OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Tuesday, February 2

#23558

OMG:

Controversial opinion incoming: giving women the right to vote was a mistake. A century later, that's how we get the girliest man ever elected as Prime Minister - women voters who think pretty feelings matter more than actual political sense. It's a cutthroat business that was always meant to be a man's world.


29 comments

  1. The "girliest man" got elected prime minister. Where u at.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Women could also vote when Harper was elected...

    ReplyDelete
  3. So is "controversial" the term used for hate speech now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only woman I can honestly say I don't like is your mother OP. The best part of you ran down her leg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the perfect response!

      Delete
  5. Manchild with mommy issues spotted

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is shitpost level hate speech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OP here,

    I wanted to see how extreme OMGUW's users could be, so I wrote this shitpost. Good to know there's a line somewhere.

    But hate speech? C'mon now, it's not that. Just shitty speech.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nobody should vote tbh

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the right to vote should be restricted to individuals who pay taxes. Men, women, white, black, blue, I don't care, as long as you contribute something to society, you get a vote. If you're unemployed and living off our money, tough luck, get a fucking job.
    I don't see why this is controversial, but apparently it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's controversial because:

      1) That's less than 40% of the population.
      2) It would literally lead to governments manipulating tax brackets so only their most favourable demographics could vote.
      3) The laws governments pass restrict and bind everyone - all citizens, not just taxpayers.

      What you're advocating for is essentially a system of permanent aristocracy - where the wealthy few (think: British House of Lords) have the power to pass and enforce laws that benefit themselves, and everybody else is left to languish in serfdom. We move away from that system centuries ago.

      Delete
    2. @12a The fact that it is less than 40% of the population is staggering, though not implausible. Are we talking only working-age adults here?
      Morally, I don't see why freeloaders should have a say in the legislation.
      Imagine there's a hobo sleeping in a tent on your front lawn. You're a very generous person, so instead of calling the police, you decide to let him sleep in the garage and give him some of your leftovers to eat.
      Now suppose that in your family you have this tradition: every Tuesday night, you hold a "family meeting" in the garage and you vote to decide who should do what chores and how should the family economies be spent. Should you give the hobo a vote?
      Well, maybe when you're divided half and half on an issue you might ask him for advice. In that case, you would at least expect him to take on some chores.
      There is a bigger problem if truly less than 40% of the population pays taxes. In this scenario you've let a whole commune of hobos colonize your garage, with full voting rights at family meetings. None of them does any chores or pays any rent, but since they outnumber the original family members, they get to divide the family savings among themselves. Over time, they demand more and more privileges: they move from the garage to the basement and they are now fed with Kraft Diner instead of leftovers.
      You wake up every morning and go to work while there's a tribe of hobos chilling in your basement, isn't that """"""serfdom"""""?
      But maybe that's what you want. After all, you're a very generous person. At least they must be grateful? No! Most of them think you are an oppressor for not letting them sleep in the master bedroom. They are constantly trying to bring the issue up at family meeting. There are even 2 or 3 radicals who are plotting to assassinate your family and declare this a "hobo house" (they think there are enough cans of tuna in the cellar to last them for hundreds of years).
      So, yeah, carrying so many freeloaders on your shoulders is probably a bad idea. But giving them the right to vote? It's just insane.

      Delete
    3. @a: Well, I dare say, the serfs weren't on welfare/unemployed/pensioners. Just saying.
      Pick your analogies carefully.

      Delete
    4. 12b, holy mother of false equivalencies!

      Anyway, income tax is a recent invention, no? And we all pay sales tax. And gas tax, and any other number of taxes the government chooses to impose. There's a big difference between a citizen and a taxpayer. If I lose my job because of economic downturn, it shouldn't mean I lose my right to vote. I'm still a human being and a full member of the state. There's more to that than whether the state receives money from me.

      Another way of looking at it: if I could hypothetically be asked to fight and die for my country in a war, I should have the right to vote. Period.

      Delete
    5. @12d You know very well that this measure wouldn't target people who just lost their jobs. I concede that "People who don't pay taxes" is an oversimplification. To be more precise, I think we should remove the right to vote to able-bodied adult individuals on long-term social aid, for fairness and as an incentive to bring them back in the work force. I doubt the number of people concerned would be anywhere near 60% of the population as @6b seems to suggest.

      But you bring up an interesting idea. Why not automatically enlist them in the army instead? If they are truly ready to fight and die for their country, let them prove it and earn their citizenship that way. The army could then be used for public works in times of peace. Those people would gain invaluable skills and discipline and the country will benefit from an unprecedented economic boost.

      Delete
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well she was pretty great. I guess women can be ok.

      Delete
  11. You are equally or more disgusting as those "feminists" majoring in women's studies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You shouldn't have the right to vote either since you came out of a woman too. Just stating the facts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @people who keep being outraged, OP came out saying this was a joke. Chill

      Delete
    2. I'm not so interesting in coming out of a woman, so much as when I get to come into one next... if you know what I mean.

      Delete
  13. lol sounds like you watch rebel media

    ReplyDelete
  14. She'll vote the same way her husband does anyway.

    ...oops, did I say that out loud?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This was posted by a feminist to justify their claims that they we live in a misogynistic society. They often do this, look at SRS on reddit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, just a troll trying to be funny/start a flame war.

      Delete