Honestly... His choice of words is eyebrow raising, but I've been feeling similarly lately. Not with Charlie Kirk specifically, but I've been thinking for a while about how I can't really think of...
Honestly... His choice of words is eyebrow raising, but I've been feeling similarly lately. Not with Charlie Kirk specifically, but I've been thinking for a while about how I can't really think of any positive male influencers who aim their content and messaging at young men, both in and out of the political realm. I can think of plenty of good, famous male figures, but they tend to address everyone, not just men, which makes a difference.
The only people who really speak specifically to young men are right-wing conservatives, or men pushing highly toxic values and mindsets like Andrew Tate. I know I've seen some young men explain they turned to radical ideals like neo-nazism solely because they felt like they were being told they were bad just for being a man. People ultimately like to look for a place where they belong and people who accept them...
And unfortunately, young men—especially young white men—have somehow, incredibly, fallen through the cracks in that regard. It sounds ridiculous given the power dynamics and inherent male/white privilege, but... There is a serious gap in messaging and leaves them susceptible to being influenced by whoever tells them they're good.
It's been on my mind since this article about a publisher focusing on books oriented to the male experience. It made me realize there isn't much media that directly and specifically addresses the male experience outside of those pushing negativity. There are all sorts of positive influencers and resources for girls and women, and for people of various races and minorities, but I genuinely struggle to think of any for men. And much of the time, it feels like a lot of the messages aimed at men boil down to "don't be an asshole" which... Isn't really encouraging.
At least from the quotes in the article, his wording seems very astute. I see him acknowledging Kirk's effectiveness and the Democrats' failures to effectively counter it - both things that are...
At least from the quotes in the article, his wording seems very astute. I see him acknowledging Kirk's effectiveness and the Democrats' failures to effectively counter it - both things that are factually true - and exploring some of the possible reasons for that effectiveness without actually praising Kirk in any way.
I know I've seen some young men explain they turned to radical ideals like neo-nazism solely because they felt like they were being told they were bad just for being a man. People ultimately like to look for a place where they belong and people who accept them...
I'm always torn by this. I have very little sympathy for people who would abandon being a good person just for a sense of belonging; I'd far rather be alone than be part of a community that wants to hurt others. But the fact of the matter is that plenty of people clearly do make the opposite choice and that's a problem we need to deal with, whatever it might say about their moral integrity.
And regardless of how we're judging or appealing to that subset of people, it does sting a little that the majority of times "cis men" or "white men" are mentioned in general, it's as a pejorative. I didn't ask to be a member of those groups. I don't particularly identify with them as classifications that define me, or with masculinity as a part of my identity. I fully understand the context those things are said in and support the ideals that usually underly the statements. And I still feel that little bit of tarnish every time the groups I'm part of - the groups I didn't choose to be part of, but am nonetheless - are casually classed as the bad groups.
For someone less immersed in the political discourse and more attached to maleness or masculinity as something that's important to them, I'm certain they would feel actively unwanted and disliked where I just feel a slight sadness. I can't condone them turning to the ideologies some turn to in response to that, but I can absolutely understand them feeling alienated by it.
I think this is one of the primary failures on the left is that people are judged on their moral integrity for disagreeing when it has just about nothing to do with moral integrity. The saying,...
that's a problem we need to deal with, whatever it might say about their moral integrity.
I think this is one of the primary failures on the left is that people are judged on their moral integrity for disagreeing when it has just about nothing to do with moral integrity. The saying, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" applies strongly here. The number of people who are on the left because of group identity, social dynamics, and being born in a particular region is basically the same as the number on the right, and yet we have this endless stream of left wing people telling people on the right that they are either evil or weak minded for being on the other side.
I'm not sure I really follow your meaning? If you're saying in general that plenty of people on the left are just following and chanting slogans without thinking about it too much, just as many on...
Exemplary
I'm not sure I really follow your meaning? If you're saying in general that plenty of people on the left are just following and chanting slogans without thinking about it too much, just as many on the right are, I fully agree. The question of morality happens when the ideals you're following and the things you're chanting start to dehumanise others - that's when a choice has to be made, and continuing to follow is no less of a choice just because it can be passive.
I was replying specifically to a quote about "radical ideals like neo-nazism", and that's a pretty clear cut step across that line, for example. I don't think people get much of a pass to not consider the implications of what they're saying when that is the ideology they're choosing to attach themselves to.
Frankly I also think that Trump and the MAGA movement in general have shown who they are too many times, and too clearly, to really give people a pass on choosing to support them either. If you've read more than three or four Trump tweets you've got a fair idea of who the man is, and I think anyone willingly aligning themselves with that is showing very, very questionable ethical judgment at best. But I can accept more that "the right" prior to this was at least outwardly legitimate enough that someone could unthinkingly support them without necessarily being slapped in the face by the harm they're doing.
I think the crux of this matter is the choice isn’t happening consciously. People in general are susceptible to frog-boiling, and rudderless young guys with no life experience in particular are...
I think the crux of this matter is the choice isn’t happening consciously. People in general are susceptible to frog-boiling, and rudderless young guys with no life experience in particular are vulnerable. They get hooked by the outward sugar-coated “wellbeing” messaging and gradually get pulled along until one day they’re supporting some very nasty things.
Note that I am not condoning of such behavior or saying it’s justified or excused in any way, but in theory I can see how guys end up in that situation.
This is exactly the kind of moralizing I’m talking about. It’s strictly negative and demeaning, and offers no reason to change anyone’s perspective. If the left ever wants to regain mindshare, it...
The question of morality happens when the ideals you're following and the things you're chanting start to dehumanise others
I don't think people get much of a pass
This is exactly the kind of moralizing I’m talking about. It’s strictly negative and demeaning, and offers no reason to change anyone’s perspective.
If the left ever wants to regain mindshare, it will need to stop blaming and start offering solutions. Stop telling people what isn’t the problem and start telling people what is the problem, in language people can understand without feeling attacked. And especially, stop telling the people they are trying to convert that they personally are the problem.
That’s what the right has fully capitalized on — the message is that you are great, and your problem is illegal immigrants and trans people.
Sure, we need positive messaging and actual solutions to problems - that’s literally what I was saying in my first reply. But I’m not going to pretend I’m not blaming neo-nazis for idolising the...
Sure, we need positive messaging and actual solutions to problems - that’s literally what I was saying in my first reply.
But I’m not going to pretend I’m not blaming neo-nazis for idolising the fucking nazis. I am judging them. I will continue to judge them. I don’t think it’s helpful to say that to their faces, but I would be lying if I claimed not to think it.
Simultaneously to that I recognise that they have legitimate concerns to be addressed that got them onto the propaganda pipeline in the first place, and that we need to communicate effectively with them. We need to address the roots of those concerns. I can accept that without accepting that choosing fascism was an inevitable, reasonable, or morally justifiable endpoint for someone who started with those legitimate concerns.
I find it frustrating when people assume the tone and language used in these conversations is the precise language you'd use when talking to an individual you know is experiencing this...
I find it frustrating when people assume the tone and language used in these conversations is the precise language you'd use when talking to an individual you know is experiencing this loneliness/slow radicalization/whatever.
It remains I'm incredibly frustrating and baffling how little personal accountability is being laid on the people, in this case young white men, but I have similar feelings about conservative white women, that choose these paths, even as I understand the mechanisms that radicalize people. Because coming out of it has to involve some accountability or they just pivot back to whoever is nicer to them. I personally think people are capable of more than that if they want to be.
I'm down for changing societal narratives about gender, mental health, and what it means to be worthy as an adult human of your gender. But that's harder as a sell than "make a podcast that makes men liberal or they'll become fascists," as if those are the two options.
Let’s say you do convince someone on the right that there may be reasonable policy options on the left. When they leave their filter bubble and find a left leaning community to do their own...
I find it frustrating when people assume the tone and language used in these conversations is the precise language you'd use when talking to an individual you know is experiencing this loneliness/slow radicalization/whatever.
Let’s say you do convince someone on the right that there may be reasonable policy options on the left. When they leave their filter bubble and find a left leaning community to do their own research, what are they going to find? These conversations. Where they are alternately described as weak minded, lacking in moral integrity, or flat out evil.
I’m not trying to talk about cynically improving polemics for outreach like a bunch of out of touch youth pastors. I’m saying the left needs a broad culture shift where left leaning spaces become accessible and inviting instead of hostile and othering.
And hopefully by then they're ready for them. But I, and most people, code switch how I talk all the time depending on my audience. And I stand by what I say, it's just not how I'd approach a...
And hopefully by then they're ready for them. But I, and most people, code switch how I talk all the time depending on my audience. And I stand by what I say, it's just not how I'd approach a conversation in that circumstance.
Not all spaces are educational ones, in my experience those spaces are welcoming and inclusive to everyone, including white men. They're just rarely run by white men, instead being predominantly black women to take on that emotional labor. I'm in full support of white men taking up that charge, and reaching out to their peers and others alike. Once again, if folks aren't willing to learn or make a change at all, they're not going to come to the educational spaces that are already built and would welcome them.
It is not my experience that those spaces are hostile and othering even when I've been the naive (and putting my foot in it) straight white woman.
I don't think personal accountability/responsibility is useful when we're discussing large groups of people. But at the same time it is ironic given how much the phase gets thrown at women seeking...
baffling how little personal accountability is being laid on the people
I don't think personal accountability/responsibility is useful when we're discussing large groups of people. But at the same time it is ironic given how much the phase gets thrown at women seeking abortions or other groups getting attacked.
Getting attacked? We're talking about people choosing to align themselves with straight out bigotry. They're not "getting attacked" in this context. People who get abortions are in fact...
I don't think personal accountability/responsibility is useful when we're discussing large groups of people. But at the same time it is ironic given how much the phase gets thrown at women seeking abortions or other groups getting attacked.
Getting attacked?
We're talking about people choosing to align themselves with straight out bigotry. They're not "getting attacked" in this context. People who get abortions are in fact demonstrating personal responsibility. I'm not using it as a cudgel, I'm expecting people to be willing to choose not to engage in hatred and bigotry. And, much like any change, understanding that they must be willing to even consider that change possible and be willing to act on it.
If they're not willing to do that then it doesn't matter how "welcoming" spaces are or how "courted" they are. Because they'll never enter them. But choosing hatred, much like choosing violence, can be acknowledged as a societal problem and one where people are held accountable for their actions.
This isn't just the equivalent of the young teenagers in gangs pressured into firing the gun on behalf of the older gang members, these are the older gang members who are bought into the mission.
I agree here, and Ive gotten pretty far with the message that, yeah the left kinda sucks because its a voter base of almost entirely city dwelling folk who haven’t ever actually shot a deer or...
I agree here, and Ive gotten pretty far with the message that, yeah the left kinda sucks because its a voter base of almost entirely city dwelling folk who haven’t ever actually shot a deer or even been on a dirt bike, but Trump is a scam artist hell bent on punishing specific groups of people and those characteristics make for a shitty president
Cause you don’t have to support the left. I barely support the left. But don’t support Trump, he sucks.
Even as someone on the left, I appreciate this messaging! I want a principled opposition, I want to be challenged in a way that forces us to improve, and I can respect a fair number of the ideals...
Even as someone on the left, I appreciate this messaging!
I want a principled opposition, I want to be challenged in a way that forces us to improve, and I can respect a fair number of the ideals and qualities that conservatism claims to hold dear, even where I might disagree with them. Nothing would make me happier than seeing conservatives start to demand candidates who actually embody those ideals.
Agreed. There are plenty of ideals that I don't value super highly, but I can respect them when someone genuinely believes in them and acts accordingly. Like if someone prioritizes paying off...
Agreed. There are plenty of ideals that I don't value super highly, but I can respect them when someone genuinely believes in them and acts accordingly.
Like if someone prioritizes paying off government debt that sounds reasonable to me. If someone's ideal government is small and gets out of your way that's a philosophy that I welcome at a debate. But the current Republican politicians don't actually care about either of those.
The solution is we don't focus on catering to "moderates" anymore. Look at how people responded to newsom's mocking of Trump. Look at the supporting base around Mumdami. Heck, Look at the message...
If the left ever wants to regain mindshare, it will need to stop blaming and start offering solutions.
The solution is we don't focus on catering to "moderates" anymore. Look at how people responded to newsom's mocking of Trump. Look at the supporting base around Mumdami. Heck, Look at the message Bernie Sanders has been giving for decades and how he seems to actually have bipartisan support among the working class.
We still do need to blame though. Just not joe going into the office or Bob out hunting deer. We need to redirect it at the hyper rich ransacking the country. But it's always easier to throw a tomato at that "one annoying guy" than atop the ivory tower.
I think this grossly overestimates the degree of sympathy the public has for actual leftist beliefs. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx...
I think this grossly overestimates the degree of sympathy the public has for actual leftist beliefs.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ ideological identification was steady in 2024, with an average of 37% describing their political views as “very conservative” or “conservative,” 34% as “moderate,” and 25% as “very liberal” or “liberal.” However, this stability masks new highs in the percentages of Republicans identifying as conservative and Democrats as liberal.
Democrats can basically forget the conservative vote (in the next election, but they will have more opportunity here if they can put together a successful presidency). They need to convince almost 3/4 of independents.
This is getting a little off topic, but whenever I see people talking about strategy for the next election, I really have a hard time believing there IS a “next election”. We are like 6 months...
This is getting a little off topic, but whenever I see people talking about strategy for the next election, I really have a hard time believing there IS a “next election”. We are like 6 months into the current administration. We have another 14 months until mid-terms. There has been no slow down— it feels like things are just ramping up.
If the administration was confident it could prevent the midterms, it would not have started a gerrymandering crusade. They are afraid of the midterms, and from that I take heart.
If the administration was confident it could prevent the midterms, it would not have started a gerrymandering crusade. They are afraid of the midterms, and from that I take heart.
From my perspective, things like a gerrymandering campaign are exactly how there "won't be a next election." Like, my take isn't that there will literally not be an election. Russia still holds...
From my perspective, things like a gerrymandering campaign are exactly how there "won't be a next election." Like, my take isn't that there will literally not be an election. Russia still holds elections. My take is that as the Republicans continue eroding processes, they will continue stacking the deck and giving themselves so much of an advantage that it becomes a farce.
Depending on how strong the backlash is to economic pain from tariffs etc, gerrymandering might not work the way it's expected to. Voters aren't always predictable.
Depending on how strong the backlash is to economic pain from tariffs etc, gerrymandering might not work the way it's expected to. Voters aren't always predictable.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but occasionally I foresee an American version of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A stolen election, non-MAGAs march on DC, thousands get killed.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but occasionally I foresee an American version of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A stolen election, non-MAGAs march on DC, thousands get killed.
this article was published in January, and surveyed in 2024. I think it's safe to say that things have shifted quite a bit since then. A candidate like Mumdami wouldn't have even been a serious...
this article was published in January, and surveyed in 2024.
I think it's safe to say that things have shifted quite a bit since then. A candidate like Mumdami wouldn't have even been a serious candidate a year ago. There's been regions shifting as much as 20 points.
I'm not necessarily going to call it a "blue wave" per se as much as a stark rejection of the "red wave" . That fits more with the cultural trend that Americans tend to be reactionary rather than preventative.
Either way, I think my point still stands. Democrats have had low energy for years now because they've more or less have internally split between socialistic values and neoliberal ones. We need to pick a lane, if aboslutely nothing else. It seems like the lane the people are picking is not the one the actual "party" is trying to push, though. I hope over the next 3 years more leaders for the people push through that resistance.
Voting patterns are shifting, but I do not believe that group identity is shifting. I think, like you say, this is more a transient rejection of fascism and incompetence than it is a swing to the...
I think it's safe to say that things have shifted quite a bit since then.
Voting patterns are shifting, but I do not believe that group identity is shifting. I think, like you say, this is more a transient rejection of fascism and incompetence than it is a swing to the left -- Trump is doing things that some of his voters were not expecting him to do. However, I'm fairly confident that a different Republican candidate would pull a lot of those voters back into the fold.
We need to pick a lane
I don't know that I agree that we should choose either neoliberal or socialist. I don't think going full socialist is going to work because, as I mentioned earlier, the number of people who identify as "liberal" is only 25% of the population. I don't think that is likely to have changed by any significant amount. I don't think fully neoliberal works either as it kind of lacks a hook to excite most people.
If I were to lay out what I think a good plan is, it would be a mix of populism, actual evidence based policy, and defanging the main right wing talking points:
Health care, and specifically blaming insurance companies and for-profit hospital, there is basically zero downside on this one. Mental health service access is a big one here too.
Building more housing and blaming NIMBYs, this will upset some homeowners, and there are a lot of voting homeowners, but I think it is a net positive policy
Jobs and targeted education supports, with a significant de-emphasis on DEI (by literally never saying those letters out loud again) and an emphasis on income/wealth, which will still strongly skew to helping minorities but without the stigma of explicitly race based policies
Back down on hardline policies on transgender sport participation. kick it down to the individual sport governing bodies, let them decide it on a per-sport basis based on scientific evidence, and otherwise stop talking about it. This is a trans issue that I think has actual traction -- other than that, I don't think people actually care very much and will go along with people being able to change their legal gender, use whatever washroom they want, etc.
immigration infrastructure funding increases, but with an eye to reverting to the old INS system where their mandate was to help immigrants rather than the current "security" oriented adversarial model, but simultaneously massively increasing the judiciary and lawyers to expedite case handling and deportations in the case of criminal convictions and failed asylum cases.
Yes. I do agree that above everything else, we need to build community back. Not nationalism, proper small scale groups of people who can properly talk amongst one another. Even if we "drain the...
Voting patterns are shifting, but I do not believe that group identity is shifting.
Yes. I do agree that above everything else, we need to build community back. Not nationalism, proper small scale groups of people who can properly talk amongst one another. Even if we "drain the swamp", those broken windows will remain, and those are up to the people to fix. We can't brute force the idea of having pride and trust in our fellow man (though the government can still help. Build more third places, better public transportation, better wages, etc.).
However, I'm fairly confident that a different Republican candidate would pull a lot of those voters back into the fold.
Not immediately but eventually. That's why they are called "swing voters": not just because they swing elections, but they are swinging back and forth whenever everything isn't perfect after 4-8 years. The factors in the last 2 elections weren't really factors anyone in the world were ready for, and we're still dealing with the fallout of that today. So, turbulent times makes for bigger and more extreme swings.
There's not really much to do about such voters. The nature of a swing voter is to desire any change at all whenever they feel inconvinienced. Not really holding any strong values outside of their personal perception of the situation. It's much better to energize those who do have strong convictions; that energy will bring in the swings (as we saw in 2024).
I don't know that I agree that we should choose either neoliberal or socialist. I don't think going full socialist is going to work because, as I mentioned earlier, the number of people who identify as "liberal" is only 25% of the population.
Lane was a bit too binary a term here. Clearly it's a spectrum. it's more accurate to say that there's two people fighting over the wheel in the car and that it's swerving every which way. And we all know how that ends: no destination is reached and both parties are hurt.
I don't have any issues with any of your points being that talking point to hammer down, but:
Jobs and targeted education supports, with a significant de-emphasis on DEI (by literally never saying those letters out loud again
Just because the Left doesn't say it doesn't mean the Right won't. Hence, part of that Manufactured talking points. I don't believe Kamala ever actually talked about DEI in her campaign.
I suppose "destination" is a more apt description. We've been (importantly) on defense, but we need a rallying cry of 2-3 simple points that resonate with Americans and to jam it in to near exhaustion. That's one of the strongest things the GOP did in this decade, even if the some were completely manufactured. Bernie's done that pretty well: he wants stronger labor laws (or as is portrayed as of late: fighting the oligarchy) and proper universal healtchcare. IDK what "the left" wants anymore (which is part of the problem), but they need to figure it out yesterday.
Sorry, I'm going to lay down some cynicism here, but: The Left refuses to have Community, while the Right actively embraces it. Being out in rural America where I am at the moment--just visiting....
Yes. I do agree that above everything else, we need to build community back. Not nationalism, proper small scale groups of people who can properly talk amongst one another. Even if we "drain the swamp", those broken windows will remain, and those are up to the people to fix. We can't brute force the idea of having pride and trust in our fellow man (though the government can still help. Build more third places, better public transportation, better wages, etc.).
Sorry, I'm going to lay down some cynicism here, but:
The Left refuses to have Community, while the Right actively embraces it. Being out in rural America where I am at the moment--just visiting. I normally live in a liberal bastion--you can see it plainly. People go to Bingo (I went last night) and talk. People go to Church (and talk), people see each other on the street and talk. There's tons of spaces where people meet and talk and get to know each other. They have these fairly strong and wide ranging communities and activities.
Meanwhile, in my home state, my home city, no one comes to my neighborhood meetings I've been holding for 4 years now. I talk to younger people in my neighborhood, "Oh yeah, I've gotta do that." no one shows-up. No one shows up to anything outside their little bubble, all claiming introversion (I am also one of those) or being too busy, or whatever. No one wants to actually do the work to have a community, but instead will bitch and moan about a lack of one, but never actually make the effort to build it.
Maybe that's just the difference between a rural, lower population place and a relatively large city, I don't know. But even my small neighborhood of only 400-some houses, no one bothers. I know a decent amount of people in my neighborhood now, but that's due to me reach out and engaging with people and them generally being receptive and I really only know one young family in all those connections, the rest are older folks who remember how it used to be.
It used to be that most households had a homemaker, and either that person took on the mental overhead of managing community contacts, or their coverage of all things household management meant...
It used to be that most households had a homemaker, and either that person took on the mental overhead of managing community contacts, or their coverage of all things household management meant the breadwinner had the bandwidth to do community stuff. My husband and I have significantly drawn away from even communities we used to be heavily involved in because we are so tired all the time from work. We have health conditions that exacerbate our particular problem, but other households have children, or work longer hours. Being too busy (or code for tired because saying you are chronically tired comes across as a copout) is a legitimate social problem in itself, not a moral failing of the people who say it.
Being tired is fine. I am tired all of the time, have two little children, as well as septuagenarian parents that are in need of assistance a lot of the time; I never want to go to these community...
Being tired is fine. I am tired all of the time, have two little children, as well as septuagenarian parents that are in need of assistance a lot of the time; I never want to go to these community functions, but I can make it work. I'm not saying it's a moral failing, but it is upsetting, because I have all the same problems and I can do it.
There is significant individual variation in capability: I spent years trying to "make it work" through my tiredness because I saw other people actually making it work, including close family...
There is significant individual variation in capability: I spent years trying to "make it work" through my tiredness because I saw other people actually making it work, including close family members I admire, and at the start I valued the community stuff more than my tiredness. But that level of pushing myself not only made me so tired I stopped caring about everything I previously valued, but the brain fog crippled my ability to perform my job. Even people without any visible disability may legitimately be unable to function at a level the majority considers normal.
In addition, there are structural factors that affect people's capacity besides a strict list of responsibilities: how long is their commute (adds on to work time drain), how accessible are things like groceries (farther trips not only take more time but demand more mental work to plan things out longer), how far away are members of their support system (popping by daily or weekly makes a huge difference, but is way more burdensome if it's a half hour out of the way in each direction), etc.
I hope someone figures out how to promote enough support factors that community groups come back. It would be hugely beneficial.
I think it's less left/right and more generational. Some point in in the middle of the Millenial generation forgot how to have community, and it's especially apparent in Gen Z. But that's exactly...
The Left refuses to have Community, while the Right actively embraces it.
I think it's less left/right and more generational. Some point in in the middle of the Millenial generation forgot how to have community, and it's especially apparent in Gen Z.
But that's exactly my point. Gen Z has very minuscule places to gather and their unemployment rate is tanked right now as the job market weakens. Other cultures have similar problems but they do have proper third places to gather at. Not so much in the US with its infrastructure of car-centric cities, horrid public transportation, and very few squares to properly loiter. Combine that with the economy sucking time and money and you have a disengaged generation doing the most convenient option, online at home. Gen Z doesn't have the money for a Bingo hall, and religion has been plummeting through their generation.
I'm late millennial and I still feel a tinge of this. The big problem is all my friends have scattered about. I moved after college, and over time many of my local friends moved out of the area as well. We just aren't nearby anymore. Making new friends as a post-college adult isn't easy either, and the factors above make it much harder (I'm doing a part time job, and 2 freelance gigs right now).
Maybe that's just the difference between a rural, lower population place and a relatively large city, I don't know.
I think a part of it is cultural. Flaking/ghosting on commitments has seemingly gone up drastically before my eyes in the last decade. I think the pandemic only accelerated that. I really hate that as someone that is admittedly late to many engagements but still at least tries their best to keep people in the loop. I'd love to know more there.
But I think it is also a rural/urban difference. I haven't done any hard reading on this aspect, but I imagine rural area's slower developments also means it sticks to older practices easier. Especially when there's few big businesses coming in and slapping on "no loitering" signs.
I have to imagine that in cities and larger urban complexes, a big factor in the (lack of) community is how often people move around, whether that be just to try to keep rent in check or in...
I have to imagine that in cities and larger urban complexes, a big factor in the (lack of) community is how often people move around, whether that be just to try to keep rent in check or in pursuit of greener pastures. It can feel somewhat pointless to get too involved with neighbors and community when you're only going to be around for a relatively short period of time before moving on, and neighbors are accordingly less likely to try to engage with you for the same reason.
It's kind of prophesied in the messaging though, isn't it? I am also one of those hetero white dudes and for a short spell in my 20's, I felt like I was being told I was bad and wrong (early...
I'm always torn by this. I have very little sympathy for people who would abandon being a good person just for a sense of belonging; I'd far rather be alone than be part of a community that wants to hurt others. But the fact of the matter is that plenty of people clearly do make the opposite choice and that's a problem we need to deal with, whatever it might say about their moral integrity.
It's kind of prophesied in the messaging though, isn't it? I am also one of those hetero white dudes and for a short spell in my 20's, I felt like I was being told I was bad and wrong (early 2000s) because I was white and a man. But I ended-up going the other direction and learning a lot more, taking Women's Studies classes in college (had so many I could have minored in it, actually) and now I get it, but I'm an exception rather than a rule.
When you feel like Leftists and Liberals are talking down to you, telling you you're bad that you have privilege, especially when you don't feel you're seeing the fruits of those "benefits" because you're still struggling, people have a tendency to say, "Fine, fuck it. If I am bad, fuck you and fuck everything you stand for." then go running in the opposite direction.
I've been visiting some family in the rural US for about 10-days now and it's apparent how a young man raised in this culture can see how they're not the beneficiary of all this supposed privilege, when they're still struggling out here, working shit jobs, with shit hours, for shit pay and they still can't afford a house out here for a mere $200k and then their bills are still going up, because corporations are gouging them for groceries, for insurance and then they feel like the (Blue) government is trying to fuck them too by asking for more, more, more in taxes (definitely happening here).
They feel like they're getting fucked every which way and then they have the other side telling them their bad, evil and they have it so good. Of course they're angry and would embrace the fascist right.
And mind you, these people aren't bad people. They still want to help their Mom, be a good Dad, take part in their community, etc. They don't see all the shit that many of us Internet denizens and those of us liberal bastions see, because they're too busy working those shit jobs and still barely scraping by.
I very much see where you’re coming from - I tried to make it clear that as another person who “gets it”, even I find some of the messaging unpleasant and off putting, so I totally understand it...
I very much see where you’re coming from - I tried to make it clear that as another person who “gets it”, even I find some of the messaging unpleasant and off putting, so I totally understand it being entirely alienating to others. That all makes sense to me. People coming to a point of “fuck the left” on that basis also, sadly, makes sense to me.
But, again, we’re talking neo nazis here. We’re not talking veneer-of-respectability Reagan republicans, we’re talking about people who are actively threatening violence based on race, nationality, religion, and gender identity.
So yeah, I understand being put off by the left, I understand making a reactionary u-turn there, but if a person doesn’t hit the brakes when their new community starts to break out the swastikas and talk about feeding their neighbours’ murdered corpses to alligators, I am absolutely going to question their integrity on a much deeper level.
I get you, but from my experience: I just don't see that from your average rural/Republican voter. I'm not trying to be dismissive or make light of anger. I've already been to six protests this...
I get you, but from my experience: I just don't see that from your average rural/Republican voter.
I'm not trying to be dismissive or make light of anger. I've already been to six protests this year alone and have another one on my docket for early October; I'm pissed, I'm frustrated, I'm scared. But having family who votes R, they're...ignorant. They somehow don't see the neo-nazi symbols, the threatening of violence against other peoples. A close family member lives in this rural area and is friends with lots of people of different races and religions, I can't ever imagine them threatening violence against other people.
I know I sound like an apologist and perhaps I am, but...I honestly think these people are just so clueless and ignorant, they have no idea what they voted for. Being in this rural area makes me feel like I'm on a different planet where everything is fine and no one is really paying attention to what's happening outside of their immediate community. Obviously that doesn't save us from the Fascists they voted in to power, but I'm just not sure what to do with all of it.
I think we're talking about different groups, which actually helps me a lot because I was a bit concerned by how differently I seemed to be interpreting things compared to some of the replies (not...
I think we're talking about different groups, which actually helps me a lot because I was a bit concerned by how differently I seemed to be interpreting things compared to some of the replies (not singling you out specifically, more a general sense).
I was replying to and thinking about a description that was specifically radicalised men, with neo nazis given as the concrete example - to me that implies a level of active and enthusiastic participation, and a level of (mis)information, because it's hard to be especially radical about something you're just not really considering at all. As I see it, a serious line is crossed when a person sees the real face of a group and still chooses participate rather than turning back; I meant it literally when I mentioned the swastikas and talking about feeding people to alligators.
It sounds like what you're saying is that a decent subset of people haven't really seen the face of what they're supporting, that they're just going about their day without it being a significant part of their lives. Like you say, they're still dangerous for the results of their actions, but not so much for their intent. I can believe that, and I think it's reasonable to treat them separately from the people who've made that step to flying the flags and saying the words for themselves - it's a lot harder to claim ignorance at that point.
We can quibble about exactly where the line of responsibility lies, where ignorance becomes wilful, where informing oneself becomes a duty in and of itself, but at a very broad level I do see the people you're talking about as being distinct to the people I was talking about. I think you might be uncomfortable with how many of the first group will cross that line into the second if you were to put the facts in front of them and press them on it, but I'm not going to hold people responsible for hypotheticals. As long as they are genuinely ignorant, I'd say their responsibility for the harm lies somewhere from accidental to negligent, whereas those who knowingly engage are willing participants in that harm.
You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men. I do feel that there are plenty of strong role models for that demographic, but not in algorithmically pushed...
You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men. I do feel that there are plenty of strong role models for that demographic, but not in algorithmically pushed content.
As a former young white male, some strong influences I had include figures like Aragorn and Vimes. Principled men who demanded honesty, justice, and diligence.
Those are just my examples, and I speak as someone who nearly fell into the pipeline.
"You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men." Only part of your comment, but I felt like responding to the point out of context as it inspired me to list a few...
"You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men."
Only part of your comment, but I felt like responding to the point out of context as it inspired me to list a few more groups going after young white males over the previous 5 years.
Disney in their attempts to sell Avengers movie tickets.
EA in their attempts to sell Call of Duty games.
Oh, and culture writ large for the excesses, abuse and privilege white males have held throughout history.
What everybody forgot was that there were boys and young men under these monoliths, and by instead of meeting them with the empathy and support that all people need at critical moments in their lives, they vilified them. The message on the internet and in corners of society was that they account for the sins of their fathers and not dare feeling sorry for their over-privileged, failing-upward selves.
Again, hardly a fulsome response to your point but you inspired me to join the dialogue at this point.
I've always thought it outrageous how Democrats can't just buy off white male voters with good messaging and targeted spending. Even if they are statistically advantaged you're still doing a net...
I've always thought it outrageous how Democrats can't just buy off white male voters with good messaging and targeted spending. Even if they are statistically advantaged you're still doing a net good for society by helping them out. And if you also see the great needs of other groups then you can actually help them if you get into power. My complaints are for the politicians as much as the voters. Idiots like those who refused to vote for Kamala because she wasn't strong enough against Israel should ask Palestinians how they feel today with Trump in office.
That would open up some questions about UBI which I'm not sure either party would entertain in the US, but you're right, they both need to try something different.
That would open up some questions about UBI which I'm not sure either party would entertain in the US, but you're right, they both need to try something different.
Possibly because that has eroded? Don't get me wrong, it's still easy mode when it comes to work, power, influence, but we see plenty of discouraging news about rising loneliness, unhappiness,...
It sounds ridiculous given the power dynamics and inherent male/white privilege, but...
Possibly because that has eroded? Don't get me wrong, it's still easy mode when it comes to work, power, influence, but we see plenty of discouraging news about rising loneliness, unhappiness, unemployment, level of education, and more among the male population. Worldwide.
I don't think the male privilege is as strong as it was with consistent pushes for female representation, employment quotas, and similar pushes for equality.
We're seeing the effects of increasing societal inequality spread to a group that historically hasn't been affected by these issues and they're feeling lost and purposeless because of it.
It doesn’t even need to erode for millions of young men to still be, in fact, miserable. White men can be poor. White men can be depressed. This has ALWAYS been true. Power dynamics give...
Possibly because that has eroded?
It doesn’t even need to erode for millions of young men to still be, in fact, miserable. White men can be poor. White men can be depressed.
This has ALWAYS been true. Power dynamics give advantages on a societal scale but it doesn’t mean that every white male is 100% on easy street. This desire to quantify “fair” and then rank the lives of people is destructive.
People will claim they’ll do anything for change but rarely try simple empathy. Understanding that people can still have tough lives even if society gives them an inherent advantage would go a long way towards actually fixing things.
Both can be true. And I think both are true. I also think that they both have an impact on each other. Privilege only works if it isn't eroded by an outside force and white men have taken the...
Both can be true. And I think both are true. I also think that they both have an impact on each other.
Privilege only works if it isn't eroded by an outside force and white men have taken the biggest hits lately. By default really, since they have the most to give away.
Messaging towards men to check their privilege and consistently face pushback for being men while having very little in the way of mental health support is spiraling out of control.
Understanding that people can still have tough lives even if society gives them an inherent advantage would go a long way towards actually fixing things.
Yes, but in this case I feel like both are true. The rise in mental health decline seems to stem from a societal pressure point on top of the general tough life someone can have (in my opinion largely caused by out of control inequality). It isn't just random chance we see sharp increases in all problematic statistics for men. And I think both can be alleviated by giving men the kindness (and more importantly, actual options) to seek help. In other words, regardless of the cause it can be eased as long as there is a safety net. Which doesn't exist.
It also is an inherently hostile message and is absolutely used to bully and attack people who are doing nothing wrong. Its a sad truth that people just enjoy finding excuses to be hostile and the...
Messaging towards men to check their privilege and consistently face pushback for being men while having very little in the way of mental health support is spiraling out of control.
It also is an inherently hostile message and is absolutely used to bully and attack people who are doing nothing wrong. Its a sad truth that people just enjoy finding excuses to be hostile and the ugly irony of these kinds of movements is there's plenty of people who use these things to bludgeon others and then seek approval (which they often get) from their in group.
As with all these hostility based movements its "ok" to bully "them" because they "deserve it" often becomes the message, even if it's not the intent.
It seems like curiosity is a prerequisite to empathy? It’s hard to empathize with strangers you know little about. Also, meeting people outside your usual community is not that simple.
It seems like curiosity is a prerequisite to empathy? It’s hard to empathize with strangers you know little about. Also, meeting people outside your usual community is not that simple.
Really? People are perfectly fine empathizing with strangers half a world away in all sorts of horrible conditions, but will very quickly decide that their neighbor is undeserving of it because....?
It’s hard to empathize with strangers you know little about.
Really? People are perfectly fine empathizing with strangers half a world away in all sorts of horrible conditions, but will very quickly decide that their neighbor is undeserving of it because....?
I do think people can get upset about the bad treatment of strangers without knowing much of anything about them, if that’s what you mean. I guess that counts as empathy, but it seems like shallow...
I do think people can get upset about the bad treatment of strangers without knowing much of anything about them, if that’s what you mean. I guess that counts as empathy, but it seems like shallow knowledge?
Seems like a start compared to just demonizing them because of a perceived advantage that absolutely exists culturally but doesn't mean it relevantly applies specifically? It should be pretty easy...
Seems like a start compared to just demonizing them because of a perceived advantage that absolutely exists culturally but doesn't mean it relevantly applies specifically?
It should be pretty easy to empathize with poor people in your country if you're poor or even if you aren't. Regardless of skin color or gender. Yes there 100% differences in the struggles they face, but there's also a vast overlap of misery that is shared experience and yet we focus on the theoretical. Someone working 2 jobs who's struggling to take care of their kid and hoping to god they don't have any medical issues because then they're fucked shouldn't need any further description to understand their issues.
It’s true that it’s a start. But I think paying them more than lip service requires more trust. For example, if you’re going to give someone money, it would be nice to know that you’re not being...
It’s true that it’s a start. But I think paying them more than lip service requires more trust. For example, if you’re going to give someone money, it would be nice to know that you’re not being scammed.
A personal example: I’m sympathetic towards the Ukrainians, but I have I helped in any material way? No. I wouldn’t know which charity to trust.
Broadly, I'm not sure whether statements like these are made from a sociological point of view or a personal one. That's not a dig at you, but a point worth making about how people read and hear...
Don't get me wrong, it's still easy mode when it comes to work, power, influence...
Broadly, I'm not sure whether statements like these are made from a sociological point of view or a personal one. That's not a dig at you, but a point worth making about how people read and hear stated facts about their own gender and race group. While the evidence bears out that white men absolutely have a leg up, the discourse over the previous number of years (especially) has conflated the societal with the personal, reducing a person's affluence to their skin colour and gender in ways that ignore relevant identity categories ability and class, and increasingly relevant ones like personal history of trauma, social influences and others.
I think that you're right here, but at the same time, I'm here to point out the nuance that I feel has contributed to why white men are increasingly radicalized.
Yeah, I really hate that framing and think it unnecessarily puts off a lot people. 'Easy mode' isn't even the right way to look at it - 'easy mode' implies an unfair advantage, which really only...
Yeah, I really hate that framing and think it unnecessarily puts off a lot people. 'Easy mode' isn't even the right way to look at it - 'easy mode' implies an unfair advantage, which really only applies if you're wealthy or otherwise well connected. This isn't to say that discrimination / unequal treatment isn't unfair, but rather that being treated without discrimination should be the default.
Agreed, and let's not forget how this gets really messy. How difficult your life feels (irrespective of how difficult it actually is) is in the eye of the beholder. Donald Trump's small man...
Agreed, and let's not forget how this gets really messy.
How difficult your life feels (irrespective of how difficult it actually is) is in the eye of the beholder. Donald Trump's small man complex is probably the product of a terrible upbringing filled with experiences necessary to produce a monster like him. He also inherited a fortune and failed upwards his entire life.
Terrible example, but I feel like it gets at the point of how to a large degree, having your basic or even your advance needs met is only a fractional predictor whether you've had an easy mode life or not.
Getting positive influences is a difficult problem for a myriad of reasons. First, and likely most significantly, is that there's no money in that space. There are no billionaires signing blank...
Getting positive influences is a difficult problem for a myriad of reasons.
First, and likely most significantly, is that there's no money in that space. There are no billionaires signing blank checks. You can't hawk dodgy supplements which props up so much of the alt right and medical disinformation grifters. The demographic themselves aren't going to have much money in the first place.
Then there's the issue that all the algorithms are biased against you. Even before the current situation where the social media companies are mask off and embracing the right, every company tended to go through a phase of tweaking things to be a little more to the right to appease all the right-wingers screaming about imbalance, only to then get even louder complaints. All social media prizes engagement, and negative emotions tend to be more engaging than positive ones.
Then there's the social issues. It's hard to be vulnerable when the other side will make fun of you and specifically target that vulnerability. It's hard to go against the grain of centuries of media telling you otherwise.
Then for the young men themselves, the message that society was better for everyone when they were on top, that relationships work best as a dictatorship, that there's no need to ever be vulnerable, and that there's no need to go through the difficult and often tedious process of introspection and self-improvement on your reflections, those are all messages that can be very appealing. Countering them articulately and in ways that are emotionally resonant is difficult and often takes some experience and maturity on the individuals part.
Purity testing on the left can make for hostile spaces to those just getting started, but that's a thorny issue. While a significant portion of this is caused by the way social media works, it also comes down to one of the most unfair dynamics marginalized people face; in addition to all the challenges of marginalization, they often get saddled with the difficult, exhausting, and thankless work of educating people about said marginalization. It's a big ask of those worried about their survival to be nice to the people insulting and denigrating them in the hopes they'll learn to be better.
I have often wondered it seems to be the case that the right wing is so dominant in the dodgy supplement space. Anecdotally, I am kind of in that gym bro scene, and most of the people I know are...
First, and likely most significantly, is that there's no money in that space. There are no billionaires signing blank checks. You can't hawk dodgy supplements which props up so much of the alt right and medical disinformation grifters. The demographic themselves aren't going to have much money in the first place.
I have often wondered it seems to be the case that the right wing is so dominant in the dodgy supplement space. Anecdotally, I am kind of in that gym bro scene, and most of the people I know are on the left just by virtue of being urban coastal dwellers.
I can’t count the number of conversations I’ve had with full blown communists and syndicalists who nevertheless follow Lex Friedman, Joe Rogan, etc. and who feel compelled to issue disclaimers about how they can’t stand their politics but they have great content on (fighting, lifting, drugs).
It seems like there must be space for opposing political views here. Especially with the lack of competition.
It broadly boils down to Dems being seen as feminine (mom, teacher, HR, etc) and the supplements being peddled there aimed at a masculine market, who don’t want to be associated with femininity.
It broadly boils down to Dems being seen as feminine (mom, teacher, HR, etc) and the supplements being peddled there aimed at a masculine market, who don’t want to be associated with femininity.
I think another factor is also that the left is less comfortable with snake oil. Supplements in the US are mostly unregulated; IIRC there's no guarantee that they contain what they're supposed to,...
I think another factor is also that the left is less comfortable with snake oil. Supplements in the US are mostly unregulated; IIRC there's no guarantee that they contain what they're supposed to, don't contain harmful ingredients, or have any of the claimed effects. This has led to the supplement industry being a huge funder of medical misinformation/mistrust (You can't trust doctors, which is why you need my brain pills) awash in right wing grifters. Since workout supplements run parallel to that industry, there's a fair bit of spillover.
They're just marketed differently. Instead of Super Gainz Bro Fuel™️, you'll see: Essential oil anything (I've even seen inhalers) Homeopathic remedies Whatever the local chiropractor peddles,...
They're just marketed differently. Instead of Super Gainz Bro Fuel™️, you'll see:
Essential oil anything (I've even seen inhalers)
Homeopathic remedies
Whatever the local chiropractor peddles, including chiropractic services
I can't say I observe a strong political axis correlation to any of them, unlike the conservative dick pills, though maybe it does skew a little more right since COVID.
This doesn’t seem very evidence-based. How do you know what people will attract funding or attention? What do you actually know about how various social network’s algorithms work? Sure, you can...
This doesn’t seem very evidence-based. How do you know what people will attract funding or attention? What do you actually know about how various social network’s algorithms work?
Sure, you can say these things, but where are you getting that from?
Sure, here's an article that touches on the funding received by PragerU and The Daily Wire, and another on Turning Point USA, all of which are notable right wing media presences that often target...
Sure, here's an article that touches on the funding received by PragerU and The Daily Wire, and another on Turning Point USA, all of which are notable right wing media presences that often target young men. It's entirely possible that there are similar organizations on the left targeting young men, but I'm unaware of any.
For algorithms, here's an article on Youtube, Twitter, and a Wikipedia link to a Facebook leak showing their harmful algorithm priorities.
Thanks! I think these are different situations. It’s abundantly clear that Musk has “embraced the right.” YouTube’s algorithm may be exploited by right-wing influencers, but I doubt that’s a...
Thanks!
I think these are different situations. It’s abundantly clear that Musk has “embraced the right.” YouTube’s algorithm may be exploited by right-wing influencers, but I doubt that’s a deliberate bias by the company. The complaints from whistleblowers at Facebook seem to be about how they don’t do enough to protect users - that is, prioritizing growth over safety, sometimes with horrific results.
I agree they're different situations. Twitter is out and out ideologically motivated. Google I see as going for an air of plausible deniability when they can. No no, they're not supporting the...
I agree they're different situations. Twitter is out and out ideologically motivated. Google I see as going for an air of plausible deniability when they can. No no, they're not supporting the spread of misinformation, heaven forfend. They're just optimizing for engagement, which does the same thing. Google is better than Twitter, but at the end of the day they're both heading in the same direction.
Honestly speaking here: NorthernLion? I feel like any time people talk about why this isn't working in a liberal realm I think about him, he's speaking in a very recognizable code for youth and...
I've been thinking for a while about how I can't really think of any positive male influencers who aim their content and messaging at young men, both in and out of the political realm.
Honestly speaking here: NorthernLion? I feel like any time people talk about why this isn't working in a liberal realm I think about him, he's speaking in a very recognizable code for youth and seems to get his sound bytes out well.
I think it's easy for people to see streamers like NL and just assume that either they're not pushing boys in the correct direction or their content doesn't appeal to younger men. On top of that,...
I think it's easy for people to see streamers like NL and just assume that either they're not pushing boys in the correct direction or their content doesn't appeal to younger men. On top of that, he's well-known in the gaming sphere, but not a true celebrity, and people are grading the hypothetical "lefty Rogan" against, well, Rogan.
He and a few other people in the Twitch/Youtube gaming space have really done a lot to avoid literally every zoomer man becoming fascist, though. Gotta give him and Jesse Cox in particular huge props.
Enelle being the bastion of healthy masculinity for Gen Z troubles me in ways I can't explain... it's frightening to consider lol. But I'm older than his typical audience, I guess I can shrug off...
Enelle being the bastion of healthy masculinity for Gen Z troubles me in ways I can't explain... it's frightening to consider lol. But I'm older than his typical audience, I guess I can shrug off his oddities because I already know better.
I will say he is a great reinforcement of how to generally navigate the pressures of the internet, so in that aspect he habitually reminds his chat to keep perspective.
I'm either a former young white man or a current one depending on how people define it. I saw there was a ton of great conversation on this post over the last few days and I thought I'd share some...
There is a serious gap in messaging and leaves them susceptible to being influenced by whoever tells them they're good.
I'm either a former young white man or a current one depending on how people define it. I saw there was a ton of great conversation on this post over the last few days and I thought I'd share some of my own experiences where I ran into this.
I remember being in university when Trump was first elected and taking the time to pay more attention to the election since it was everywhere. I'd been raised in a more conservative household and I had heard about that experience of people going to college and becoming liberal through there experiences there. I'd always considered myself somewhat moderate if leaning conservative, but I came in to college thinking there would be an openness of ideas or debate with people, especially professors being willing to explore multiple sides.
That was not my experience, I found in everyone of my "core" (general non major courses) I would get a lower grade if I didn't tow the line or express progress ideas. I.e. I got a C for writing a paper that expressed what I thought was a nuisanced position that I put time into in a philosophy class and then got an A on my next paper by extolling the virtues of communism. Honestly, it felt wrong doing it, but I wasn't going to tank my GPA (which I did later through not being sure I wanted to be in my major and other reasons) and put the couple of small scholarships I had at risk due to not telling the guy teaching my class who would wear a hammer and sickle shirt to lectures what he wanted to hear.
There was definitely a lot of that messaging that being white and men was/is bad and living with a bunch of college aged guys we'd joke about it endlessly. But beyond joking I felt like that messaging kept me from buying into the left side of politics at that time and led me to voting for Trump. I also felt like the email scandal was a big deal and should have been taken more seriously than it was instead of there being attempts to sweep it under the rig which contributed to thinking he (Trump) was going to change things up by being someone who was coming from outside the current established political parties.
I hadn't watched a Charlie Kirk video in years, but I felt like him taking the time to talk with students on campus and challenge people's beliefs through debate was part of that visions that I saw as being on a college campus. My wife didn't like his political views but she enjoyed some of his videos to see an articulate person put his points forward and defend them.
Edit: I meant to auto select a word and bumped post so I'll leave this hear real quick and then come back and remove it once I get my thought down.
Edit 2: I usually like to put more thought into something like this, but since I had it up and I probably wouldn't have the time to come back in a couple of days I thought I'd put together something real quick before my kids woke up, but they are awake and I'm out of time to type more.
My impression of Newsom is a cynical man of few actual principles who's gearing up for a 2028 presidential run. In my opinion, he's trying not to alienate the mythical magical center and remain...
My impression of Newsom is a cynical man of few actual principles who's gearing up for a 2028 presidential run. In my opinion, he's trying not to alienate the mythical magical center and remain palatable to big donors in the traditional Democratic party style, and the trolling is a means of boosting engagement and getting his name in headlines.
The thing I’m curious about is: does trolling work as a political strategy? He seems to think so, but why? I see lots of criticism of Newsom and little praise, which suggests that it doesn’t work...
The thing I’m curious about is: does trolling work as a political strategy? He seems to think so, but why?
I see lots of criticism of Newsom and little praise, which suggests that it doesn’t work very well, but at the same time, he seems invulnerable as governor for some reason.
I hate trolls but it has been working well for the right for the last decade. As far as reaction to Newsom; reddit seems to love the guy but outside of that I have basically no exposure to him....
does trolling work as a political strategy? He seems to think so, but why?
I see lots of criticism of Newsom and little praise, which suggests that it doesn’t work very well
I hate trolls but it has been working well for the right for the last decade. As far as reaction to Newsom; reddit seems to love the guy but outside of that I have basically no exposure to him.
Regardless, I don't know if I'd so much call this trolling and more him raising a pretty good point (and it's well discussed in the other comment chain). The right has a bunch of good (I mean... popular I guess) male role models while the left basically doesn't.
The right has been waging an all out culture war for over a decade and the left has been failing at it at best and at worst has been funnelling young white men into the right's arms.
@CannibalisticApple says it best in that the left's messaging for young men boils down to "don't be an asshole". Shit... I say that exact thing a lot when I talk to other men about social issues. Some on the right have apparently been saying now that empathy is a sin. Maybe that's the answer... teach empathy as a thing to do instead of telling people to not do a thing (don't be an asshole).
For what it's worth, the reactions I've seen on reddit are along the lines of liking him trolling Trump recently but desperately hoping for a better candidate in 2028.
As far as reaction to Newsom; reddit seems to love the guy
For what it's worth, the reactions I've seen on reddit are along the lines of liking him trolling Trump recently but desperately hoping for a better candidate in 2028.
Well the numbers speak for themselves as of late. Trump is trolling as president and mocking him gets a huge response. Esepcially in a year where so many others kiss the ring instead. Pitzker does...
does trolling work as a political strategy? He seems to think so, but why?
Well the numbers speak for themselves as of late. Trump is trolling as president and mocking him gets a huge response. Esepcially in a year where so many others kiss the ring instead. Pitzker does the same without trolling.
Whether that momentum carries to 2028 is an entirely different question.
I see lots of criticism of Newsom and little praise, which suggests that it doesn’t work very well
He's California's govenor, and there's lots of criticisms of California, externally and internally. As Govenor, he's more or less a lighning rod, no matter how much control he really has on the issues.
I see a lot of criticism, but it's mostly on superficial aspects of his demeanor. Others are based on CA problems like homelessness, the long long delayed high speed railroad project, and issues in Hollywood. But I question if any other person could have truly addressed those.
The litte praise mostly comes recently from defying Trump. So I guess if nothing else, he knows how to position himself in times of crisis. That may be one of the most important aspects of a leader.
For Newsom: https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-surges-democratic-primary-poll-2119733 But again, we're 3 years out, and everything is fluxuating. I'm not gonna pretend he's really next in line...
A new poll from Morning Consult shows how Newsom's support has grown in the primary field over the past few months. The poll found that 19 percent of Democrats plan to support the governor, compared to 11 percent in June and 5 percent in March.
But again, we're 3 years out, and everything is fluxuating. I'm not gonna pretend he's really next in line to run as president.
I don’t understand why Trump won and I’m not sure how well trolling works in general.
I think it's a two way street. I don't think that it's just about trolling , which if nothing else energizes voters who normally don't vote. But the de-energization of the Democratic party in the last decade means a lot of voters feel hopeless and opt out of the polls who'd normally vote. The big observation from 2020 to 2024 wasn't that Trump got a lot more numbers (even if the numbers matter less than the Electoral College), It's that Harris got a lot less numbers than Biden. Trump went from 74,223,975 to 77,302,580. Harris went from 81,283,501 to 75,017,613. Biden's numbers would have won in 2024, and meanwhile Harris's numbers would be a breakneck tie against 2020 trump.
And despite some narratives early in the year, I don't think these were a lot of "changed from D to R" style votes.
312 to 226 and 49.8% to 48.3% are the ones that stand out to me. That said, while I do think it’s a way to win, I don’t think it’s the only way to win.
312 to 226 and 49.8% to 48.3% are the ones that stand out to me. That said, while I do think it’s a way to win, I don’t think it’s the only way to win.
Is that a bad thing? Being cynical doesn't mean being unprincipled: sometimes you recognize that the ends justify the means. Sometimes you have to prioritize being effective over being right....
Is that a bad thing? Being cynical doesn't mean being unprincipled: sometimes you recognize that the ends justify the means. Sometimes you have to prioritize being effective over being right. Maybe Newsom has higher principles; maybe he's useful as someone who's able to harness power.
Times and politics have changed — a lot. The old strategy isn't working anymore. Democrats must evolve and win the hearts and minds of alienated demographics. Democrats need to learn how to cultivate and wield real power. If we don't and stick to our milquetoast Karen-from-HR, don't-offend-anyone ways, we risk losing the country.
I suspect we both want the same or similar things, but I don't see Newsom as the one to get us there. I'm vaguely aware that there are other ways he's fallen short, but for me his stance on trans...
I suspect we both want the same or similar things, but I don't see Newsom as the one to get us there. I'm vaguely aware that there are other ways he's fallen short, but for me his stance on trans people is already disqualifying; throwing a group to the wolves for the sake of perceived political expediency is a despicable act in and of itself, and once that strategy is on the table it can be applied to anyone. Why fight for single payer healthcare? The people dying from the current system definitionally have no money, and all the big industry groups will get mad and work against you if you try. If you instead work with them, changing only what they'll countenance, you can instead get all those big donations rolling in.
In short, while Newsom might talk a good game, I suspect that when time comes to walk the walk he'd instead pursue the same milquetoast Democrat agenda that fomented the conditions for Trump's rise in the first place.
This gives me a lot of thoughts, and they are admittedly scattered. I think I'll just list them one by one with little real order: There has indeed been a generation now where men feel like the...
This gives me a lot of thoughts, and they are admittedly scattered. I think I'll just list them one by one with little real order:
There has indeed been a generation now where men feel like the "default". You can see all kinda of statistics to see how this favoritism has influenced the generation. Especially in education.
As such, politics tends to not focus on the "default" that much. It is more of a way to gauge the Overton curtain than a way to really swing votes around. It's a base you don't want to anger, not necessarily one you want to directly appeal to. At least, not until recently.
There is some perhaps understandable anger as a result of the two above points. There is some credence to this loneliness epidemic, and it does seem to effect men more than women due to various social factors. But as we know, this anger was exploited and channeled into hate, rather than processed and used to better people.
I do agree the democrats can do more, but I also get that this is a naturally uphill battle. This alt right pipeline more or less channels fear and redirects it to other parties (even if those parties clearly are not intending to oppress them). A democratic influencer needs to teach empathy and solidarity. Which is theoretically something we all learn from a very early age, but if it didn't stick back then, then it's only harder to try and reinforce it at advanced ages.
And naturally, this continuously hyper-individualistic culture will mean their real life experience goes against this notion that "things will be better if we work together". Even on a micro level, there's more and more politics that creates distrust. Lots of broken windows these days that all add up to a broken village.
There's points to Newsom's words, but I think his position is also why his statements frustrates me a bit. The loneliness epidemic is partially societal, but a governor can also make initiatives to help gather people around. More third places are needed so people can gather and meet, better transportation (especially in SoCal) so getting to a town square isn't some grand trek. Personalities help, but truly curing loneliness requires building communities. That's hard to do when you need to balance the cost going out every time to buy a $7 coffee or a $15 drink just to "hang out".
It's a complicated web of issues. I wish others in power would start laying down the groundwork of community. I think the aspect of "get more left leaning personalities" is very slowly starting to happen on its own.
Honestly... His choice of words is eyebrow raising, but I've been feeling similarly lately. Not with Charlie Kirk specifically, but I've been thinking for a while about how I can't really think of any positive male influencers who aim their content and messaging at young men, both in and out of the political realm. I can think of plenty of good, famous male figures, but they tend to address everyone, not just men, which makes a difference.
The only people who really speak specifically to young men are right-wing conservatives, or men pushing highly toxic values and mindsets like Andrew Tate. I know I've seen some young men explain they turned to radical ideals like neo-nazism solely because they felt like they were being told they were bad just for being a man. People ultimately like to look for a place where they belong and people who accept them...
And unfortunately, young men—especially young white men—have somehow, incredibly, fallen through the cracks in that regard. It sounds ridiculous given the power dynamics and inherent male/white privilege, but... There is a serious gap in messaging and leaves them susceptible to being influenced by whoever tells them they're good.
It's been on my mind since this article about a publisher focusing on books oriented to the male experience. It made me realize there isn't much media that directly and specifically addresses the male experience outside of those pushing negativity. There are all sorts of positive influencers and resources for girls and women, and for people of various races and minorities, but I genuinely struggle to think of any for men. And much of the time, it feels like a lot of the messages aimed at men boil down to "don't be an asshole" which... Isn't really encouraging.
At least from the quotes in the article, his wording seems very astute. I see him acknowledging Kirk's effectiveness and the Democrats' failures to effectively counter it - both things that are factually true - and exploring some of the possible reasons for that effectiveness without actually praising Kirk in any way.
I'm always torn by this. I have very little sympathy for people who would abandon being a good person just for a sense of belonging; I'd far rather be alone than be part of a community that wants to hurt others. But the fact of the matter is that plenty of people clearly do make the opposite choice and that's a problem we need to deal with, whatever it might say about their moral integrity.
And regardless of how we're judging or appealing to that subset of people, it does sting a little that the majority of times "cis men" or "white men" are mentioned in general, it's as a pejorative. I didn't ask to be a member of those groups. I don't particularly identify with them as classifications that define me, or with masculinity as a part of my identity. I fully understand the context those things are said in and support the ideals that usually underly the statements. And I still feel that little bit of tarnish every time the groups I'm part of - the groups I didn't choose to be part of, but am nonetheless - are casually classed as the bad groups.
For someone less immersed in the political discourse and more attached to maleness or masculinity as something that's important to them, I'm certain they would feel actively unwanted and disliked where I just feel a slight sadness. I can't condone them turning to the ideologies some turn to in response to that, but I can absolutely understand them feeling alienated by it.
I think this is one of the primary failures on the left is that people are judged on their moral integrity for disagreeing when it has just about nothing to do with moral integrity. The saying, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" applies strongly here. The number of people who are on the left because of group identity, social dynamics, and being born in a particular region is basically the same as the number on the right, and yet we have this endless stream of left wing people telling people on the right that they are either evil or weak minded for being on the other side.
I'm not sure I really follow your meaning? If you're saying in general that plenty of people on the left are just following and chanting slogans without thinking about it too much, just as many on the right are, I fully agree. The question of morality happens when the ideals you're following and the things you're chanting start to dehumanise others - that's when a choice has to be made, and continuing to follow is no less of a choice just because it can be passive.
I was replying specifically to a quote about "radical ideals like neo-nazism", and that's a pretty clear cut step across that line, for example. I don't think people get much of a pass to not consider the implications of what they're saying when that is the ideology they're choosing to attach themselves to.
Frankly I also think that Trump and the MAGA movement in general have shown who they are too many times, and too clearly, to really give people a pass on choosing to support them either. If you've read more than three or four Trump tweets you've got a fair idea of who the man is, and I think anyone willingly aligning themselves with that is showing very, very questionable ethical judgment at best. But I can accept more that "the right" prior to this was at least outwardly legitimate enough that someone could unthinkingly support them without necessarily being slapped in the face by the harm they're doing.
I think the crux of this matter is the choice isn’t happening consciously. People in general are susceptible to frog-boiling, and rudderless young guys with no life experience in particular are vulnerable. They get hooked by the outward sugar-coated “wellbeing” messaging and gradually get pulled along until one day they’re supporting some very nasty things.
Note that I am not condoning of such behavior or saying it’s justified or excused in any way, but in theory I can see how guys end up in that situation.
This is exactly the kind of moralizing I’m talking about. It’s strictly negative and demeaning, and offers no reason to change anyone’s perspective.
If the left ever wants to regain mindshare, it will need to stop blaming and start offering solutions. Stop telling people what isn’t the problem and start telling people what is the problem, in language people can understand without feeling attacked. And especially, stop telling the people they are trying to convert that they personally are the problem.
That’s what the right has fully capitalized on — the message is that you are great, and your problem is illegal immigrants and trans people.
Sure, we need positive messaging and actual solutions to problems - that’s literally what I was saying in my first reply.
But I’m not going to pretend I’m not blaming neo-nazis for idolising the fucking nazis. I am judging them. I will continue to judge them. I don’t think it’s helpful to say that to their faces, but I would be lying if I claimed not to think it.
Simultaneously to that I recognise that they have legitimate concerns to be addressed that got them onto the propaganda pipeline in the first place, and that we need to communicate effectively with them. We need to address the roots of those concerns. I can accept that without accepting that choosing fascism was an inevitable, reasonable, or morally justifiable endpoint for someone who started with those legitimate concerns.
I find it frustrating when people assume the tone and language used in these conversations is the precise language you'd use when talking to an individual you know is experiencing this loneliness/slow radicalization/whatever.
It remains I'm incredibly frustrating and baffling how little personal accountability is being laid on the people, in this case young white men, but I have similar feelings about conservative white women, that choose these paths, even as I understand the mechanisms that radicalize people. Because coming out of it has to involve some accountability or they just pivot back to whoever is nicer to them. I personally think people are capable of more than that if they want to be.
I'm down for changing societal narratives about gender, mental health, and what it means to be worthy as an adult human of your gender. But that's harder as a sell than "make a podcast that makes men liberal or they'll become fascists," as if those are the two options.
Also Newsom still sucks.
Let’s say you do convince someone on the right that there may be reasonable policy options on the left. When they leave their filter bubble and find a left leaning community to do their own research, what are they going to find? These conversations. Where they are alternately described as weak minded, lacking in moral integrity, or flat out evil.
I’m not trying to talk about cynically improving polemics for outreach like a bunch of out of touch youth pastors. I’m saying the left needs a broad culture shift where left leaning spaces become accessible and inviting instead of hostile and othering.
And hopefully by then they're ready for them. But I, and most people, code switch how I talk all the time depending on my audience. And I stand by what I say, it's just not how I'd approach a conversation in that circumstance.
Not all spaces are educational ones, in my experience those spaces are welcoming and inclusive to everyone, including white men. They're just rarely run by white men, instead being predominantly black women to take on that emotional labor. I'm in full support of white men taking up that charge, and reaching out to their peers and others alike. Once again, if folks aren't willing to learn or make a change at all, they're not going to come to the educational spaces that are already built and would welcome them.
It is not my experience that those spaces are hostile and othering even when I've been the naive (and putting my foot in it) straight white woman.
I don't think personal accountability/responsibility is useful when we're discussing large groups of people. But at the same time it is ironic given how much the phase gets thrown at women seeking abortions or other groups getting attacked.
Getting attacked?
We're talking about people choosing to align themselves with straight out bigotry. They're not "getting attacked" in this context. People who get abortions are in fact demonstrating personal responsibility. I'm not using it as a cudgel, I'm expecting people to be willing to choose not to engage in hatred and bigotry. And, much like any change, understanding that they must be willing to even consider that change possible and be willing to act on it.
If they're not willing to do that then it doesn't matter how "welcoming" spaces are or how "courted" they are. Because they'll never enter them. But choosing hatred, much like choosing violence, can be acknowledged as a societal problem and one where people are held accountable for their actions.
This isn't just the equivalent of the young teenagers in gangs pressured into firing the gun on behalf of the older gang members, these are the older gang members who are bought into the mission.
I agree here, and Ive gotten pretty far with the message that, yeah the left kinda sucks because its a voter base of almost entirely city dwelling folk who haven’t ever actually shot a deer or even been on a dirt bike, but Trump is a scam artist hell bent on punishing specific groups of people and those characteristics make for a shitty president
Cause you don’t have to support the left. I barely support the left. But don’t support Trump, he sucks.
Even as someone on the left, I appreciate this messaging!
I want a principled opposition, I want to be challenged in a way that forces us to improve, and I can respect a fair number of the ideals and qualities that conservatism claims to hold dear, even where I might disagree with them. Nothing would make me happier than seeing conservatives start to demand candidates who actually embody those ideals.
Agreed. There are plenty of ideals that I don't value super highly, but I can respect them when someone genuinely believes in them and acts accordingly.
Like if someone prioritizes paying off government debt that sounds reasonable to me. If someone's ideal government is small and gets out of your way that's a philosophy that I welcome at a debate. But the current Republican politicians don't actually care about either of those.
The solution is we don't focus on catering to "moderates" anymore. Look at how people responded to newsom's mocking of Trump. Look at the supporting base around Mumdami. Heck, Look at the message Bernie Sanders has been giving for decades and how he seems to actually have bipartisan support among the working class.
We still do need to blame though. Just not joe going into the office or Bob out hunting deer. We need to redirect it at the hyper rich ransacking the country. But it's always easier to throw a tomato at that "one annoying guy" than atop the ivory tower.
I think this grossly overestimates the degree of sympathy the public has for actual leftist beliefs.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ ideological identification was steady in 2024, with an average of 37% describing their political views as “very conservative” or “conservative,” 34% as “moderate,” and 25% as “very liberal” or “liberal.” However, this stability masks new highs in the percentages of Republicans identifying as conservative and Democrats as liberal.
Democrats can basically forget the conservative vote (in the next election, but they will have more opportunity here if they can put together a successful presidency). They need to convince almost 3/4 of independents.
This is getting a little off topic, but whenever I see people talking about strategy for the next election, I really have a hard time believing there IS a “next election”. We are like 6 months into the current administration. We have another 14 months until mid-terms. There has been no slow down— it feels like things are just ramping up.
If the administration was confident it could prevent the midterms, it would not have started a gerrymandering crusade. They are afraid of the midterms, and from that I take heart.
From my perspective, things like a gerrymandering campaign are exactly how there "won't be a next election." Like, my take isn't that there will literally not be an election. Russia still holds elections. My take is that as the Republicans continue eroding processes, they will continue stacking the deck and giving themselves so much of an advantage that it becomes a farce.
Depending on how strong the backlash is to economic pain from tariffs etc, gerrymandering might not work the way it's expected to. Voters aren't always predictable.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but occasionally I foresee an American version of the Tiananmen Square massacre. A stolen election, non-MAGAs march on DC, thousands get killed.
this article was published in January, and surveyed in 2024.
I think it's safe to say that things have shifted quite a bit since then. A candidate like Mumdami wouldn't have even been a serious candidate a year ago. There's been regions shifting as much as 20 points.
I'm not necessarily going to call it a "blue wave" per se as much as a stark rejection of the "red wave" . That fits more with the cultural trend that Americans tend to be reactionary rather than preventative.
Either way, I think my point still stands. Democrats have had low energy for years now because they've more or less have internally split between socialistic values and neoliberal ones. We need to pick a lane, if aboslutely nothing else. It seems like the lane the people are picking is not the one the actual "party" is trying to push, though. I hope over the next 3 years more leaders for the people push through that resistance.
Voting patterns are shifting, but I do not believe that group identity is shifting. I think, like you say, this is more a transient rejection of fascism and incompetence than it is a swing to the left -- Trump is doing things that some of his voters were not expecting him to do. However, I'm fairly confident that a different Republican candidate would pull a lot of those voters back into the fold.
I don't know that I agree that we should choose either neoliberal or socialist. I don't think going full socialist is going to work because, as I mentioned earlier, the number of people who identify as "liberal" is only 25% of the population. I don't think that is likely to have changed by any significant amount. I don't think fully neoliberal works either as it kind of lacks a hook to excite most people.
If I were to lay out what I think a good plan is, it would be a mix of populism, actual evidence based policy, and defanging the main right wing talking points:
Yes. I do agree that above everything else, we need to build community back. Not nationalism, proper small scale groups of people who can properly talk amongst one another. Even if we "drain the swamp", those broken windows will remain, and those are up to the people to fix. We can't brute force the idea of having pride and trust in our fellow man (though the government can still help. Build more third places, better public transportation, better wages, etc.).
Not immediately but eventually. That's why they are called "swing voters": not just because they swing elections, but they are swinging back and forth whenever everything isn't perfect after 4-8 years. The factors in the last 2 elections weren't really factors anyone in the world were ready for, and we're still dealing with the fallout of that today. So, turbulent times makes for bigger and more extreme swings.
There's not really much to do about such voters. The nature of a swing voter is to desire any change at all whenever they feel inconvinienced. Not really holding any strong values outside of their personal perception of the situation. It's much better to energize those who do have strong convictions; that energy will bring in the swings (as we saw in 2024).
Lane was a bit too binary a term here. Clearly it's a spectrum. it's more accurate to say that there's two people fighting over the wheel in the car and that it's swerving every which way. And we all know how that ends: no destination is reached and both parties are hurt.
I don't have any issues with any of your points being that talking point to hammer down, but:
Just because the Left doesn't say it doesn't mean the Right won't. Hence, part of that Manufactured talking points. I don't believe Kamala ever actually talked about DEI in her campaign.
I suppose "destination" is a more apt description. We've been (importantly) on defense, but we need a rallying cry of 2-3 simple points that resonate with Americans and to jam it in to near exhaustion. That's one of the strongest things the GOP did in this decade, even if the some were completely manufactured. Bernie's done that pretty well: he wants stronger labor laws (or as is portrayed as of late: fighting the oligarchy) and proper universal healtchcare. IDK what "the left" wants anymore (which is part of the problem), but they need to figure it out yesterday.
Sorry, I'm going to lay down some cynicism here, but:
The Left refuses to have Community, while the Right actively embraces it. Being out in rural America where I am at the moment--just visiting. I normally live in a liberal bastion--you can see it plainly. People go to Bingo (I went last night) and talk. People go to Church (and talk), people see each other on the street and talk. There's tons of spaces where people meet and talk and get to know each other. They have these fairly strong and wide ranging communities and activities.
Meanwhile, in my home state, my home city, no one comes to my neighborhood meetings I've been holding for 4 years now. I talk to younger people in my neighborhood, "Oh yeah, I've gotta do that." no one shows-up. No one shows up to anything outside their little bubble, all claiming introversion (I am also one of those) or being too busy, or whatever. No one wants to actually do the work to have a community, but instead will bitch and moan about a lack of one, but never actually make the effort to build it.
Maybe that's just the difference between a rural, lower population place and a relatively large city, I don't know. But even my small neighborhood of only 400-some houses, no one bothers. I know a decent amount of people in my neighborhood now, but that's due to me reach out and engaging with people and them generally being receptive and I really only know one young family in all those connections, the rest are older folks who remember how it used to be.
It used to be that most households had a homemaker, and either that person took on the mental overhead of managing community contacts, or their coverage of all things household management meant the breadwinner had the bandwidth to do community stuff. My husband and I have significantly drawn away from even communities we used to be heavily involved in because we are so tired all the time from work. We have health conditions that exacerbate our particular problem, but other households have children, or work longer hours. Being too busy (or code for tired because saying you are chronically tired comes across as a copout) is a legitimate social problem in itself, not a moral failing of the people who say it.
Being tired is fine. I am tired all of the time, have two little children, as well as septuagenarian parents that are in need of assistance a lot of the time; I never want to go to these community functions, but I can make it work. I'm not saying it's a moral failing, but it is upsetting, because I have all the same problems and I can do it.
There is significant individual variation in capability: I spent years trying to "make it work" through my tiredness because I saw other people actually making it work, including close family members I admire, and at the start I valued the community stuff more than my tiredness. But that level of pushing myself not only made me so tired I stopped caring about everything I previously valued, but the brain fog crippled my ability to perform my job. Even people without any visible disability may legitimately be unable to function at a level the majority considers normal.
In addition, there are structural factors that affect people's capacity besides a strict list of responsibilities: how long is their commute (adds on to work time drain), how accessible are things like groceries (farther trips not only take more time but demand more mental work to plan things out longer), how far away are members of their support system (popping by daily or weekly makes a huge difference, but is way more burdensome if it's a half hour out of the way in each direction), etc.
I hope someone figures out how to promote enough support factors that community groups come back. It would be hugely beneficial.
I think it's less left/right and more generational. Some point in in the middle of the Millenial generation forgot how to have community, and it's especially apparent in Gen Z.
But that's exactly my point. Gen Z has very minuscule places to gather and their unemployment rate is tanked right now as the job market weakens. Other cultures have similar problems but they do have proper third places to gather at. Not so much in the US with its infrastructure of car-centric cities, horrid public transportation, and very few squares to properly loiter. Combine that with the economy sucking time and money and you have a disengaged generation doing the most convenient option, online at home. Gen Z doesn't have the money for a Bingo hall, and religion has been plummeting through their generation.
I'm late millennial and I still feel a tinge of this. The big problem is all my friends have scattered about. I moved after college, and over time many of my local friends moved out of the area as well. We just aren't nearby anymore. Making new friends as a post-college adult isn't easy either, and the factors above make it much harder (I'm doing a part time job, and 2 freelance gigs right now).
I think a part of it is cultural. Flaking/ghosting on commitments has seemingly gone up drastically before my eyes in the last decade. I think the pandemic only accelerated that. I really hate that as someone that is admittedly late to many engagements but still at least tries their best to keep people in the loop. I'd love to know more there.
But I think it is also a rural/urban difference. I haven't done any hard reading on this aspect, but I imagine rural area's slower developments also means it sticks to older practices easier. Especially when there's few big businesses coming in and slapping on "no loitering" signs.
I have to imagine that in cities and larger urban complexes, a big factor in the (lack of) community is how often people move around, whether that be just to try to keep rent in check or in pursuit of greener pastures. It can feel somewhat pointless to get too involved with neighbors and community when you're only going to be around for a relatively short period of time before moving on, and neighbors are accordingly less likely to try to engage with you for the same reason.
It's kind of prophesied in the messaging though, isn't it? I am also one of those hetero white dudes and for a short spell in my 20's, I felt like I was being told I was bad and wrong (early 2000s) because I was white and a man. But I ended-up going the other direction and learning a lot more, taking Women's Studies classes in college (had so many I could have minored in it, actually) and now I get it, but I'm an exception rather than a rule.
When you feel like Leftists and Liberals are talking down to you, telling you you're bad that you have privilege, especially when you don't feel you're seeing the fruits of those "benefits" because you're still struggling, people have a tendency to say, "Fine, fuck it. If I am bad, fuck you and fuck everything you stand for." then go running in the opposite direction.
I've been visiting some family in the rural US for about 10-days now and it's apparent how a young man raised in this culture can see how they're not the beneficiary of all this supposed privilege, when they're still struggling out here, working shit jobs, with shit hours, for shit pay and they still can't afford a house out here for a mere $200k and then their bills are still going up, because corporations are gouging them for groceries, for insurance and then they feel like the (Blue) government is trying to fuck them too by asking for more, more, more in taxes (definitely happening here).
They feel like they're getting fucked every which way and then they have the other side telling them their bad, evil and they have it so good. Of course they're angry and would embrace the fascist right.
And mind you, these people aren't bad people. They still want to help their Mom, be a good Dad, take part in their community, etc. They don't see all the shit that many of us Internet denizens and those of us liberal bastions see, because they're too busy working those shit jobs and still barely scraping by.
I very much see where you’re coming from - I tried to make it clear that as another person who “gets it”, even I find some of the messaging unpleasant and off putting, so I totally understand it being entirely alienating to others. That all makes sense to me. People coming to a point of “fuck the left” on that basis also, sadly, makes sense to me.
But, again, we’re talking neo nazis here. We’re not talking veneer-of-respectability Reagan republicans, we’re talking about people who are actively threatening violence based on race, nationality, religion, and gender identity.
So yeah, I understand being put off by the left, I understand making a reactionary u-turn there, but if a person doesn’t hit the brakes when their new community starts to break out the swastikas and talk about feeding their neighbours’ murdered corpses to alligators, I am absolutely going to question their integrity on a much deeper level.
I get you, but from my experience: I just don't see that from your average rural/Republican voter.
I'm not trying to be dismissive or make light of anger. I've already been to six protests this year alone and have another one on my docket for early October; I'm pissed, I'm frustrated, I'm scared. But having family who votes R, they're...ignorant. They somehow don't see the neo-nazi symbols, the threatening of violence against other peoples. A close family member lives in this rural area and is friends with lots of people of different races and religions, I can't ever imagine them threatening violence against other people.
I know I sound like an apologist and perhaps I am, but...I honestly think these people are just so clueless and ignorant, they have no idea what they voted for. Being in this rural area makes me feel like I'm on a different planet where everything is fine and no one is really paying attention to what's happening outside of their immediate community. Obviously that doesn't save us from the Fascists they voted in to power, but I'm just not sure what to do with all of it.
I think we're talking about different groups, which actually helps me a lot because I was a bit concerned by how differently I seemed to be interpreting things compared to some of the replies (not singling you out specifically, more a general sense).
I was replying to and thinking about a description that was specifically radicalised men, with neo nazis given as the concrete example - to me that implies a level of active and enthusiastic participation, and a level of (mis)information, because it's hard to be especially radical about something you're just not really considering at all. As I see it, a serious line is crossed when a person sees the real face of a group and still chooses participate rather than turning back; I meant it literally when I mentioned the swastikas and talking about feeding people to alligators.
It sounds like what you're saying is that a decent subset of people haven't really seen the face of what they're supporting, that they're just going about their day without it being a significant part of their lives. Like you say, they're still dangerous for the results of their actions, but not so much for their intent. I can believe that, and I think it's reasonable to treat them separately from the people who've made that step to flying the flags and saying the words for themselves - it's a lot harder to claim ignorance at that point.
We can quibble about exactly where the line of responsibility lies, where ignorance becomes wilful, where informing oneself becomes a duty in and of itself, but at a very broad level I do see the people you're talking about as being distinct to the people I was talking about. I think you might be uncomfortable with how many of the first group will cross that line into the second if you were to put the facts in front of them and press them on it, but I'm not going to hold people responsible for hypotheticals. As long as they are genuinely ignorant, I'd say their responsibility for the harm lies somewhere from accidental to negligent, whereas those who knowingly engage are willing participants in that harm.
You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men. I do feel that there are plenty of strong role models for that demographic, but not in algorithmically pushed content.
As a former young white male, some strong influences I had include figures like Aragorn and Vimes. Principled men who demanded honesty, justice, and diligence.
Those are just my examples, and I speak as someone who nearly fell into the pipeline.
"You aren't wrong - there isn't really any specific targeting of young white men."
Only part of your comment, but I felt like responding to the point out of context as it inspired me to list a few more groups going after young white males over the previous 5 years.
What everybody forgot was that there were boys and young men under these monoliths, and by instead of meeting them with the empathy and support that all people need at critical moments in their lives, they vilified them. The message on the internet and in corners of society was that they account for the sins of their fathers and not dare feeling sorry for their over-privileged, failing-upward selves.
Again, hardly a fulsome response to your point but you inspired me to join the dialogue at this point.
I've always thought it outrageous how Democrats can't just buy off white male voters with good messaging and targeted spending. Even if they are statistically advantaged you're still doing a net good for society by helping them out. And if you also see the great needs of other groups then you can actually help them if you get into power. My complaints are for the politicians as much as the voters. Idiots like those who refused to vote for Kamala because she wasn't strong enough against Israel should ask Palestinians how they feel today with Trump in office.
That would open up some questions about UBI which I'm not sure either party would entertain in the US, but you're right, they both need to try something different.
Possibly because that has eroded? Don't get me wrong, it's still easy mode when it comes to work, power, influence, but we see plenty of discouraging news about rising loneliness, unhappiness, unemployment, level of education, and more among the male population. Worldwide.
I don't think the male privilege is as strong as it was with consistent pushes for female representation, employment quotas, and similar pushes for equality.
We're seeing the effects of increasing societal inequality spread to a group that historically hasn't been affected by these issues and they're feeling lost and purposeless because of it.
It doesn’t even need to erode for millions of young men to still be, in fact, miserable. White men can be poor. White men can be depressed.
This has ALWAYS been true. Power dynamics give advantages on a societal scale but it doesn’t mean that every white male is 100% on easy street. This desire to quantify “fair” and then rank the lives of people is destructive.
People will claim they’ll do anything for change but rarely try simple empathy. Understanding that people can still have tough lives even if society gives them an inherent advantage would go a long way towards actually fixing things.
Both can be true. And I think both are true. I also think that they both have an impact on each other.
Privilege only works if it isn't eroded by an outside force and white men have taken the biggest hits lately. By default really, since they have the most to give away.
Messaging towards men to check their privilege and consistently face pushback for being men while having very little in the way of mental health support is spiraling out of control.
Yes, but in this case I feel like both are true. The rise in mental health decline seems to stem from a societal pressure point on top of the general tough life someone can have (in my opinion largely caused by out of control inequality). It isn't just random chance we see sharp increases in all problematic statistics for men. And I think both can be alleviated by giving men the kindness (and more importantly, actual options) to seek help. In other words, regardless of the cause it can be eased as long as there is a safety net. Which doesn't exist.
It also is an inherently hostile message and is absolutely used to bully and attack people who are doing nothing wrong. Its a sad truth that people just enjoy finding excuses to be hostile and the ugly irony of these kinds of movements is there's plenty of people who use these things to bludgeon others and then seek approval (which they often get) from their in group.
As with all these hostility based movements its "ok" to bully "them" because they "deserve it" often becomes the message, even if it's not the intent.
It seems like curiosity is a prerequisite to empathy? It’s hard to empathize with strangers you know little about. Also, meeting people outside your usual community is not that simple.
Really? People are perfectly fine empathizing with strangers half a world away in all sorts of horrible conditions, but will very quickly decide that their neighbor is undeserving of it because....?
I do think people can get upset about the bad treatment of strangers without knowing much of anything about them, if that’s what you mean. I guess that counts as empathy, but it seems like shallow knowledge?
Seems like a start compared to just demonizing them because of a perceived advantage that absolutely exists culturally but doesn't mean it relevantly applies specifically?
It should be pretty easy to empathize with poor people in your country if you're poor or even if you aren't. Regardless of skin color or gender. Yes there 100% differences in the struggles they face, but there's also a vast overlap of misery that is shared experience and yet we focus on the theoretical. Someone working 2 jobs who's struggling to take care of their kid and hoping to god they don't have any medical issues because then they're fucked shouldn't need any further description to understand their issues.
It’s true that it’s a start. But I think paying them more than lip service requires more trust. For example, if you’re going to give someone money, it would be nice to know that you’re not being scammed.
A personal example: I’m sympathetic towards the Ukrainians, but I have I helped in any material way? No. I wouldn’t know which charity to trust.
Broadly, I'm not sure whether statements like these are made from a sociological point of view or a personal one. That's not a dig at you, but a point worth making about how people read and hear stated facts about their own gender and race group. While the evidence bears out that white men absolutely have a leg up, the discourse over the previous number of years (especially) has conflated the societal with the personal, reducing a person's affluence to their skin colour and gender in ways that ignore relevant identity categories ability and class, and increasingly relevant ones like personal history of trauma, social influences and others.
I think that you're right here, but at the same time, I'm here to point out the nuance that I feel has contributed to why white men are increasingly radicalized.
Yeah, I really hate that framing and think it unnecessarily puts off a lot people. 'Easy mode' isn't even the right way to look at it - 'easy mode' implies an unfair advantage, which really only applies if you're wealthy or otherwise well connected. This isn't to say that discrimination / unequal treatment isn't unfair, but rather that being treated without discrimination should be the default.
Agreed, and let's not forget how this gets really messy.
How difficult your life feels (irrespective of how difficult it actually is) is in the eye of the beholder. Donald Trump's small man complex is probably the product of a terrible upbringing filled with experiences necessary to produce a monster like him. He also inherited a fortune and failed upwards his entire life.
Terrible example, but I feel like it gets at the point of how to a large degree, having your basic or even your advance needs met is only a fractional predictor whether you've had an easy mode life or not.
Getting positive influences is a difficult problem for a myriad of reasons.
First, and likely most significantly, is that there's no money in that space. There are no billionaires signing blank checks. You can't hawk dodgy supplements which props up so much of the alt right and medical disinformation grifters. The demographic themselves aren't going to have much money in the first place.
Then there's the issue that all the algorithms are biased against you. Even before the current situation where the social media companies are mask off and embracing the right, every company tended to go through a phase of tweaking things to be a little more to the right to appease all the right-wingers screaming about imbalance, only to then get even louder complaints. All social media prizes engagement, and negative emotions tend to be more engaging than positive ones.
Then there's the social issues. It's hard to be vulnerable when the other side will make fun of you and specifically target that vulnerability. It's hard to go against the grain of centuries of media telling you otherwise.
Then for the young men themselves, the message that society was better for everyone when they were on top, that relationships work best as a dictatorship, that there's no need to ever be vulnerable, and that there's no need to go through the difficult and often tedious process of introspection and self-improvement on your reflections, those are all messages that can be very appealing. Countering them articulately and in ways that are emotionally resonant is difficult and often takes some experience and maturity on the individuals part.
Purity testing on the left can make for hostile spaces to those just getting started, but that's a thorny issue. While a significant portion of this is caused by the way social media works, it also comes down to one of the most unfair dynamics marginalized people face; in addition to all the challenges of marginalization, they often get saddled with the difficult, exhausting, and thankless work of educating people about said marginalization. It's a big ask of those worried about their survival to be nice to the people insulting and denigrating them in the hopes they'll learn to be better.
I have often wondered it seems to be the case that the right wing is so dominant in the dodgy supplement space. Anecdotally, I am kind of in that gym bro scene, and most of the people I know are on the left just by virtue of being urban coastal dwellers.
I can’t count the number of conversations I’ve had with full blown communists and syndicalists who nevertheless follow Lex Friedman, Joe Rogan, etc. and who feel compelled to issue disclaimers about how they can’t stand their politics but they have great content on (fighting, lifting, drugs).
It seems like there must be space for opposing political views here. Especially with the lack of competition.
It broadly boils down to Dems being seen as feminine (mom, teacher, HR, etc) and the supplements being peddled there aimed at a masculine market, who don’t want to be associated with femininity.
I think another factor is also that the left is less comfortable with snake oil. Supplements in the US are mostly unregulated; IIRC there's no guarantee that they contain what they're supposed to, don't contain harmful ingredients, or have any of the claimed effects. This has led to the supplement industry being a huge funder of medical misinformation/mistrust (You can't trust doctors, which is why you need my brain pills) awash in right wing grifters. Since workout supplements run parallel to that industry, there's a fair bit of spillover.
They're just marketed differently. Instead of Super Gainz Bro Fuel™️, you'll see:
Essential oil anything (I've even seen inhalers)
Homeopathic remedies
Whatever the local chiropractor peddles, including chiropractic services
I can't say I observe a strong political axis correlation to any of them, unlike the conservative dick pills, though maybe it does skew a little more right since COVID.
This doesn’t seem very evidence-based. How do you know what people will attract funding or attention? What do you actually know about how various social network’s algorithms work?
Sure, you can say these things, but where are you getting that from?
Sure, here's an article that touches on the funding received by PragerU and The Daily Wire, and another on Turning Point USA, all of which are notable right wing media presences that often target young men. It's entirely possible that there are similar organizations on the left targeting young men, but I'm unaware of any.
For algorithms, here's an article on Youtube, Twitter, and a Wikipedia link to a Facebook leak showing their harmful algorithm priorities.
Thanks!
I think these are different situations. It’s abundantly clear that Musk has “embraced the right.” YouTube’s algorithm may be exploited by right-wing influencers, but I doubt that’s a deliberate bias by the company. The complaints from whistleblowers at Facebook seem to be about how they don’t do enough to protect users - that is, prioritizing growth over safety, sometimes with horrific results.
I agree they're different situations. Twitter is out and out ideologically motivated. Google I see as going for an air of plausible deniability when they can. No no, they're not supporting the spread of misinformation, heaven forfend. They're just optimizing for engagement, which does the same thing. Google is better than Twitter, but at the end of the day they're both heading in the same direction.
Honestly speaking here: NorthernLion? I feel like any time people talk about why this isn't working in a liberal realm I think about him, he's speaking in a very recognizable code for youth and seems to get his sound bytes out well.
I think it's easy for people to see streamers like NL and just assume that either they're not pushing boys in the correct direction or their content doesn't appeal to younger men. On top of that, he's well-known in the gaming sphere, but not a true celebrity, and people are grading the hypothetical "lefty Rogan" against, well, Rogan.
He and a few other people in the Twitch/Youtube gaming space have really done a lot to avoid literally every zoomer man becoming fascist, though. Gotta give him and Jesse Cox in particular huge props.
Enelle being the bastion of healthy masculinity for Gen Z troubles me in ways I can't explain... it's frightening to consider lol. But I'm older than his typical audience, I guess I can shrug off his oddities because I already know better.
I will say he is a great reinforcement of how to generally navigate the pressures of the internet, so in that aspect he habitually reminds his chat to keep perspective.
I'm either a former young white man or a current one depending on how people define it. I saw there was a ton of great conversation on this post over the last few days and I thought I'd share some of my own experiences where I ran into this.
I remember being in university when Trump was first elected and taking the time to pay more attention to the election since it was everywhere. I'd been raised in a more conservative household and I had heard about that experience of people going to college and becoming liberal through there experiences there. I'd always considered myself somewhat moderate if leaning conservative, but I came in to college thinking there would be an openness of ideas or debate with people, especially professors being willing to explore multiple sides.
That was not my experience, I found in everyone of my "core" (general non major courses) I would get a lower grade if I didn't tow the line or express progress ideas. I.e. I got a C for writing a paper that expressed what I thought was a nuisanced position that I put time into in a philosophy class and then got an A on my next paper by extolling the virtues of communism. Honestly, it felt wrong doing it, but I wasn't going to tank my GPA (which I did later through not being sure I wanted to be in my major and other reasons) and put the couple of small scholarships I had at risk due to not telling the guy teaching my class who would wear a hammer and sickle shirt to lectures what he wanted to hear.
There was definitely a lot of that messaging that being white and men was/is bad and living with a bunch of college aged guys we'd joke about it endlessly. But beyond joking I felt like that messaging kept me from buying into the left side of politics at that time and led me to voting for Trump. I also felt like the email scandal was a big deal and should have been taken more seriously than it was instead of there being attempts to sweep it under the rig which contributed to thinking he (Trump) was going to change things up by being someone who was coming from outside the current established political parties.
I hadn't watched a Charlie Kirk video in years, but I felt like him taking the time to talk with students on campus and challenge people's beliefs through debate was part of that visions that I saw as being on a college campus. My wife didn't like his political views but she enjoyed some of his videos to see an articulate person put his points forward and defend them.
Edit: I meant to auto select a word and bumped post so I'll leave this hear real quick and then come back and remove it once I get my thought down.
Edit 2: I usually like to put more thought into something like this, but since I had it up and I probably wouldn't have the time to come back in a couple of days I thought I'd put together something real quick before my kids woke up, but they are awake and I'm out of time to type more.
I’m not sure there’s anything technically wrong with what he said, but it sure seems like Newsom likes to troll?
My impression of Newsom is a cynical man of few actual principles who's gearing up for a 2028 presidential run. In my opinion, he's trying not to alienate the mythical magical center and remain palatable to big donors in the traditional Democratic party style, and the trolling is a means of boosting engagement and getting his name in headlines.
The thing I’m curious about is: does trolling work as a political strategy? He seems to think so, but why?
I see lots of criticism of Newsom and little praise, which suggests that it doesn’t work very well, but at the same time, he seems invulnerable as governor for some reason.
I hate trolls but it has been working well for the right for the last decade. As far as reaction to Newsom; reddit seems to love the guy but outside of that I have basically no exposure to him.
Regardless, I don't know if I'd so much call this trolling and more him raising a pretty good point (and it's well discussed in the other comment chain). The right has a bunch of good (I mean... popular I guess) male role models while the left basically doesn't.
The right has been waging an all out culture war for over a decade and the left has been failing at it at best and at worst has been funnelling young white men into the right's arms.
@CannibalisticApple says it best in that the left's messaging for young men boils down to "don't be an asshole". Shit... I say that exact thing a lot when I talk to other men about social issues. Some on the right have apparently been saying now that empathy is a sin. Maybe that's the answer... teach empathy as a thing to do instead of telling people to not do a thing (don't be an asshole).
For what it's worth, the reactions I've seen on reddit are along the lines of liking him trolling Trump recently but desperately hoping for a better candidate in 2028.
I think you got autocorrected.
Fixed, thanks.
Well the numbers speak for themselves as of late. Trump is trolling as president and mocking him gets a huge response. Esepcially in a year where so many others kiss the ring instead. Pitzker does the same without trolling.
Whether that momentum carries to 2028 is an entirely different question.
He's California's govenor, and there's lots of criticisms of California, externally and internally. As Govenor, he's more or less a lighning rod, no matter how much control he really has on the issues.
I see a lot of criticism, but it's mostly on superficial aspects of his demeanor. Others are based on CA problems like homelessness, the long long delayed high speed railroad project, and issues in Hollywood. But I question if any other person could have truly addressed those.
The litte praise mostly comes recently from defying Trump. So I guess if nothing else, he knows how to position himself in times of crisis. That may be one of the most important aspects of a leader.
When you say "the numbers speak for themselves," what's an example of the numbers you mean?
For Newsom: https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-surges-democratic-primary-poll-2119733
But again, we're 3 years out, and everything is fluxuating. I'm not gonna pretend he's really next in line to run as president.
I think it's a two way street. I don't think that it's just about trolling , which if nothing else energizes voters who normally don't vote. But the de-energization of the Democratic party in the last decade means a lot of voters feel hopeless and opt out of the polls who'd normally vote. The big observation from 2020 to 2024 wasn't that Trump got a lot more numbers (even if the numbers matter less than the Electoral College), It's that Harris got a lot less numbers than Biden. Trump went from 74,223,975 to 77,302,580. Harris went from 81,283,501 to 75,017,613. Biden's numbers would have won in 2024, and meanwhile Harris's numbers would be a breakneck tie against 2020 trump.
And despite some narratives early in the year, I don't think these were a lot of "changed from D to R" style votes.
312 to 226 and 49.8% to 48.3% are the ones that stand out to me. That said, while I do think it’s a way to win, I don’t think it’s the only way to win.
Okay, thanks for explaining it.
I don’t understand why Trump won and I’m not sure how well trolling works in general.
Is that a bad thing? Being cynical doesn't mean being unprincipled: sometimes you recognize that the ends justify the means. Sometimes you have to prioritize being effective over being right. Maybe Newsom has higher principles; maybe he's useful as someone who's able to harness power.
Times and politics have changed — a lot. The old strategy isn't working anymore. Democrats must evolve and win the hearts and minds of alienated demographics. Democrats need to learn how to cultivate and wield real power. If we don't and stick to our milquetoast Karen-from-HR, don't-offend-anyone ways, we risk losing the country.
I suspect we both want the same or similar things, but I don't see Newsom as the one to get us there. I'm vaguely aware that there are other ways he's fallen short, but for me his stance on trans people is already disqualifying; throwing a group to the wolves for the sake of perceived political expediency is a despicable act in and of itself, and once that strategy is on the table it can be applied to anyone. Why fight for single payer healthcare? The people dying from the current system definitionally have no money, and all the big industry groups will get mad and work against you if you try. If you instead work with them, changing only what they'll countenance, you can instead get all those big donations rolling in.
In short, while Newsom might talk a good game, I suspect that when time comes to walk the walk he'd instead pursue the same milquetoast Democrat agenda that fomented the conditions for Trump's rise in the first place.
I feel like the Booker/Padilla ticket is slowly forming in the background. Those guys are two peas in a pod and clearly give a damn about the country.
This gives me a lot of thoughts, and they are admittedly scattered. I think I'll just list them one by one with little real order:
It's a complicated web of issues. I wish others in power would start laying down the groundwork of community. I think the aspect of "get more left leaning personalities" is very slowly starting to happen on its own.