— Jimbo Kearney (@JimboDKearney) April 21, 2016
If Amanda Marcotte couldn’t find something to be outraged over, she’d have to invent it. Actually, that’s essentially what she did here:
There is one reason and one reason only to oppose the currency changes: You want to preserve white male privilege. https://t.co/wwcmeCVY5g
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) April 21, 2016
This is genius, you guys:
The Treasury’s decision should be non-controversial. After all, we all agree that history is made by more than presidents (plus, the $100 bill has a non-president on it, which confirms this is a shared belief), and that people other than white men exist and matter. Don’t we? You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees publicly with these contentions, except perhaps on some Twitter accounts that Trump keeps retweeting.
Yet, in a move that was entirely predictable, right wing pundits are in meltdown, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that, regardless of any surface claims to believe in equality, the reality is that they adhere to the belief that white men are the only ones who really matter and the rest of us are just the supporting cast.
One thing is for certain, the reaction to this proves feminists right. Feminists have long argued that better representation matters, and while symbolic gestures like putting women and people of color on money may not do anything in the immediate future to improve people’s lives, the psychological effect of saying, “These people matter, too,” can gradually help lessen prejudice. The panicked reaction from the right suggests that they agree, even though what feminists are hoping is true is what conservatives fear is true.
OK, so first of all, who are these nefarious “right wing pundits” Amanda’s so upset about?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 21, 2016
Those are your pundits, Amanda? They’re the best you’ve got?
— randOmouz (@randOmuos) April 21, 2016
Stalwarts of the conservative base.
— Danny (@danny_cdn1968) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke Salon operates by the 'Three times is enemy action' rule of thumb
— Blake Seitz (@BlakeSeitz) April 21, 2016
Sorry, Amanda, but you failed to meet the burden of proof. You failed spectacularly.
— Michael Fitzgibbon (@FitzDrum) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke Pretty sure most people on the right were either actively pleased or ambivalent re: fate of first Democrat
— Baker Owens (@tjpman) April 21, 2016
— Rob Roskowiak (@nILFeed) April 21, 2016
— Tyler (@_TJ_D) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke The response I've seen from the right has be universally positive. Trump has to feign outrage to appeal to his base.
— Coleby (@Mathews_PGH) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke What conservative meltdown? The cons I follow have agreed she's an excellent choice.
— Kevin (@ml350kls) April 21, 2016
— Fred Nicolaysen (@phred47) April 21, 2016
Yeah, but Amanda’s not the type who lets reality get in the way of her narrative.
@charlescwcooke This story was going to be written no matter what anyone said.
— Brasso Bill (@neatocabrito) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke does it surprise you that Salon would build strawmen to push a narrative?
— Dino (@dinok1975) April 21, 2016
— DTH (@DavidTHogan) April 21, 2016
— Break Right! (@uumtierney) April 21, 2016
— Marchosias (@Marxchosias) April 21, 2016
— Cathy Young (@CathyYoung63) April 21, 2016
@charlescwcooke And isn't Marcotte literally an ambulatory wad of identity politics given human form by some unholy ritual?
— Fake Mustache (@Bent0916) April 21, 2016
It’s Amanda Marcotte, she is literally insane. https://t.co/bKKkYg1xDL
— Heather (@hboulware) April 21, 2016