Young male voters are flocking to Trump – but he doesn’t have their interests at heart

•

The US will get the leader they deserve.

Too bad the rest of the world will feel the consequences as well while they have no say in the matter.

LainTrain

•

Nor does half the country. I just don't understand why trump appeals to young men at all. He's just some horrifically uncool geezer.

aramis87

•

Because all of the aggrieved male content on yt, TikTok, podcasts, etc. There's an entire normie-to-nazi pipeline ffs, and the social media algorithms continually promote stuff that's just slightly more "edgy", and suddenly kids have gone from Joe Rogan to Andrew Tate. Because all of the white males behind social media - spez, Zuckerberg, Musk, etc - agree with that content and continue to find excuses to "free speech" it.

shalafi

•

Those boys should put in more work getting laid. And that's only a partial joke.

The incel thing drags them in, step 1 into the pipe. The can't get laid, must be something going on they can't put their finger on, but that thing is damned sure someone else's fault.

"I'm white, OK looking and I'm a nice guy!" The unspoken question, the unthought question, is, "What happened to my privilege?" For past generations, life seemed to work out well enough for white guys, but it sure as hell isn't working out for me!

Demographic shift has been wild in my lifetime. Too young to have experienced this, they get a feeling that something nebulous has changed, for the worse. They see minorities of all stripes stepping onto a more level playing field and then tune into YouTubers saying, "Yes! Now you get it! The other is the thing you didn't realize was holding you down!" Well god damn, now it all makes sense!

Back to getting laid, the fun part. Nothing like a good screw to smooth those rejected feels. You're wanted, wanted as a man. But if they think going hard-right is going to land them some pussy, oh boy... The few women in that scene are strictly for the alphas! Your beta ass won't even get scraps.

Dated quite a bit couple of years back. That was an education. Few women had political statements in their profiles, but many wrote something akin to, "I'm not interested in politics.", often followed by a lovey, flowery sentence to lighten the mood. Men: This is code for, "Don't come at me with your Trump bullshit." Yes, apparently guys often pull that horsepucky on the first date. These woman are screening for conservatives, they ain't gonna hear it. Talking on the phone to a potential date (who I ended up dating for a few months!),

"(laughing) Yeah, I'm a bit of a redneck."

Silence. Wrong thing to say there, buckaroo.

"...uh, just how redneck?"

"I loathe Trump if that's what you're getting at."

"Oh, whew! Just checking, can't be too careful these days."

tl;dr: We need to get the word out to these young men, "This crap you're watching is anathema to getting laid."

•

The few women in that scene are strictly for the alphas! Your beta ass won’t even get scraps.

The reality is that in humans, there's no such thing as alphas and betas. The ethology that claimed that's how wolves organize their societies, and that meme-level social darwinists tried to apply to people, was wrong too.

Clinicallydepressedpoochie

•

I cannot emphasize enough to men: nobody wants to hear how overarmed someone pursuing them is.

But seriously, the right wing loves to imply that “real men” are right wing and that women want a “real man”. And the left can’t really counter the first part because “real man” is a concept rooted in patriarchal expectations and is partly associated with real jackasses. But the second part we only have an unsatisfying answer for: that women are people and all want different things.

But they’re training young men to struggle romantically and be pissed about it without the emotional intelligence to deal with that anger. Oh and they’re encouraging those men to buy guns and to take offense at women being scared of men. That’s not how you make your fans into happy husbands and fathers who credit you for setting them on the path to that. It’s how you make them into suicide terrorists, it’s far closer to what Al Quadra did than what loving fathers do.

•

Feel like calling them incels and assuming you know every thing going on there gives them an easy out. Need to start asking these turds what gives them the right? Who entitled them to feel so fucking special? Was it popular media? Because that's all bullshit and we've known that since day one, so why the fuck do they think they get to live a delusion?

fuckwit_mcbumcrumble

•

Pair that with white males feeling entitled to things (mostly money, women, and even friends) and society currently being set up to keep them away from those things. They're rightfully angry, it's just their anger is being directed at the wrong things.

•

Society isn't set up to keep them away from anything: that's paranoid rationalization. They're just shit at relating to people and lack discipline and intelligence. Once you make the empowering realization that the world doesn't owe you a fucking thing, you have a realistic starting point. Blaming other people, or "society," is just an excuse for inaction.

•

Yeah, when white men do the shit that people who are successful and not white men do they often find themselves among us. Not always, but nobody gets perfect odds

osaerisxero

•

They are Nazis, treat them as such.

•

Look at 99% of media before 2001 AD. White male hero. Star Trek TOS was a giant ground breaker showing Uhura, but all the real critical leaders were males. Think on this; the James Bond movie Thunderball has a scene that's pretty much rape; they were selling little kids' toys based on that movie. There's a John Wayne movie where Wayne throws someone else's kid into a river to teach the boy how to get over his fear of water.

This is what these young men and their fathers consume. And Trump plays to that. He's a macho hero who plays by his own rules and doesn't take crap from anyone.

Muhammed Ali did more in real life than Clint Eastwood ever did in all his movies put together; guess which one these folks admire?

bassomitron

•

No offense, but I'd safely bet maybe 0.1% of current generation young men have watched any of those movies. This article is primarily talking about younger Gen Z folks (18-30), so people born 1994-2006. These males specifically consume idiot social media personalities vs old school macho man movies from the 50s and 60s.

•

^ This. I think even older people have scaled back on watching such fare.

cheese_greater

•

Even some of us before then. Was never into movies vs longer form works

Semi_Hemi_Demigod

•

This is what these young men and their fathers consume. And Trump plays to that. He’s a macho hero who plays by his own rules and doesn’t take crap from anyone.

How the fuck do they think Trump is macho?

•

Because he has money, he can say whatever the fuck he wants and no woman can boss him. Kind of like Elon. If you have a broken brain, that is "macho".

dirthawker0

•

Because all his earlier life was spent paying pretty women (and girls) to hang around pretending to be attracted to him (when it was actually money, food, and/ot entertainment).

•

and/ot entertainment

I believe the more precise term is cocaine.

•

Well, he is in the WWE Hall of Fame...

Kalysta

•

Because Andrew Tate, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson tell them Trump is macho and the young men don’t know any better. They think these morons are authority figures

Semi_Hemi_Demigod

•

Which I also don't get. Those guys don't seem macho or cool either.

angstylittlecatboy

•

I'm a zoomed so I can confirm you completely failed to bring up any media relevant to Gen Z, and Star Trek TOS and Ali are closer than Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and Bond.

•

Look at 99% of media before 2001 AD.

•

And Trump plays to that. He’s a macho hero who plays by his own rules and doesn’t take crap from anyone.

Except he's not. He's a lard-assed con artist, appearance-obsessed but ridiculous: fake hair, fake tan, trying to exaggerate his height and hide his obesity, a bully, a coward, a liar, and anyone who's seen the video of him grovelling in Putin's presence wouldn't say he doesn't take crap from anyone. He's a servile, fawning toady who would have been nothing without his daddy's money. If this society were a meritocracy, he'd be pounding farts out of shirttails in a steam laundry in New Jersey, if he could be employed at all.

The Alt-right Playbook: How to Radicalize a Normie

•

You know it and I know it, now try to explain it to them.

Zombiepirate

•

•

Yep, he's a very weird old man. I think they might think rallying around him is a way to reclaim their manhood.

linearchaos

•

That's the problem with colts from the outside you don't get it.

From the inside they don't get it either but they still keep going.

mean_bean279

•

You’re not paying enough attention if you think Trump winning means “too bad the rest of the world will feel the consequences.” Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII, France had a massive right wing that is now in the EU council, Austria… well they keep making shitty right wing choices, down into South America Argentina shifted right, and other countries continue to do so as well. We’re not special or alone in this.

•

Oh I'll definitely give you that! My own little corner of the world has been ruled by fairly hard-right nutjobs for over a decade, and while not quite as dramatic as elsewhere, almost all metrics for a positive society have gone down, except employment. We too suffer from insurmountable housing costs and low wages, which is not a coincidence at all.

•

almost all metrics for a positive society have gone down, except employment.

In other words, all the metrics have gone down.

(Employment is only a positive metric when the alternative is poverty, not self-actualization. The notion that being employed is intrinsically good is some elitist/authoritarian bullshit rooted more in keeping the working class too scared and busy to demand better for themselves than anything else.)

•

Couldn't agree more. Employment today is little more than glorified slavery.

piefedderatedd

•

You’re not paying enough attention if you think Trump winning means “too bad the rest of the world will feel the consequences.” Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII,

There were elections in two states in the east of Germany last weekend. In one of them the far right party AfD gained most votes compared to others. In the other state they finished second largest. There is nothing decisive however. Other parties have been called to set up a firewall "Brandmauer" to prevent the AfD to govern.

France had a massive right wing that is now in the EU council, Austria… well they keep making shitty right wing choices, down into South America Argentina shifted right, and other countries continue to do so as well. We’re not special or alone in this.

Exactly. In the last few decades Austria , Turkey and Hungary were among the first to shift to far right party based governments in Europe. An interesting read is this book by Turkish journalist Ece Temelkuran (Who fled the country) which is about Turkey going downhill from democracy to dictatorship. This book also reflects on Trump winning in 2016. At some point also Poland had a far-right government but the damage from that is slowly being repaired by a new government. By now among others Slovakia, Italy and the Netherlands have far-right government coalitions. Outside Europe there was Bolsonaro in Brazil. Still, Trump winning (legally or not) would be bad for the rest of the world, especially for Ukraine.

ReallyActuallyFrankenstein

•

Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII

In one German state, Thuringia. That's the German equivalent of Mississippi. It's bad, but not bad on the national level yet. In France, the FN (the extreme-right party) lost in the run-off, though their leader has been pretending to be less of a jackbooted thug than her father, the previous FN leader.

You're correct that the return of fascism is a global problem. If something were to happen to Putin, many of those rightwing parties would collapse back into the squabbling gangs of hooligans and racist goons they were before they started getting Russian advice, funding and help from troll farms. That's why Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik have been so anti-Harris. They know Trump will sell out Ukraine and gut NATO, and that's the only way Putin can keep his job and his head.

Kusimulkku

•

Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII,

This is very misleading

mean_bean279

•

My source is DW. Link

Kusimulkku

•

It would've been less misleading for you too to specify that it was state elections

henfredemars

•

I vote my hardest but my brothers are stupid.

•

I get this way of thinking, but just to be clear: the US didn't get the leader it deserved when Trump "won" the first time, despite receiving millions of fewer votes than Hilary. And almost certainly here, even if Trump "wins," he will have gotten less votes.

That's because there is a 2-3% bias in the current presidential electoral system, the Electoral College. We're founded under a "1 person, 1 vote" ideology that our elections ignore.

So yes, I get the frustration. But we (the sane people) are all in this together, and the majority of voters in the US appear to still be sane, even if that doesn't win the election by default. Solidarity would be the better move here.

ReallyActuallyFrankenstein

•

In 2016 voters had the excuse that they didn't know how a Trump presidency would play out. They don't have that same excuse in 2024. Anyone who votes for him knows what they're doing. If he wins, even with electoral college shenanigans, it will be a symptom of a much deeper malaise than just Trump.

•

Yes, I agree with all of that. But "there's a bigger problem" or "Trump voters know who he is" isn't the same as "the US got what it deserves."

I'm specifically taking issue with "deserves.". "Deserves" implies Trump represents the US, which would only be true if the majority of the US (or US voters) chose Trump. We didn't. That's important because he's not just a dangerous leader, and an autocrat, he's one that does not have a mandate of the people.

•

He still has the support of about 80 million people. While not the majority, neither is it a neglible amount compared to the total. If about a quarter to a third of your population are basically Nazis, you do have a much bigger problem, and the "deserves" - while definitely controversial - does start to kind of figure in the equation.

The world didn't exactly simply forgive the German citizenry after WW2 either, and for good cause.

Riccosuave

•

I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. This was an incredibly salient point.

What we are observing is that regardless of our vast technological progression, a statistically significant percentage of the population continues to suffer from a clinical form of emotional retardation that has severely stunted their ability to think rationally, to feel empathy, or in many cases both.

At some point our species is going to have to learn how to correct for this aberration, or we will reach an untimely evolutionary dead end.

•

To expand upon that point: if y'all non-MAGA Americans think that the rest of the Germans had a moral obligation to revolt against the Nazis, well, you'd better have a good long think about your current situation.

EatATaco

•

We’re founded under a “1 person, 1 vote” ideology that our elections ignore.

I think the EC is an outdated system that needs to die, but it was explicitly created because they didn't want presidential elections to be one person, one vote. There is no ignoring here, it's by design.

ReallyActuallyFrankenstein

•

It was explicitly created because they wanted presidents to be chosen by state legislators, not the general public at all.

EatATaco

•

Iirc, it was a compromise between those who wanted a direct election, and those who wanted Congress to choose the POTUS. Including concessions to the southern States because they were outnumbered when it came to free people.

I could be missing something about some wanting state legislatures to choose, but I'm pretty sure the bulk was what I said above.

•

I agree on the history, so "founded on" was wrong on my part.

But arguably the current "one person, one vote" standard controls. The Equal Protection clauses of the 5th and the 14th amendments are incommensurably in conflict with the electoral college. As between them, since the Equal Protection clauses (at least the 14th Amendment) are more recent, those arguably supersede in case of conflict.

That's my reasoning anyway.

orclev

•

At this point the US has massively diverged from the original intent. The original intent was that only wealthy male land owners would vote. Further the entire US government is just a very slightly modified version of what the UK used just with a President in place of a King, and states in place of noble houses.

There is unfortunately a massive sentiment in the US to uphold the founders as some kind of perfect ideal of democracy and that anything that differs from their original intent is somehow wrong. The reality of course is that they were flying by the seat of their pants and largely making it up as they went. In addition ideas and morals have changed greatly since that time. We should be far less concerned about what a bunch of people who died centuries ago would think about some law or ruling and far more concerned about what impact it would have today.

So yes, the Electoral College was intentionally set up as an attempt to prevent direct democracy, but so what? The question should not be what did they intend, the question should be do we still need/want it?

confused_code_monkey

•

I agree with everything you're saying, except:

We're founded under a "1 person, 1 vote" ideology

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, delegates debated between Congress choosing the next president vs a straight popular vote. The former risked corruption between the legislative and executive branches, and the latter gave too much power to the uneducated, sometimes-mob-esque populous. After several debates, a compromised was reached - electors. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent electors who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

Overall, though some founders agreed with a "1 person, 1 vote" ideology, they were not the majority... unfortunate though that was.

•

Instead, the states would each appoint independent electors who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

In other words, like having Congress do it, but with added Federalism by giving it to the state legislatures instead of the federal one.

The "Electors as intermediaries" part was wasn't directly about reducing corruption, because having the state legislators choose would've already solved that. The only trouble was that "one state legislator, one vote" wouldn't work because different states set up their legislatures differently and with varying numbers of constituents per legislator, so they needed a sort of 'compatibility layer' to compensate for those differences and the solution was having state legislatures appoint Electors.

Kalysta

•

Most of us do not deserve the orange monster. Most of us are actually good people who are just trying to survive. Don’t wish harm on the whole country because a bunch of assholes use a shit electoral college system to their advantage.

•

What about the majority of us who will vote dem. Like, that’s basically a given.

billwashere

•

Trump did very little for anyone. Unless you’re rich.

Coelacanth

•

Even then it's not like it was intentional. He only did it for himself, it's just that other rich people also coincidentally benefited.

makyo

•

Yeah Trump is very simple - he punishes anyone who doesn't actively support him and rewards anyone who does. Anything he does for anybody is simply to show others that if you're good to Trump, he'll throw you a bone too.

He spends so much time performing for his base to ensure he has enough political power for that system to work. Once his base gets bored of him he'll be nothing.

kofe

•

I knew guys running their own businesses that benefitted from the 2017 tax breaks. Unfortunately, the dumb fucks didn't notice those were temporary from the outset and staged to revert back after the next presidential election. And those tax breaks directly give Republicans the excuse to say "we don't have money for all these social programs."

•

Yet whenever there's an opportunity to cut taxes on high earners, the Republicans are on it like flies on shit.

iAvicenna

•

and even then he did it for himself in the long run.

mysticpickle

•

Kroxx

•

Every gen Z kid I know is having an issue trying to pick a pro-Palestine candidate. They seem to dislike Biden more than Harris, but I have never heard of trump support. I'm sure some amount of gen Z are trumpers but they are a minority, saying young male voters are "flocking" to trump is pretty silly. "There are literally dozens of us!"

•

You should educate them on the dangers of single-issue voting. Pro-life has kept the Republican Party afloat for decades.

Kroxx

•

I've thought very hard about doing this. I used to be the same way and have changed my thinking. The problem is I don't think I can properly articulate this because 1. I am still trying to swallow that pill 2. I would just feel like a hypocrite so I wouldn't be able to deliver properly.

I do encourage others who do have the capability to try to point out the issues with single-issue voting.

•

The unfortunate truth is that neither Harris nor Trump is good for Palestinians, however there’s certainty that Trump will be worse. Voting third-party with enough momentum may change things over a long period of time, but that won’t help Palestinians now.

So if it’s a given that either Harris or Trump will be President next year, it’s either about weighing the other important issues, or accepting the candidate that hasn’t called for the eradication of Palestinians after removing restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory.

•

So kind of just accept genocide is the only option.

Oh okay, yea I guess I can just keep living my life as long as people I care about aren’t being eradicated.

•

I didn’t suggest accepting genocide. I said that’s it’s a fact that either Harris or Trump will be President next year. Your acceptance of that fact does not change its inevitably.

You do, however, have the ability to prevent Trump from encouraging the eradication of Palestinians.

•

Okay, so prevent Trump from eradicating the Palestinians as opposed to just accepting the mere genocide that Kamala will allow and fund.

I guess I don’t understand the difference between eradication and genocide.

You’re probably right. At least with Kamala there will be a few Palestinians left at least?

•

In this case, the genocide you’re referring to is eradication. The difference isn’t between eradication and genocide. It’s between supporting Israel’s defense or funding and encouraging eradication while repealing laws that prevent them from settling on Palestinian territory.

AA5B

•

This is a great example where single issue voting leads you. There’s no understanding that it may not be that simple, no understanding that there’s a huge range of possible actions different than yours and NOT “both the same”, no understanding that there are many issues with huge impact on the world not just the one you feel most strongly about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/

•

This is a great example of you dismissing someone as being emotional when we are talking about fucking genocide. It’s fucking genocide dude. Get off your high horse and stop defending fucking genocide. This is not about an issue I feel strongly about, you creep.

This is about genocide.

psvrh

•

I hate to say this, but you're probably living in a bit of a bubble. I know I was.

A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms.

It's all bullshit, of course, but at least they're being heard.

Progressive politicians really need to let the 1990s go. Third-way triangulation worked great then, but it's ineffective now.

nforminvasion

•

This exactly. The destruction of third spaces under Reagan was either a genius move to radicalize lonely, isolated Americans or a hell of a coincidence that ended up helping the right.

I say it could be a coincidence because idk if Reagan's administration was looking quite that far ahead but... They were crafty and very intelligent people.

chonglibloodsport

•

This process began long before Reagan. I think it started with the automobile manufacturers, and General Motors in particular, in their war on public transit.

The death of the streetcar brought with it the death of streetcar suburbs and mixed-use zoning, which was the foundation upon which most third places rested (neighbourhood pubs, cafes, and barber shops).

Anyway, definitely watch that video if you have the time. Compare the vast landscapes full of roads and parking lots with the old-fashioned neighbourhood of Riverdale, with its narrow streets and cozy houses huddled together on small lots. It’s easy to see which one is more conducive to community, civic engagement, and good government. The car-dependent landscape looks like some dystopian nightmare by comparison.

dynamic_generals

•

Would you mind expanding on this? The idea piqued my interest, but couldn’t find information on that connection when looking for myself.

CountVon

•

Not the person who made the comment, but here's my understanding. A "third place" is somewhere you spend a lot of time when you're not at home (the first place) or school/work (the second place). Third places such as community centers were vital to the civil rights movement in the 60s, it was where much of the movement's meeting, debating and organizing took place.

The Reagan administration systematically defunded any of these politically active third places that were receiving federal funds, probably because they were worried that they'd be infiltrated by those scary communists. They were so worried about what the organized people might do in the future that they did everything they could to kick the financial struts out from under these community organizations. In many cases this destroyed some or all of the local community benefits that those organizations were actually providing.

This trend cut across the political spectrum too. The Clinton administration did its own wave of defunding, though I suspect that was more for economic (i.e. neoliberal) than political ideology. Combine the lack of community investment with the rise of the internet, and you arrive at the situation we have today where third places are becoming increasingly scarce. It's hard for communities to develop and maintain a cohesive identity when there's no longer any metaphorical "town squares" where the people in that community gather.

finder585

•

progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties

Terrible is a bit of an understatement. Men complain about bleak social and economic prospects only to be meet with insults that go right to the metaphorical jugular of every mans ego.

SnotFlickerman

•

bleak ... economic prospects

Except Trump voters were more likely to be small business owners.

How is it that the left isn't discussing inequality enough for these guys? That's a load.

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters

On economic issues, Staunch Conservatives and the Free Marketeers share an overwhelming opposition to tax hikes on the wealthy, business regulation, and government-provided health care. They have high levels of social trust in other people and worry less about whether the system is rigged. They also take conventional conservative positions on the environment and on cultural issues like same-sex marriage.

Staunch conservatives make up 31% and Free Marketers make up 25% of Trump voters, that's majority.

Further the high levels of social trust displayed by the staunch conservative set speak to them having successful lives. You don't end up with high levels of social trust if you are beaten down, can't find work, and people act like you just aren't trying hard enough. The staunch conservatives also deny climate change, which is harder for young people who are experiencing pollution and hot, dry summers to deny.

So the majority of Trump voters are older conservatives with comfortable lives.

American Preservationists have low levels of formal education and the lowest incomes of the Trump groups — and non-Trump voters as well. Despite being the most likely group to say that religion is “very important” to them, they are the least likely to attend church regularly. They are the most likely group to be on Medicaid, to report a permanent disability that prevents them from working, and to regularly smoke cigarettes. Despite watching the most TV, they are the least politically informed of the Trump groups.

By contrast, the "poor" group, American Preservationists, only clock in at 20% of Trump voters. This lie that they're all pushed to Trump by economics when the "poor" group is also the uneducated group you're gonna have a hard sell on proving to me that they even understand enough about economics to be upset about it. Or, barring that, whatever they're upset about they still don't actually understand with enough depth to really be making an informed decision.

Either the young men are truly in the minority or they are working long overnight shifts and not actually heading to the voting booth when they get off work. In the latter case, they aren't a meaningful political bloc if they don't vote.

mozz

•

I'd go a step further than that. It's not all bullshit.

If right at the moment that young men are starting to figure out, hey it's important to make some money, it's important not to be a coward, I think I'm gonna start working out and waking up early and keeping my house clean, hey I think at least some of these people I see who are downtrodden by life are at least partially responsible for their own situation and problems and I don't wanna be that way... if right at that exact moment all the left has to offer them is getting in their face and saying NO NO NO, FUCK YOU THAT'S ALL WRONG TRANS RIGHTS VEGAN CAT FOOD FUCK YOU ARARGBGLGLLGLGL then they're not gonna wanna join with the left. The left is going to seem stupid and crazy to them, and for a certain segment of the left, they'll have a point about that.

Trump like all fascism is a malicious lie which will bring them only misery. But just being conservative (like authentic conservatism) in your viewpoint isn't automatically wrong or "the enemy."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts

•

I really do think you nailed it. There is a certain contingent - most especially online, I think - that are just very toxic to any kind of reasonableness and are telling anyone that hasn't won a very specific set of Oppression Olympics that they need to sit down and just listen, that their opinion doesn't matter (unless it's just to parrot what is being said by this very radical fringe), that their experiences and feelings don't matter, only those at the top of the Oppression Olympics pyramid matter. They are also told there are no greater human experiences, everything has to be sliced up and subsegmented into things (vs. universal truths and universal conditions of humanity, etc. that unite us) and all the "old white man" canon is to be discarded, etc.

Again, I think this is mostly online stuff, but if someone is young and finding their way and especially if they are lonely, they are going to be online.

For a prime example of this, I've said this before, check out the comment section on Boing Boing. Boing Boing used to have a very fun and vibrant comment section. Yes, it was liberal. Now, it's bordering on oppressive. Don't believe me? Try taking a position that is one iota different than the mods and ringleaders on the forum now. If I was the impressionable and uniformed sort, I would see something like that and think all liberals/leftists are like this and seek some other groups out.

I think groups like that do more to create Republicans and Nazis than almost anything else.

lolcatnip

•

Except the left isn't saying that. A handful of people are, but it's mostly a right-wing caricature of the left.

Kroxx

•

but you're probably living in a bit of a bubble.

That's pretty fair and probably pretty accurate, what I will say is I live in a deeeeeep red state but most of my interactions are with post college gen Z so that almost certainly skewes it toward the left.

A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms

Yeah I try to explain this to people who aren't white males, it's definitely a big issue. I didn't mean to downplay this particular issue, and make no mistake I do view it as a major issue, but I do view this as a pretty fringe group % wise. Now that can definitely change very very rapidly but I personally haven't seen it trend towards that yet, I would say the white male -> fascist pipeline started in the mid 2010's and while it's grown gen Z seems to ,as a whole, still be very very progress.

Obviously this is all biased in my opinion and experiences which isn't a good indicator of reality but I do hold this opinion until I see/read something which can change that.

chonglibloodsport

•

That’s because the US is not only deeply polarized by party affiliation, it’s deeply segregated regionally by political stripe. Look at how few “swing states” there are and how all the rest are “solid red” or “solid blue.”

Increasingly, people know and have personal contact with fewer and fewer members of the other side. We’re witnessing the creation of the Morlocks and the Eloi, groups that neither interact with nor understand one another to the point of being separate species.

lolcatnip

•

The segregation is more on a county level, though. Every state has red and blue counties.

AA5B

•

😜

lolcatnip

•

Ok, almost every state. But MA does have red municipalities and precincts.

ininewcrow

•

It's probably a regional and demographic issue. I'm in Canada in Ontario and our province elected a conservative leader even though we are known as a very liberal/ center/ even left bunch we got a right wing party leading us.

All our highly populated cities and towns with majority populations elected center or left parties ... almost all the rural areas elected the right-wing party.

The thing that tilted the balance was apathy. Not enough people voted. If enough people everywhere had voted, we would have had a center or even a left party leading. But because not enough voted, the right leaning rural areas were able to out balance the few left/center leaning cities.

The thing that wins elections in Canada and the US is general apathy. If you can cut down the number of voters, you have a better chance of deciding who will get into power.

ObsidianZed

•

I don't think Trump has the interest of literally any of his voters at heart. He's only interested in helping himself and he legally can't even vote for himself.

Edit: TIL Trump can still vote.

Florida (Trump's home state) Law:

a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted.

New York (State of felony convictions) Law:

a person convicted of a felony is disenfranchised only while incarcerated for that felony.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/can-trump-vote-now-he-has-felony-convictions

UnderpantsWeevil

•

Should be noted that young male voters are some of the least reliable voters to turn out. Yes, he's gone hard on the Joe Rogan demographic with his pandering. Yes, its working (because... advertising works!) No, I don't think its going to be a winning strategy in the end, because them hoes ain't loyal.

•

Is it true he is no longer eligible to vote?

ObsidianZed

•

Unfortunately that was just wishful thinking. I had to confirm and according to Florida and New York state law, he will be about to vote unless he ends up being incarcerated in New York at the time.

•

To be fair I think felons and imprisoned folk should be allowed to vote.

Why not just kick them out of the country if you are going to disenfranchise them like that?

tburkhol

•

It's hard for imprisoned people to have a fair vote, unhindered by pressure from guards, administration, or gangs. You think for-profit prisons selling slave labor of their inmates is bad, just offer them the opportunity to sell their votes.

•

Well that would be an easy one to expose though wouldnt it? Theres no chance a prison could keep that hidden.

ObsidianZed

•

That's fair, although a bit extreme jumping straight to kicking them out of the country.

How about just politicians with felonies then?

•

Yeah that was meant to be some form of sarcasm I couldn't figure out how to word right.

I don't think citizens really should ever lose their right to vote. Its absurd to me.

I will say people who commit political crimes should be barred from politics though.

Rayspekt

•

Yeah people are too uneducated to vote what is actually good for them, but that is unfortunately by design nowadays.

FenrirIII

•

It's not just the uneducated. There are many young men who want women to become property because they're too goony to find one.

Rayspekt

•

Yeah but guess what, educated men are more attractive to women. At least on average I'd say. So the problem solves itself.

•

They’re unaware of the fact that many of them are exactly the sort of husband aqua tofana is for

chakan2

•

The article completely missed the core reason for young men to vote for Trump. It's ending DEI initiatives.

That's a single issue for some of my conservative friends. The D's will never get their vote.

BreadstickNinja

•

A spectacular victory for the billionaire class that your friends are focused on the one black kid who gets a leg up and not the legions of white kids who got ahead through their parents' donations and legacy admissions.

LBJ once said: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Clearly, 60 years on, it's still true.

DreamlandLividity

•

"But what about rich white kids"

Yeah, a great argument...

ZILtoid1991

•

They're rich, thus will heavily benefit from the tax breaks.

Ross_audio

•

In the UK the Conservative party decided to get rid of DEI initiatives in education. When?

When the minority specifically recommended to be targeted for support became poor/working class white boys.

Conservatives will go out of their way to harm the working class because as long as things are going badly for them they'll be angry enough to vote for the ones with dog whistles pretending it's someone else's fault.

•

I guess they are just going to have to accept that diversity equity and inclusion are a part of our lives now, and that they don’t get to make decisions about who is included, and that diverse opinions really are valuable, and that we are going to continue spending our public resources to ensure we all have equitable opportunity.

I guess what I mean is, too bad for your conservative friends?

chakan2

•

Ehh...they'll be the next generation of old bitter men.

qed123

•

I agree. I am supposed to be just peachy with and validate some notion they are discussing this or any matter in good faith, while they are voting to kill my healthcare, prop up Russia, just so they can be racist? While "cleverly" refusing to sincerely discuss anything, adamantly trying to gaslight sincere prople with whatever the Russian propaganda of the hour is?

https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

•

It’s ending DEI initiatives.

Name the "endless DEI initiatives" that Harris has been promoting in her platform.

Most of the DEI that people encounter in real life originates from their workplaces. It's being pushed for marketing reasons, or because it's the only way the employer can recruit qualified staff. It's the free market in action. And in my experience, it's the marginal performers who are adversely impacted. The people who are good at their jobs keep their jobs, or quickly find another.

I'm a hiring manager, have been for a very long time. I've got two recruiting campaigns going right now, The field of applicants we interviewed was highly diverse. And the last two offer letters I've sent out were to middle-aged white men. That's because they were the best candidates. And you know what? The DEI Police are not going to come and kick down my front door at 3 AM because of my hiring decisions. DEI is a nonexistent problem, just as "woke," just as the Great Replacement lies, just as the anti-trans hysteria is. The reality is that, if you're not getting offers or someone is being promoted ahead of you, it's because your management think they'll do better than you. Suck less and you'll do better. Nobody in my job assesses me based on DEI compliance. But if I hire people who wash out because they can't do the job, or if I can't retain high performers, my ass is on the line.

And just to declare my own perspective: I'm an able-bodied older white male myself.

whoisearth

•

Losers are afraid of competition as another older white male the system is still heavily favouring us. People are mistaking equality with discrimination and it's so damn tone deaf.

That said even I bitch about it at time.

chakan2

•

The DEI Police are not going to come and kick down my front door at 3 AM because of my hiring decisions.

Well...I've seen that happen. We had a black guy working for one of my previous employers and no one was really sure what he did. Ends up he was working his second job most days.

When said employer found out and fired him, he walked out with a 6 figure discrimination settlement. It was cheaper to settle than fight.

That cost a couple unrelated people their jobs due to budget.

I'm not pro or anti DEI. I've seen it used for good, and I've seen it abused.

LarmyOfLone

•

So a "They took our jobs!" kinda thing.

WhatYouNeed

•

Day tok ma job!

rodbiren

•

My take is that they vote for him because he is angry. These young men are largely angry and have had media of all sorts telling them that they should be. They don't want someone telling them how they will boost the middle class and have equitable tax. They want someone who says they will burn every problem to the ground and break things. They want someone screaming at someone to blame.

Why we have a huge chunk of young men desperatly angry is a choose your own adventure of societal issues where we have provided almost no healthy outlet for healthy aggression or the physicality that comes with being a young man. Everyone is free to come up with their own reasons, but for me it is the lack of outlet or the feeling of societial participation for young men.

Whatever the reason, a culture who sweeps the problems of frustrated young men under the rug for long enough I feel will live to regret it.

whoisearth

•

Cough Arab Spring cough

UnderpantsWeevil

•

These young men are largely angry and have had media of all sorts telling them that they should be.

They've had two decades of socio-economic bedlam. Its not like people are just angry for no reason. Sucks out there to be a Zoomer during one of the most on-paper rapid increases in domestic prosperity, while your demographic is entirely cut out of the gains but expected to assume all the costs.

Trump's selling snake oil. But he's got a target rich environment of suckers precisely because the labor movement in this country has been abandoned by both parties and the Democrats have (correctly) identified this group as the most expensive to turn out during election season so not worth the effort.

If you're going hard in the paint for the culture war, you're better off aiming for middle aged women. They vote. They donate. They organize. And they stay loyal to their party. Young men are only good for the next hype cycle before they give up or lose interest. The economy for Zoomers isn't looking much better in the next four years, so Dems can come back around for them after Trump is gone.

Whatever the reason, a culture who sweeps the problems of frustrated young men under the rug for long enough I feel will live to regret it.

These aren't problems unique to young men. They're structural and societal. Young men are just the demographic that produces the most immediate feedback and engagement. And the current GOP is entirely embedded in the social media hype cycle, so they're as along-for-the-ride as their turnout target.

The real people profiting off this mess aren't Republicans, but the social media advertising market who actually get to generate revenue off the bad decisions of deluded young people.

parrhesia

•

Just curious, have you ever watched the Woodstock 99 documentary?

UnderpantsWeevil

•

A long while ago.

lennybird

•

Right-wing incels, hot off their carnivore diet, roids, and worship of Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson wondering why women flee from them and yet continue to double-down on the likes of worshiping shitheads like Trump and Andrew Tate.

It's the exploitation of the ignorant and vulnerable; naturally, right-wing puppeteers are telling them it's everyone else who is the problem.

terminhell

•

I don't care really for either side tbh, but an argument I've heard somewhat recently is; they are at least talking to that demographic, not calling them incels, losers etc. Again, team red can drown in an oil fire, but it's about the only thing that approaches making some sense.

31337

•

I think a lot of it is because there's so many more well-funded right-wing influencers/grifters than genuine liberal or left-wing influencers. It's much more profitable to take advantage of young men's anxieties and insecurities (to sell fungus pills, get-rich-quick plans, or whatever), than to genuinely discuss things from a liberal or especially left-wing perspective.

tankplanker

•

Its a cliche but they also promise easy answers to hard questions, blame others for problems they caused themselves or at least did nothing to get out of. The old tell 'em what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

Jagothaciv

•

Don’t forget the E-girls, Trump is also aiming for the E-girls since the loser Gooner boys who are basically privileged Republikids oogle over them constantly.

Losers all of them but they got voting power.

jaggedrobotpubes

•

He isn't even masculine. Like not even close.

HubertManne

•

yeah im like. positive maculinity? I mean im positive that is not masculinity.

BruceTwarzen

•

Is their interest racism? Because he's got that covered.

AA5B

•

If theyre angry and frustrated then yes, identifying a scapegoat is a great way to manipulate them

Professorozone

•

But he's done more for black people than any other president. Like...ummm, I'm not sure what, but he said it so it must be true.

modus

•

He said he protects black jobs. He wouldn't say what those jobs were, but he protects them.

Professorozone

•

Well that certainly sounds like more than anyone else.

Snapz

•

He does have an interest in young girls at heart though... Just like his good friend Jeff Epstein, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy, He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Tilgare

•

Can you link that quote?

Asafum

•

It's part way into it as the article is about Epstein not Trump, but it's exactly as they wrote it.

Tilgare

•

Thanks. Damn, he just has so little control, he'll say almost anything. It's not exactly encriminating but leaves little doubt that Drumpf knew exactly what was going on, as if we didn't know he participated.

Dramaking37

•

This seems like the education gap rather than a gender gap. Women have been going to college in greater numbers for a couple of decades.

•

Title xi has been used for decades as well to justify accepting men into college with lower qualifications so that the male female ratio stays anywhere close to 50/50.

Edit: i am not working in college admissions but I believe it is more of a situation where if the applicants have equal merit, every effort will be to accept the men into the university to do their best to maintain more of an equal ratio. I know it’s true that colleges are having to seriously deal with this issue but I don’t believe they are accepting less qualified males over more qualified females, but if they didn’t take any steps the discrepancy between female and male acceptance rates in colleges would be even more disparaging than it already is, simply because boys are being left behind in the education system in many ways.

Dramaking37

•

Ah yes, I didn't mean to imply an equity gap, just a gender gap.

•

Well in this sense equity I think is just a juxtaposition against equality… we all have different strengths and weaknesses as individuals, so to force equality in every aspect of our lives doesn’t really make sense.

If we aim for something like equity, where we all have more of an equal opportunity, as opposed to the forcing of an equal outcome.

But as far as education if the boys are not succeeding as well as the girls, I think it points to things we might need to look at to that we might be able to change that could help the boys. Do boys have different ways of learning, in general, than girls? What is it we are doing that is making it so girls are more successful in our education system, and are there things we can do better that would help our boys in similar way?

Equity here is not really related to anything dealing with finance, if that’s what you’re thinking. It’s about looking at what we’re doing wrong for girls and boys, and what we’re doing right for boys and girls, and doing our best to be equitable with the resources we put towards education so that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed to the best of our ability…. I think. Lol

In this use of equity we are accepting more men of equal merit than women because overall, women are doing better in school and we want to provide equitable opportunity for the most number of women and men possible, as equal as possible but in this case equity is our goal as opposed to equality. If we forced equality here women would be dominating universities (which they kind of already are)….. not sure it’s worked its way up to the faculty levels yet because of good ole boys clubs but yea….

Floating_head

•

He's masculine?

ZMoney

•

He's the most masculine. Many have said that he is the most masculine, ever. He has some friends that also consider themselves to be the most masculine, but secretly they all agree that he is in fact the most masculine, ever.

ShaggySnacks

•

I saw the most masculine guys cry at how masculine Trump is.

morphballganon

•

If your idea of masculinity is to be tall and yell at people, yes.

DeanFogg

•

Scared little boys need a daddy

curiousaur

•

And somebody to hate. It's so ugly how young men easily come together to hate a person or group. It gives them a sense of togetherness and 'not it' at the same time.

perestroika

•

Alternatively, and perhaps more plausibly - people who are new to politics fall for a populist.

I'm a bit scared of where the world is going, but it doesn't make me vote a local populist. One of the things that helps me recognize a scammer from distance - 3 decades of experience with garden variety politics.