***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[finessence]

since like 2016 probably as a backlash to trump the democratic party generally avoids mentioning men as a specific minority group.

They omit men when mentioning important constituents.

for example In the biden administrations guidance on rise in suicide. it makes no mention of male suicide, despite men being

then there's the cultural aspect, where media and cultural instructions that code as left. have gotten more feminist and use more feminist language like "toxic masculinity"

and just in general the party has gotten more culturally feminine (i don't use this as a pejorative),
in that democrats are more concerned with using the right language and catering to people's feelings, and being more sensitive in way that im guessing is not that appealing to young men.

You think dudes who don’t even care about politics, are that dense to care whether or not a study singles out men? They definitely don’t. If they’re already disinterested, something like that won’t affect their stance at all.

And “Men” are not being omitted. That CDC article didn’t mention any genders… women weren’t in it as well. Just spewing lies. If you go on the CDC website, it definitely mentions men. So, you’re telling me, when Trump was in office, the same page listed men as well, but when Biden took over and updated it, men where taken off? yeah right

This makes absolutely NO sense

Republican men HATE women (again, sounds highly “suspect” for men to hate women, ironically), are Frat boys who are known for partaking in suspect behaviors. The Democratic Party is no way “catering” to femininity. Just speaking nonsense.

These “young men” across both parties (Republican and Democratic are feminine as hell anyway, especially in modern day America)

What makes the Republican Party more “masculine”? You sound RIDICULOUS

Look at the average male republican politician vs the average male democratic politician, they all look the same.

George Santos ring a bell?? And he’s a republican

 

[pmatic]

 

[finessence]

Infrastructure bill almost certainly disproportionally helped blue collar men, did you see the Biden administration make a big deal emphasizing that aspect of the bill?

….Because America has a CRUMBLING infrastructure? Why would it NOT benefit blue collar workers, construction workers, etc?

Majority of these young folks and young men want absolutely nothing to do with manual labor/hard labor.

The bill was supposed to benefit the men and women who are employed to do that type of work

 

[Cashflow]

 

[IATT]

I’m sure police immunity will work out just fine

 

[Cashflow]

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

If the idea that somebody besides straight white men get a fair shake offends your masculinity then you have bigger issues. Also there’s nothing masculine about being a cheerleader for a fat, old, draft dodging man who wears makeup and fake hair If Trump was some roided up former NFL player, I could see the correlation but nah, people just want someone who represents their racism, sexism and homophobia.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

The appeal to old white dudes seems to be working as Kamala improved performance with white people is making up for declines in the black vote in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. and Michigan.

I think you may have changed my mind on this. I’ve been harboring a lot of anger and resentment towards the privileged in America since 2016, that I think I’ve been ok with their feeling excluded by Democratic messaging. But that’s political dumb when they make up such a large voting block.

Much of the goal of the left throughout the 20th century was addressing imbalances in power - and specifically economic and political power. I think the left got a bit complacent about its success when it turned towards tackling privilege. Men, and white men in particular, have always been racist or sexist. But when they felt like the left was helping them even their struggle against the capitalist class, they were ok surrendering a bit of privilege in return. But by the end of the 20th century, the Democrats did mostly abandon them as a specific group. Yes, ostensibly the left still supported capital L labor, but by 1992 much of America was no longer covered by unions.

I’m pretty fond of admonishing anti-immigrants with the expression, “If you want to know who stole from you, don’t look at poor people who have nothing.” Perhaps I need to follow my own advice…

I don’t think we should abandon the notion of fair play and privilege, but perhaps it is time to think about more universal problems like rent-seeking in oligopolistic markets, the lack of bargaining power for the working class who are still well above minimum wage, and the lack of sensible real estate development.

A lot of the grievances we hear from people defecting from the Democratic Party can be addressed by good old fashioned class warfare. Maybe it’s time to pivot back.

osh kosh bosh , you’ve really given me a lot to think about. Thanks for this discussion.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You think dudes who don’t even care about politics, are that dense to care whether or not a study singles out men? They definitely don’t. If they’re already disinterested, something like that won’t affect their stance at all.

again the specific example is being used to illustrate a broader trend in the way the democratic party talked about men.
if something impacts women Dems ALWAYS mention it and make a big deal out of it, when it impacts men they don't as much.

people may not know the details but I think they can pick up the vibe, that Dems are focused on issues affecting women and lgbt more than men.

And “Men” are not being omitted. That CDC article didn’t mention any genders… women weren’t in it as well. Just spewing lies. If you go on the CDC website, it definitely mentions men. So, you’re telling me, when Trump was in office, the same page listed men as well, but when Biden took over and updated it, men where taken off? yeah right

This makes absolutely NO sense

1. The guidance was released under Biden, I believe, so it was released, and then updated later to mention men.
2. if there was some issue where 80% of deaths were women, there is 0% chance democrats don't loudly foreground the disproportionate impact on women.

Republican men HATE women (again, sounds highly “suspect” for men to hate women, ironically), are Frat boys who are known for partaking in suspect behaviors. The Democratic Party is no way “catering” to femininity. Just speaking nonsense.

identifying as a republican =/= voting republican.

 

[smedroc]

Oh nice. Guess that will be the first thing to be addressed after the election.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

If the idea that somebody besides straight white men get a fair shake offends your masculinity then you have bigger issues. Also there’s nothing masculine about being a cheerleader for a fat, old, draft dodging man who wears makeup and fake hair If Trump was some roided up former NFL player, I could see the correlation but nah, people just want someone who represents their racism, sexism and homophobia.

you can say this, and I might agree, but the voters don't seem to agree.

and they get to decide.

if you omit men from your party messaging is it really that surprising that some might conclude that you don't really care that much about their interests?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Also because the media is disproportionally center left they share the same reticence to mention men as and interests group.


take student loan debt relief. its a policy that disproportionately benefits women, the media constantly signal boosted that aspect of the bill.

Spoiler: more headlines

meanwhile the infrastructure bill, I couldn't really find too many headlines talking about how this is going to help non college educated men.,
but in the first page I found....

if gender is over taking race as the biggest wedge in the electorate
the democratic party, and dem aligned media institutions are going to have to find a way to talk about men's interests.

 

[Public Enemy]

I'm only half way through this but it's very thought provoking, and in some ways I hadn't thought about and thought through. Very good so far, 33 minutes in.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

What policies are Republicans putting in place that appeal to young men?

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I'm only half way through this but it's very thought provoking, and in some ways I hadn't thought about and thought through. Very good so far, 33 minutes in.

listening to his interviews on this book, it feels like when conservatives complain about the "mainstream media" and ignore the fact that fox news is the biggest cable news channel, Daily Wire is the biggest political news website, on facebook Elon Musk owns twitter ect.


this idea that there is a shortage of "isreal is bad content" I think true maybe a few years ago.

It's def not true today.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

What policies are Republicans putting in place that appeal to young men?

they are are making cultural appeals, not policy appeals,

hence the appearances on Theo Von, Adin Ross, Flagrant Podcast, Nelk boys ect...

 

[Cashflow]

 

[05fordgt]

Had to get gas at B J's Wholesale ($2.99 in PA is CHEAP) and passed the Oaks convention center as they are next to each other. Looks like they didn't have the restrooms inside open to the rally attendees as there were a line of these outside!

I should have drove by after it was over last night to see how much garbage was left behind. They don't have this many portapots together in the parking lot for Eagles games and they get 67K per game. So I'm guessing they had the inside restrooms locked?

 

[MakeNTGreatAgain]

Oh nice. Guess that will be the first thing to be addressed after the election.

better than nothing

 

[IATT]