is an old Internet observation that it can be very hard to tell a parody of extremism from its genuine expression. And these days, it seems to be harder than ever.
So here we have a National Review
article by Michael Walsh, where he starts out saying it might not be a bad idea to repeal the 19th amendment. Then, while he's in the neighborhood, he takes on a few others that he doesn't like.
I thought this was tongue-in-cheek as soon as I read it, but apparently quite a few folks think he's serious. Part of me thinks that it's sad that anyone would think those suggestions were actually being made -- but then this is the same publication where John Derbyshire got fired from for posting a really nasty racist "essay".
And as one commenter pointed out, this kind of plays into the left's "GOP war on women" narrative. I mean, if somone wrote an article two years ago calling on the GOP to push for laws requiring vaginal probes before abortions, I might have thought that was satire too.
So.. good natured fun being overreacted to by oversensitive liberals, or a joke that's really not that funny?