, anti-social justice. 🙂

    • BJ
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Is it even rich old white men who are the problem? I don’t see Warren Buffet as a problem, for example.

      Or, if you want to claim it’s the super-rich, at least, who are a problem, why is it only specific rich old white ones who are problems? Oprah and Carlos Slim get to be left out because they’re not white or (in Oprah’s case) a man? What is Carlos Slim doing to alleviate income inequality?

      • Gemma Jillian
        Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        as to “to alleviate inequality?”, I myself wondered this about the Reverend Doctor MLK, Jr? What did he/his men ever do to alleviate inequality for any color or woman? when they, esp from religious pulpits, certainly could have. all over.
        and most esp as regards gneital mutilation or female infanticide or birth control or trafficking or child brideing or any number of helps they would have been. even one time.

        • Posted May 13, 2017 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

          I think this question could/should be asked of all religious leaders (and organizations) in the world who receive tithes and/or donations but do not distribute much to alleviate the poverty and pain of their followers or others. Cathedrals are beautiful as are the associated paintings, frescos, sculptures, music, etc. but cathedrals in Mexico infuriate me especially when seen in conjunction with the Mexican poor.

          There are certain “old white men” and “old white women” who have been gifts to humankind
          and should be honored, not derided as part of the “old white men” such as Trump, Sessions, the Koch brothers, numerous politicians, bankers and industrialists for whom the rest of us are here to be used and fleeced.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

          Before his assassination, Dr. King expanded his cause into a Poor People’s Campaign which sought to alleviate the plight of poor people of every color and creed.

          • Gemma Jillian
            Posted May 13, 2017 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

            yeah but poor men could, and did, still carve away and beat up upon poor women and little girls. i know of no time that he did a thing publivly to try to stop these men from their (much of it due t religion) atrocities.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

              I’m quite sure Dr. King never encouraged domestic violence. He was murdered at age 39. Had he had more time, I think Martin might well have taken up the cause of gender discrimination.

            • BJ
              Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

              So you’re mad that he didn’t take up literally every cause you wanted him too? He was so busy trying to get just simple legal equal treatment for an entire segment of the population of his country to take on each and every one of the issues you wish he would have.

              • Gemma Jillian
                Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

                making true statements is “literally” not the same thing at all as one’s being “mad”. “every cause?” long, long, long has there been cutting and infanticide. should have been stopped. centuries ago. men of all colors could’ve done this.

                before, during, since his death? ya’ know the history of his and his men’s Southern Christian Leadership Confereence, do you?

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

                Gemma — I think BJ’s point is that, just because MLK couldn’t accomplish everything doesn’t mean he accomplished nothing.

                The SCLC and other civil-rights organizations reflected the sexism of their era — meaning, unfortunately, that they tended to denigrate the role of women.

                We shall overcome.

              • Michael Waterhouse
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

                Gemma Jillian

                “long has there been cutting and infanticide.”

                I think women have played a significant role in these things too.

              • Gemma Jillian
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:42 am | Permalink

                “I think women have played a significant role in these things too.” yeah, and ?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 13, 2017 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

      It isn’t really the ‘rich old white men’ who are the problem, except as occasional figureheads poking out of their mountain of money.

      It’s corporations, and absentee owners. Just like the notorious ‘absentee landlords’ in past centuries, who reaped the profits and never personally saw the consequences in the suffering of their tenants, corporations are a great device whereby perfectly decent shareholders can take the profits of exploitation in cheap labour markets and never spare a thought, or even know, of the damage being caused. And whereby the corporation’s executives, whose corporate responsibilities are solely to the shareholders and absolutely not to any social considerations, can do malign and callous acts from the security and anonymity offered by their corporate structure – in fact, any mention of ‘social responsibility’ or ‘environment’ on their part is likely to bring displeasure or get them sacked.


  15. Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  16. Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    I used to read HuffPo. Three of my perfectly innocous comments were gratuitously removed. When I inquired as to why, I was given incomprehensible gibberish in respone. I believe they looked at my profile and saw I hit the grandslam–old, white, male and Jewish– and that was all the rationale they needed.

    I no longer go near that rag. In addition, I call
    attention to anyone posting an article from Huff Po and educate them about that rag. Every once in a while, I open someone’s eyes who had no idea how pathetic that miserable site has become. It makes this old, white, Jewish, male happy!

  17. Pliny the in Between
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    No one can argue that there aren’t marginalized people in this country. But it can be argued that some of the strategies employed to correct these inequities may have been counterproductive. Attacking ‘old white men’ as a group instead of specifically targeting abuses of power by a privileged subset has created a strange demographic that allows farmers, factory workers, and the working poor to feel kinship with the likes of Donald Trump.

  18. Posted May 13, 2017 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Looks like mostly guys commenting on this post. Sad, white and old? 😏

    • Posted May 13, 2017 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      Maybe because those are the victims of that bigotry. . .

      • Posted May 13, 2017 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

        I guess we are not likely to get protected class status, huh?

  19. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Voltaire said the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire.

    I hereby declare that although I am old, and white, and a male, I am not an old white male.

  20. Heather Hastie
    Posted May 13, 2017 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    In my experience, old white men are just like everyone else: some are good and some are a$$holes and most are somewhere in between.

    Personally, I’d like to see all people judged on the things they do and the way they behave towards others rather than things they can’t help about themselves such as race, colour, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, sexual identity etc.

    You’ve also got to remember though that a lot of us have had a lot of damage done to us by multiple old white men, and many find it difficult to separate that at an emotional level.

    Remember the days when a certain black person or gay person or whatever was the “acceptable” representative of the entire group? Just try to be the acceptable representative of “old white men” and most people will treat you okay. As for those who don’t – as I said above, there are a$$holes everywhere. I suspect there are quite a few at HuffPo.

    • BJ
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:14 am | Permalink

      It’s important, though, to understand that many different groups have had bad experiences with other groups, and not allow that to avert our eyes from bigotry against that group or cause us bias against it.

      For example, I grew up in a largely black area in the suburbs. Nearly every day on my way somewhere, I would have pennies and/or small rocks thrown at me from cars while being called “kike” and similar nasty slurs about Jews.

      I never let that color my experiences with or views of any community of people as a whole. To me, it was nasty kids being nasty kids, and such kids will always exist and come from any race. What race they come from simply depends on where you’re living. By the time I was in college, I was experiencing antisemitism from white leftists on college campus.

      We need to treat individuals as individuals regardless of their race, sex, or any other categorization. Nobody should be asked to act as a representative for their entire “group,” but only as a representative for themselves.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        Yes, exactly.

  21. Tom
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Yes, Tribalism will be with us for a long time yet.
    Throughout the world there is a persistant urge to revert back to the tribe. We are kidding ourselves calling ourselves stable nation states.

  22. Posted May 15, 2017 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Your comment is still not up, 07:20 Central Daylight Time, 15-May-17

  23. Posted June 9, 2017 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    As someone who does quite a bit of ageism-related work and therefore notices these things, ageism is all-too-common in journalism and other areas. And it’s not just a partisan thing either, because I knew my fair share of progressives who were skeptical of Bernie because of his age.

%d bloggers like this: