Why I hate the PuffHo

July 23, 2016 • 10:30 am

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.

92 thoughts on “Why I hate the PuffHo”

      2. Though to be fair, Naheed Nenshi is mayor of Calgary, Alberta, and he does a fine job:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naheed_Nenshi

        However, he is the wrong kind of Muslim (along with Maajid Nawaz) according to the regressives, who want their ‘people of colour’ to reject enlightenment values, and to ‘know their place’ as barbarous savages.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

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

    3. 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 —

      Blue

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

        Maybe because they sanctimoniously called attention to it?

        1. 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?

          Blue

          1. 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.

          3. 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.

          4. 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.

            Blue

    4. 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?

    1. 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. 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?

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

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

        3. “…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…

    4. First time you’ve disappointed me, Ken.

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

      1. 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.

        1. 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.)

    1. 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.

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

  12. 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.)

      1. Your second source says specifically he is one-eighth Kaw Indian, but his mother also had Osage ancestry.

        Regardless, he is the first person of any non-European ancestry to be President or Vice-President.

      2. His mother had mixed Kansa, Osage, Kaw and Potawatomi ancestry, but the Kaw Indians are closely connected of the Osage.

  13. 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.

  14. “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. 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.

  16. “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.

      2. 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.

    2. 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.)

      1. 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?])

        1. 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.

      1. +1

        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.

        1. “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.

          1. +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

    4. +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. 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.

  18. “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.

    1. “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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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”.

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

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

    2. 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.

      2. “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…”

  20. 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.

Comments are closed.