National Review and Poe's Law

[Charles Kozierok]

Poe's Law 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?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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.

I feel your logic is faulty when you link the GOP in general to these laws; as promotion of these laws is definitely not part of the national platform.

I thought this was tongue-in-cheek as soon as I read it, but apparently quite a few folks think he's serious.

It was a rye take on the modern political zeitgeist vis a vis the second amendment.

There's no one relevant in the US that wants to repeal a woman's right to vote (other than Ann Coulter*).

*my apologies for calling ACoulter relevant...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Can a guy in a Micheal Vick jersey make an animal cruelty joke all in good fun?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can a guy in a Micheal Vick jersey make an animal cruelty joke all in good fun?

Do you think the republican party was ever against the right of women to vote?

Technically speaking, the republican party was for women's suffrage and black-male suffrage.

It's only in the more modern context of social justice as extended past suffrage into procedural and distributive justice that republican's have fallen behind democrats.

Such is the natural cycle: last generation's liberal is this generation's conservative.