California Women's March cancelled for being too white

[Cannot think of a name]

This is only an issue if you're really really trying to make it one.

If the scope of the march exceeds the concerns of women and is instead about women and race, then calling it a women's march is misleading. Diversity March or some such would be more appropriate.

So...there are no women of color?

[Scomagia]

If the scope of the march exceeds the concerns of women and is instead about women and race, then calling it a women's march is misleading. Diversity March or some such would be more appropriate.

So...there are no women of color?

That's not a claim I made.

[Cannot think of a name]

So...there are no women of color?

That's not a claim I made.

So then what's your problem?

[The Emerald Legion]

That's not a claim I made.

So then what's your problem?

They're clearly making the March about something other than women. I really don't get how that's hard to comprehend about any of these diversity pushes.

It's one more layer of pointless bureaucracy. Nonsensical racist bureaucracy at that.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I never said they were completely banned. Did you even bother to read my post?
With that being said, dissolving the march because of its demographics is a de facto baring of a certain ethnicity.

I also didn't say anything about completely banning.

And where does it say that any limitation will be placed on white participants when the march is actually held, given that it has only been postponed?

Well if it is "postponed" due to too many whites being there, I would call that a restriction.

[Zapato]

So then what's your problem?

They're clearly making the March about something other than women. I really don't get how that's hard to comprehend about any of these diversity pushes.

It's one more layer of pointless bureaucracy. Nonsensical racist bureaucracy at that.

- "Hey, minority women face different challenges than white women. Maybe we should find some minority women to help us arrange this march-"
- "That's nonsensical and RACIST!"

[Vassenor]

I also didn't say anything about completely banning.

And where does it say that any limitation will be placed on white participants when the march is actually held, given that it has only been postponed?

Well if it is "postponed" due to too many whites being there, I would call that a restriction.

It wasn't postponed due to "too many whites". It was postponed because the organisers realised they were silencing the issues faced by other ethnic groups. No-one is saying white people cannot attend or should be barred from doing so.

[Ostroeuropa]

Five points to make. Firstly: I would ask that you provide evidence for any of your assertions.

You ask for some and then provide none for your own, worth noting.



Strikes me as total ignorance of feminist theory on the family, likely willful and deliberate ignorance to avoid confronting how awful the movement is. Here's something even school children are taught about feminist theories on the family;
https://www.tutor2u.net/sociology/refer ... s-feminism

Worth noting, radical feminists are the mainstream of academia and social institutions.



The feminist movement has gatekept institutions of power for decades now against the will of the public according to consistent polling on the matter, feminist journalists routinely peddle lies about their critics and there has been a clear and consistent pattern demonstrated that they are not interested in honest debate.
Creating animosity and hostility toward feminists is one means to weaken their grip on society by encouraging people to make their lives worse through things like boycotts, losing friendships, and so on. It is only when they calculate female supremacy is worse for them than getting rid of it that things will change, and they are not owed faith in their good faith participation in the discussion after spending so long betraying that faith, it's like apartheid south africa, or boycotting israel, and so on.



There are fundamental similarities stemming from the same starting assumptions.

The manner and intensity of feminist gynocentrism is changed, but remains gynocentric. What you have just said is true of "Patriarchy" too, but post-modernist waffling to deflect any and all criticism and make it impossible to discuss the overall negatives and combat an overall trend doesn't hold up there, and shouldn't for feminism either.


Gynocentrism is gynocentrism.
You might find hostile misogynists and you might find benevolent misogynists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism



Prove it. Show me a substantial section of feminist theorists discussing misandry or female chauvinism who do not source this in patriarchy and male domination. Show me ANY feminist theorist prior to 2000 who even acknowledges misandry exists and is of equal importance to misogyny for combating sexism.



Disagree. They pretend to study sexism and its sources despite only studying how to rationalize gynocentrism and misandry, as well as how to sometimes identify real misogyny and sometimes how to rationalize that combating misandry is misogyny, and they call feminism an equality movement, when it's just a womens movement and often a womens supremacy movement.


Certainly, I can list examples in the feminist thread if you care to go over it.



I disagree, the notion of society being male dominated can only be advanced through a dysfunctional framework that does not accurately capture the nuances of the situation nor the forms of influence and power women held in those societies.



Not really, culture can change very rapidly.



Women having issues does not justify a gynocentrist worldview any more than whites having issues justifies white supremacy.



Here's the problem and here's why your movement is crap. These things are evidence against your theory but you just call them anomalies, like if I up and declared all cats are black and said ones that aren't are idiosyncratic but fundamentally my point remains true. Patriarchal domination of society is a myth based in superficial understandings of the situation mostly based in prejudice.

There are zero billionaires in the senate or the house of commons. But the interests of the rich are advanced through lobbying.
Compare/contrast the money of lobbies on behalf of womens interests as a gender, and mens interests as a gender. Women have far more lobbying power as a group for their own interests as a gender than men, so much more its not even a contest.

Feminism as a system to run society under has replicated the same apparatus for oppression as the rich have. They take tax money from the government, and use it to lobby for more tax money while suppressing anyone that is a threat to their interests, they use the money to normalize their view in society and push propoganda, often distorting the publics understanding of issues in the process.



None of these people noted misandry as a component in sexism. They are as useful as people who think only racism against jews exists and spent decades writing and arguing that being the case and why claims otherwise were plots against the jews. We would have been better off without them and with other people taking on the job that they so badly mishandled.



See this is the thing. Your movement has been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where you can't pull the same rationalizations, denials, and excuses over black women that you spent this whole post doing for men anymore. Let me fix that for you, here's what your post should have said.

[Ostroeuropa]

Five points to make. Firstly: I would ask that you provide evidence for any of your assertions.

You ask for some and then provide none for your own, worth noting.

Your claims of 'paranoid and hate filled ravings of feminist academics about how everything is a patriarchal plot' would do well to have a few peer-reviewed papers in reputable academic journals that you believe align any of the points that you are arguing for backing them up, for instance. Without them, all that remains are unsubstantiated ad hominems.

Strikes me as ignorant of feminist theory on the family. Here's something even school children are taught about feminist theories on the family;
https://www.tutor2u.net/sociology/refer ... s-feminism

"They disagree with functionalists and agree with Marxists that in doing so it benefits only a powerful group within society. For feminists, this group is men. They argue that families preserve, support and embed patriarchy."

Worth noting, radical feminists are the mainstream of academia and social institutions.

On that note: you needn't be nearly so aggressive in your language. These are people that you are talking about, people with lives, hopes and dreams. I ask that you recognise that and be courteous in your discourse instead of throwing insults; unless you're planning to commit mass murder you're going to have to live alongside these people, so let's try to make all of our lives better by being civil and realising that they might have ideas that they passionately believe are right that just so happen to be different from yours. Yes, that applies regardless of whether you think they'd extend the same to you; someone has to start the process, so it might as well be the only person that you can control.

The feminist movement has gatekept institutions of power for decades now against the will of the public according to consistent polling on the matter, feminist journalists routinely peddle lies about their critics and there has been a clear and consistent pattern demonstrated that they are not interested in honest debate.
Creating animosity and hostility toward feminists is one means to weaken their grip on society by encouraging people to make their lives worse through things like boycotts, losing friendships, and so on. It is only when they calculate female supremacy is worse for them than getting rid of it that things will change, and they are not owed faith in their good faith participation in the discussion after spending so long betraying that faith, it's like apartheid south africa, or boycotting israel, and so on.

Now, the main two points. You seem to see feminism as a monolith of people with near-identical views tending towards the absolute.

There are fundamental similarities stemming from the same starting assumptions.

That isn't what it is at all. Academia, as it has ever been, is filled with disagreement and debate; there is no 'mainstream', only constantly shifting and evolving schools of thought.

The manner and intensity of feminist gynocentrism is changed, but remains gynocentric. What you have just said is true of "Patriarchy" too, but post-modernist waffling to deflect any and all criticism and make it impossible to discuss the overall negatives and combat an overall trend doesn't hold up there, and shouldn't for feminism either. I can play a thought experiment with you if you want. Try and argue against imperialism being imposed on your country and assume a system of imperialism is actually in place and fucking you over, and try and deal with someone pulling this same shit you just did by whining about the multitudes of schools of imperialism and how you need to address each and every one individually instead of rejecting the whole concept and noting the fundamentals are broken. Especially within the context of the most malicious adherents of the practice deliberately using that kind of rhetoric to make themselves completely unaccountable by refusing to clearly state which branch they belong to and using disparate sets of ideas from all the branches as and when they need them for the same purpose, to hate and harm men.

So it is that you get your radical feminist thinkers like Firestone and Daly all the way to conservative feminists like Gilligan.

Gynocentrism is gynocentrism.
You might find hostile misogynists and you might find benevolent misogynists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

You might find the occasional individual who '[denies female] culpability for any negatives in society' or that 'all toxicity is sourced in male domination' but that would be a tiny minority.

Prove it. Show me a substantial section of feminist theorists discussing misandry or female chauvinism who do not source this in patriarchy and male domination. Show me ANY feminist theorist prior to 2000 who even acknowledges misandry exists and is of equal importance to misogyny for combating sexism. Your entire post rests on this notion, go ahead and prove it, or it just seems like you're parroting the usual gaslighting lies that people who hate men do after their bouts of man-hating.

That doesn't mean, of course, that they don't focus on issues of patriarchy - of course they do, because they're academics who have chosen to explore those things specifically. To give a comparison: I am currently aiming to go into academia studying the ancient world. If that pans out, I'd like to dedicate my research efforts towards the interaction of the military systems of different ancient cultures because that is what I am most interested in. This does not mean that I blind myself to every non-military dynamic of the ancient world; not only do those dynamics closely interact and overlap with military systems, they're also very interesting in their own right! The same is true of feminists and the dynamics of modern society. They don't ignore them; they just focus their efforts elsewhere in the knowledge that there are other academics looking in those directions.

Disagree. They pretend to study sexism and its sources despite only studying how to rationalize gynocentrism and misandry, as well as how to sometimes identify real misogyny and sometimes how to rationalize that combating misandry is misogyny, and they call feminism an equality movement, when it's just a womens movement and often a womens supremacy movement.

Moreover, as far as I can tell you seem to think that feminists are seeking to 'dominate [spheres] of public life' and that this apparent takeover has, in many places, been successful.

Certainly, I can list examples in the feminist thread if you care to go over it.

Let me point out that the vast majority of people have lived in male-dominated societies for the 12,000 years of human civilisation and that feminism has only become a serious force in the past 150.

I disagree, the notion of society being male dominated can only be advanced through a dysfunctional framework that does not accurately capture the nuances of the situation nor the forms of influence and power women held in those societies.

That is some serious cultural inertia that's going to take a long, long time to break.

Not really, culture can change very rapidly.

Immediately, referring to God with male pronouns springs to mind, as do innumerable studies of young children and their relationship to gender roles. (Here's coverage of one on the biases in children's literature; here's that of another on preschool environments [normally I don't use the Daily Mail but I felt that a right-wing source would serve the interests of balance]).

Women having issues does not justify a gynocentrist worldview any more than whites having issues justifies white supremacy.

While there are some idiosyncrasies, like boys' lower educational attainment and university admission (in the UK, at least) - idiosyncrasies that deserve examination to determine if course correction is needed, as with all such issues - by and large the patriarchal elements of modern society still exist in force.

Here's the problem and here's why your movement is crap. These things are evidence against your theory but you just call them anomalies, like if I up and declared all cats are black and said ones that aren't are idiosyncratic but fundamentally my point remains true. Patriarchal domination of society is a myth based in superficial understandings of the situation mostly based in prejudice.

There are zero billionaires in the senate or the house of commons. But the interests of the rich are advanced through lobbying.
Compare/contrast the money of lobbies on behalf of womens interests as a gender, and mens interests as a gender. Women have far more lobbying power as a group for their own interests as a gender than men, so much more its not even a contest.

Feminism as a system to run society under has replicated the same apparatus for oppression as the rich have. They take tax money from the government, and use it to lobby for more tax money while suppressing anyone that is a threat to their interests, they use the money to normalize their view in society and push propoganda, often distorting the publics understanding of issues in the process.

Feminist notions of society being male governed rely on people who understand the process of real political power when it comes to the rich believing in the guff about "representatives" again all of a sudden when it comes to women and ignoring lobbying power. it is a vapid and superficial view because it is a vapid and superficial movement, they saw something that confirmed their prejudices, and it didn't matter to them that it was only superficially so. They did not seek any further understanding on the matter once they got what they wanted, a means to once again claim something about male domination.

There's plenty of other examples of how society is not male dominated.

Finally, your comment on 'white middle class women from the 1800s, who have spent 200 years stunting their own ethical development in favor of sophistry, rationalizations, and blaming men for their own behavior and mindsets'. I would ask that you do not insult the intellectual contributions of the likes of Harriet Taylor, Simone de Beauvoir and Elizabeth Anscombe (and, even before that, Mary Wollestonecraft), without whose work these two hundred years would have been much less philosophically productive. Thank you.

None of these people noted misandry as a component in sexism. They are as useful as people who think only racism against jews exists and spent decades writing and arguing that being the case and why claims otherwise were plots against the jews. We would have been better off without them and with other people taking on the job that they so badly mishandled.

I will say that you do have a point as to feminism not being as inclusive of racial minorities as it could be. If I may, I would direct you to seek out the start of this thread for evidence of awareness of this fact and attempts to redress that balance.

See this is the thing. Your movement has been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where you can't pull the same rationalizations, denials, and excuses over black women that you spent this whole post doing for men anymore. Let me fix that for you, here's what your post should have said.

I will say that you do have a point as to feminism not being as inclusive of men and mens issues as it could be.

[Souritesk]

Cringe and bluepilled.

[The Emerald Legion]

They're clearly making the March about something other than women. I really don't get how that's hard to comprehend about any of these diversity pushes.

It's one more layer of pointless bureaucracy. Nonsensical racist bureaucracy at that.

- "Hey, minority women face different challenges than white women. Maybe we should find some minority women to help us arrange this march-"
- "That's nonsensical and RACIST!"

This presumes I hold the idea that Minorities hold unique challenges due to their being a racial minority actually has any merit. I don't.

Racial Minorities tend to have challenges because either they are poor, or are foreigners just recently immigrated and end up stuck in culture shock. This is true regardless of whether they are black, white, or purple.

Racism exists in all races against all races, it's more common than I would like but that's the price of freedom.

[Republic Of Varra]

Racism is alive and well. Against whites. Those who cancelled the event apparently subscribe to the theory that it is okay to discriminate as long as those discriminated are white.

[Vassenor]

Cringe and bluepilled.

Got anything of substance to add or are you just going to vomit a load of buzzwords at us like some sort of badly programmed NPC?

[Souritesk]

Cringe and bluepilled.

Got anything of substance to add or are you just going to vomit a load of buzzwords at us like some sort of badly programmed NPC?

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, but in the event that you're not : I'm just having a laugh at something inconsequential. Seriously. None of these marches or protests ever amount to anything than a few minutes of internet entertainment. Be they the tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks or pink-hat wearing feminists.

[Shofercia]

Wow, edgy.

Is it? Okay then...

When you cannot counter the point, you complain about stretching... what else is new?

That just means that you fanatically support identity politics.

Fanatically even. Wow.

If you think that organizers should have less voice, simply because of their skin color - that's identity politics.

"He quoted a guy I like saying thing I don't like. I need to ask him more about stretching!"

Where did I say I didn't like Martin Luther King Jr. saying that he had a dream? I love that speech. I actually understand that speech, which makes you quoting it in this context fucking cringeworthy only soothed out by how often you cats try it.

MLK Jr. was about fighting racism on all levels. That includes affirmative action based on skin color rather than socio-economic status. What was out of context about the line that I posted?

Heard it several times before when it came to introducing voter ID laws. "But what about Native Americans who live on Reservation?!" Not to mention Warren's speeches, or are you saying that she's not a liberal?

So you're saying noticing a law will disenfranchise a population makes them a 'popular liberal talking point'? "Liberals mentioned native americans when it was relevant to the discussion...fucking typical" This is what you got? This makes it a 'popular liberal talking point' huh? Pretty low bar. What am I supposed to do with that, by the way? Am I supposed to be ashamed I brought it up, too or something? Where you going with this?

It'll disenfranchise Native Americans only in the minds of fanatical liberals, since said proposal was easily fixed by simply allowing the Native Americans who live on Reservation to use the address of their Reservation, rather than their home address.

I'm saying that unless you reach out to a Reservation, or to a Native American community, you shouldn't expect many Native Americans at your rallies, irrespective of what color the organizers are.

Good news! That's exactly what they're doing. They're just giving themselves a little extra time to get it organized. You're really in favor of their plan, I don't know why you're so riled up given they're doing all the things you think they should.

LMAO! Yes, I can see it now, CTOAN in college on the day that the paper was due: "Professor, you see, I'm x skin color, and I just wanted to give myself a little extra time, perhaps a few weeks or a month to get it organized!"

That might fly in college, but good luck with that logic in an actual workplace. They should've done it BEFORE the originally planned date of the march. Not after. And they shouldn't be using their skin color as an excuse. If I ask an employee to do something by January, and he/she doesn't do it, I can fire them. Even if they bring it to me by the end of February.

Hmmm, ideally you're supposed to plan this stuff out before the march happens.

Like...now?

In case you missed it, the march was already supposed to happen. It's been cancelled/postponed, because of their organizational failure. People can have organizational failure, irrespective of their skin color.

For instance, if I was planning a march against police brutality, I would contact inner city African American communities and Latino religious leaders before the march.

You know the march hasn't happened yet, right?

It was supposed to happen. And then it was postponed and/or cancelled. If X says that X is going to give X's client a report, and X postpones said report, X failed to deliver the report on time. I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this basic point. They have the organizational skills of the Cleveland Browns, irrespective of their skin color.

Not only did they fail to entice minorities to come, they decided to make racial excuses for it,

That they didn't sufficiently reach out to those communities in the years before so they're postponing this years parade a few months to do that? I mean...literally just doing the things you said they should so...I don't know what you're upset about.

Once again: if the project is due in January, and you finish it correctly by the end of February, you failed. I'll give you an example that's more to your liking. If Republicans figure out how to counter ballot harvesting in April, and the election was last November, the Republicans don't get to annul the bills that were passed by the new Congress.

which is why they're, arguably justifiably, being mocked. They're pulling the equivalent of "my dog ate my homework's cause I'm white!" Dog must've been a rottweiler.

None of this makes sense but...um...zing? I guess?

It's only not making sense to you, because you seem unable to grasp the concept of deadlines.

[Vassenor]

Got anything of substance to add or are you just going to vomit a load of buzzwords at us like some sort of badly programmed NPC?

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, but in the event that you're not : I'm just having a laugh at something inconsequential. Seriously. None of these marches or protests ever amount to anything than a few minutes of internet entertainment. Be they the tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks or pink-hat wearing feminists.

Even when one of those " tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks" straight up murdered someone?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, but in the event that you're not : I'm just having a laugh at something inconsequential. Seriously. None of these marches or protests ever amount to anything than a few minutes of internet entertainment. Be they the tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks or pink-hat wearing feminists.

Even when one of those " tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks" straight up murdered someone?

Are we comparing body counts now? If that's the case I guess MRAs should come out on top.

[Shofercia]

If you are planning a march, and you don't have enough inclusivity, you should plan to have inclusivity before the march takes place. If you failed to consider that, you do not blame race or ethnicity. The OP was quite clear on this point: A California Women’s March was canceled because of concerns that its participants have been “overwhelmingly white,” the march’s organizers said.

They could've said that the march lacked migrant workers, Native Americans, poor inner city folk, etc. When you say that something is "overwhelmingly XYZ" - that tends to carry a negative connotation. If I said that the reason that East LA cannot be a city, was because it was poor, oh, and btw, it's also overwhelmingly Latino - you can quite easily extrapolate that as an implied insult. If I was to say that East LA should work towards being more inclusive on a city path - that'd be a whole different enchilada. They did the former, and that's why we're laughing at them.

Furthermore, when you are planning events, your race should have very little to do with your experience. You're supposed to speak with potential attendees, and base it around their experience, not your own. They even managed to fail at that. They're like the Cleveland Browns of planning. And what do they blame? Their skin color, rather than their organizational skills. And that's the issue. They're saying that they're organizational skills get a free pass, because they're white. Except them being white has nothing to do with their organizational skills. Bernie is white, and quite a few minorities attended his rallies.

Ah... You have basically expanded massively upon the last two sentences of my previous post. Perhaps I was not clear enough. (I will say that the only things I disagree with here are 'They're saying that they're organizational skills get a free pass, because they're white.' - I haven't seen a shred of evidence for the organisers claiming that - and 'that's why we're laughing at them', since I personally don't think that's constructive. Minor differences in all; glad that we've reached agreement of some variety!)

When I see Cleveland Browns level of organizational skills, I know that's not going to be constructive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdZHqHzmna0

Anyways, to address the main issue with said post: I will say that the only things I disagree with here are 'They're saying that they're organizational skills get a free pass, because they're white.' - I haven't seen a shred of evidence for the organisers claiming that

According to the article: “Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community,” a post on the march’s Facebook page read. “Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.”

They knew that last year's participation was mostly white. They had an entire year to reach out to minority communities. Did they? Judging by the cancellation/postponement, they failed. They could've said: "we failed to reach out to minority communities for this year's march, even though we had a year to do it"

Is that what they said? No. Instead they said: "We recognize the majority of our current leadership team is white, and planning for this event has been centered around our experiences..."

What does being white have to do with failing to plan for an event? Are they physically unable to speak with minorities because of their skin color? Furthermore, are they planning to place people with better organizational abilities on the team? No. They said: "we are attempting to make things right by taking this time to create a more balanced leadership team"

More balanced in terms of leadership ability? Organizational ability? Planning ability? Interviewing ability? No. They said: "Our goal moving forward is to ensure the voices of women of color are heard and centered"

I'm all for hearing the centered women of color, but they still have to be good speakers. YouTube's black bronchitis lady isn't going to inspire the march of millions; Oprah Winfrey might. Yet there's nothing about skill set anywhere. Instead the blame is cast on the planning committee being too white - their skin color. If someone came up to me and said "sorry I failed this project because I'm of X race/ethnicity" - I'd say "don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out" and then do the "you're fired!" impression of President Trump. This should not be acceptable in a modern society.

[The Emerald Legion]

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, but in the event that you're not : I'm just having a laugh at something inconsequential. Seriously. None of these marches or protests ever amount to anything than a few minutes of internet entertainment. Be they the tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks or pink-hat wearing feminists.

Even when one of those " tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks" straight up murdered someone?

You mean like the people progressive activists were trying to murder with bike locks? You mean like all the Arsons that somehow weren't deadly threats to people's lives or livelyhood?

You can't exactly claim to be a faction of peace, Justice, and tolerance when the only reason there is violence is because you show up to start something. People can protest if they want, that's their right. But it doesn't get anything done. It doesn't mean anything.

It's just noise. Just a temper tantrum to let people calm down. By deliberately going out of their way to disrupt protests, they only make things worse.

[Souritesk]

I'm fairly certain you're just trolling, but in the event that you're not : I'm just having a laugh at something inconsequential. Seriously. None of these marches or protests ever amount to anything than a few minutes of internet entertainment. Be they the tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks or pink-hat wearing feminists.

Even when one of those " tiki-torch bearing /pol/acks" straight up murdered someone?

Alright, I'm gonna take your word for it and just assume you're serious. Hell, I'll do you one better and assume they kill one person every day. Even with my generosity, that still pales in comparison to slip-falls, which kill around 20 000 to 30 000 people every year.

Your next line will be "What, did you pull that statistic out of your nose?".

https://www.cdc.gov/features/older-adul ... index.html

Straight for the center for disease control.

There's no point in doing anything. No matter how much you political-types rage and throw down with bike-locks or wooden swords in the streets, you don't matter. None of you matter. You'll always be lolcows on the internet. And I'll look forward to reading or watching your impotent rage.

Anyways, I'm off. Have fun huffling and puffing.

[Zapato]

So you're saying noticing a law will disenfranchise a population makes them a 'popular liberal talking point'? "Liberals mentioned native americans when it was relevant to the discussion...fucking typical" This is what you got? This makes it a 'popular liberal talking point' huh? Pretty low bar. What am I supposed to do with that, by the way? Am I supposed to be ashamed I brought it up, too or something? Where you going with this?

It'll disenfranchise Native Americans only in the minds of fanatical liberals, since said proposal was easily fixed by simply allowing the Native Americans who live on Reservation to use the address of their Reservation, rather than their home address.

Was it tho? Could they use the adress of the reservation?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

How has this thread been going on this long?

A group of people cancelled a march beacuse of a dumb reason. That's it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Marches are stupid anyway. Going on strike is a million times cooler.

[Shofercia]

It'll disenfranchise Native Americans only in the minds of fanatical liberals, since said proposal was easily fixed by simply allowing the Native Americans who live on Reservation to use the address of their Reservation, rather than their home address.

Was it tho? Could they use the adress of the reservation?

Of course! Let's say that you have a husband and wife who make a ton of money, and have a bunch of kids, their own and adopted. They have a huge mansion. So you could end up having 40 kids, when they turn 18, use the same address for voter registration. Strictly speaking, solely in terms of voter registration, how's a Native American Reservation any different? Or let's take a huge apartment complex, that decided to change its numerology system. During the duration of the change, all of the people living there have the same address, and packages are delivered by their last name. How's that any different than a Reservation?

San Diego County has quite a few Native American Reservations - 14 as of the 2010 census. The population varied from 1,315 to 55. Why shouldn't they be allowed to use the Reservation's address for voter registration? Native American Reservations don't have that many people living on them. Unless the Reservation spans several states, (in which case each state should have its own address,) I'm not seeing the issue.

[Shofercia]

How has this thread been going on this long?

A group of people cancelled a march beacuse of a dumb reason. That's it.

This!
Is!
NSGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!

Sorry, had to