Why are Men Leaving the Democrat Party?
Democrats set out to study young men
A widely mocked project to get under the hood about why Democrats are losing young men has sobering results.
The Democrats trying to understand young American men know people are roasting their plan.
All that mocking just proves their point, they said: Democrats aren’t taking this disaffected and politically alienated voting bloc seriously enough.
The group has a two-year, $20 million budget to study young men and how Democrats can reach them. The results of an initial round of research shared exclusively with POLITICO — including 30 focus groups and a national media consumption survey — found many young men believe that “neither party has our back,” as one Black man from Georgia said in a focus group. Participants described the Democratic Party as overly-scripted and cautious, while Republicans are seen as confident and unafraid to offend.
“Democrats are seen as weak, whereas Republicans are seen as strong,” Hogue said. “Young men also spoke of being invisible to the Democratic coalition, and so you’ve got this weak problem and then you’ve got this, ‘I don’t think they care about me’ problem, and I think the combination is kind of a killer.”
The SAM project — which turned into a punchline for liberals and conservatives alike — is pitching itself to donors and officials as a hub for research, paid advertising and influencer outreach that’s focused on young men, a once-critical part of the Democratic coalition that they lost to President Donald Trump in 2024. The group was founded by Hogue, the former president of NARAL; John Della Volpe, a pollster who specializes in Gen Z voters; and former Texas Rep. Colin Allred, who unsuccessfully ran for Senate last year.
The focus groups found that young men feel they are in crisis: stressed, ashamed and confused over what it means to be a man in 2025. They vented about conflicting cultural messages of masculinity that put them in a “no-win situation around the meaning of ‘a man,’” according to the SAM project memo.
Young men’s feelings of crisis are connected to their exodus from the party, SAM’s research suggests. SAM’s national survey found that just 27 percent of young men viewed the Democratic Party positively, while 43 percent of them viewed the Republican Party favorably. The polling sample included 23 percent self-described Democrats, 28 percent Republicans and 36 percent independents.
In last year’s presidential election, the gender gap leapt to 13 percentage points nationally, up from 9 percentage points in 2020, the Democratic firm Catalist found in its final 2024 analysis that men’s support for Kamala Harris dropped by 6 points, winning just 42 percent of men — the lowest on record in recent elections.
That gap became even more pronounced among 18- and 29-year-olds. Just 46 percent of young men voted for Harris in 2024. The losses tracked across every racial group, and the most pronounced hemorrhaging came among Latinos and Black men.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/0 … y-00384370The focus groups found that young men feel they are in crisis: stressed, ashamed and confused over what it means to be a man in 2025. They vented about conflicting cultural messages of masculinity that put them in a “no-win situation around the meaning of ‘a man,’” according to the SAM project memo.
Have young men become so insecure that they let a rag topped coward define masculinity for them.
———
They described how the Covid pandemic left them isolated and socially disconnected. They also said they now feel overwhelmed by economic anxiety, making “traditional milestones,” like buying a home or saving for kids’ college, “feel impossible,” an analysis of the research said.
Yes, and they expect a foppish billionaire to really be concerned about these issues while he just lines the pockets of his wealthy constituency. Harris offered more concrete proposals, Trump just talks…..
======
Those challenges for Democrats echoed through the focus groups. An Asian American professional described Democrats as embracing “the fluid masculinity of being, like, empathetic and sensitive,” while “Republicans are more like, the traditional masculinity of a provider, strong, and the machismo type.”
It’s all bullsh!t, its an illusion that is contrary to life in the real world, where “me Tarzan and you Jane” wont do anymore…. There is more to being a “man” than the macho reflex. Experience and intelligence is in short supply among those men that are in anxiety regarding such matters and looking for a racist, misogynistic and corrupt Republican Party for an answer?"...looking for a racist, misogynistic and corrupt Republican Party..."
I mean, they'd gladly stick with the Democrats if they didn't feel like it was lose lose.
A narrow view of the problem you have nonetheless.
Do you see a craving for a return to racism? It's actually a craving for the familiar, one which every human and animal since the inception of history and beyond can relate to. We all desire to be surrounded by those familiar to us, even animals, it's nature's way of telling you that you're safe and racism is a product of societal constructs acting against that nature.
Do you see a desire for a return to the wife-beating times of not long ago? It's actually a desire to re-stigmatize hedonism in its public form. Young men are tired of feeling like they have to shut up and settle as women call for them to do more, be more, and provide more in a dying economy and crumbling social ecosystem that no longer serves them. The young males pandered to the matriarchy at the shrieking demand of those aging out of the markets, and they are now realizing it was a mistake to bend the knee even if only for show.
As for corruption, we can point fingers in all directions. Bring back the days of the guillotine, drag lawmakers, lobbyists, CEOs, and politicians into the street, the youth don't really care what happens so long as those causing the suffering are made to suffer tenfold. Can't say I support such sentiments, but I can't say there isn't something satisfying about seeing a CEO get Luigi'd in an act of misguided altruism and desperation.
From my perspective, the democrats have spent so much time, money, and effort toward putting square pegs in round holes that the youth have grown tired of paying the highest physical, spiritual, and emotional expenses at the party's behest. The male youth want purpose, a future that serves them and their chosen communities, something that drives them to get up and be the provider, be the strong one, and be the foundation of society the democrats continue to chip away at and claim is progress as reality pushes back against them harder.
You can sit and focus on extremist ideas of the loud, marginal minority all you want, but the majority are showing you with their actions and reactions that the democratic party is now being widely perceived as the same enemy they claim to be fighting.
It's been long past due that the democratic party actively shifts their presentation of their agenda, even if the shift is purely symbolic to placate the violently passionate youth of today.
Have one of my favorite quotes that perfectly reflects the mental state of the male youth in America today on all sides:
"Man wants chaos. In fact, he's got to have it. Depression, strife, riots, murder. All this dread.
We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it.
Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies; but we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no!
Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers.
And they haven't given us any other options outside the occasional, purely symbolic, participatory act of voting.
'You want the puppet on the right, or the puppet on the left?'
I feel the time has come to project my own inadequacies and dissatisfaction into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes.
Let my own lack of a voice be heard.
[douses himself in gasoline and sets himself on fire]"
Something to think on. The youth will no longer pretend you're on their side just because you wrap a pretty bow around, "Don't worry, we have your best interests in mind," as nearly every aspect of their living reality becomes harsher and more unforgiving.
First step, take the concerns seriously and in earnest, or deal with the consequences of caging wild animals within a prison of ulterior agendas and misguided shaming.
Tl,dr: "Get with the times, or get in your grave, old man."Well, Kyler would supporting Trump and MAGA be a win-win?
Yes, I do see racism being promoted at the highest levels of government in a way never presented within the recent past, at least during my lifetime. It is natural for a craving for the familiar but at one time, that meant lynchings systematic government racism, etc. Does the craving for the familiar mean tormenting others who are different? A peaceful harmonious society requires respect for diversity and its acceptance as it is here and around much of the globe. That means not succumbing to animal instincts but using the reason only people have to get over petty prejudices and insecurities about people who do not look like you.
So who is responsible for the dying economy? The causes go well back before Biden and the Democrats. Trump says that he will bring back industries and business that have vacated America long ago on a simple capitalist principle. So, this old man, is aware that change is inevitable and natural and if that change points in the direction of giving any and all people more options and choices in life, then I am all for it. It is these “young men” that feel more comfortable with the values of an era that is gone for good. I am not “going back” without a fight even if it destroys the country. For, people that do and believe such things are not my people and when America’s vaunted credo is no longer valid, it does not deserve to continue.
Yes, I am part of that loud minority that will never again be subjected to chains without endless struggle that will eventually bring down the curtain. How are women making more demands of these young men, besides asking for the right to be more autonomous and independent?
So, what is MaGa and the Republicans offering as an alternative? Why should the Democratic Party take seriously clearly right wing and regressive voices, we will simply have to outvote such people and attitudes. You are as strong as you believe that you are, what happened to that self confidence?
How is it that young men are paying the “price” physically, spiritually and emotionally and why is that the Democrats fault? How is Trump going to fix this? Why should young men be the foundation of society, it used to be just white men. Why does your need for hegemony mean everybody else has to be under your foot? Who is going to allow that?
The anxiety of these young people will drive them insane and they will see them to their grave far earlier than I.
So what are the evils for these young men, that they can no longer claim unearned hegemony over everyone else? Do they prefer tyranny as long as they can retain some sort of unearned status? I am going to resist that as well as increasing numbers realize what this class wants.
Life is relative good and bad. The trends that these young men whine about has been in the making for the last 50 years, so who is going to allow a return to the mores and life of the period before?
Sorry, Kyler, these men want a zero sum outcome and it will not be tolerated in today’s world. Republicans are offering these misguided souls something that is simply no longer attainable and while Trump claims he can restore it, you can’t turn back a clock without breaking it. So, do they want to break the clock?At this point, supporting either side is just choosing what type of losing future they want, at least that's how my many peers and I see it.
As for acceptance and diversity, I don't think racism exists as a wide practice among the plebs anymore. It exists as a craving for the familiar, and governments of all levels and sides capitalize on that desire by amplifying racist sentiment intentionally. From my perspective, in my communities, people only become enraged when the government is grandstanding on identitarian issues that could otherwise be framed in a less, "divide and conquer," modality.
I see the economic collapse as a bipartisan endeavor, one brought about by our government being dictated by the global elite in the absence of fundamental collective altruism. That isn't to say a government with a strong sense of fundamental altruism would be any more successful than what we have now, only to touch on the age old adage that it's easier to sleep at night if you have sound moral principle that promotes the collective good. With layoffs skyrocketing, middle class becoming non-existent, taxes increasing, living expenses inflating, etc. all while the wealth gap grows exponentially with every new crisis, the youth would rather dissociate than participate at their expense and the benefit of those causing the problems.
As for women making more demands of young men, perhaps they aren't but that is the sentiment being pushed on young men, and I personally feel nothing has changed with women other than receiving more rights and countless platforms to endlessly utilize those rights. I think that lack of positive change for young men is where the real concern lies. Men are consistently asked to adapt, be the man, remain masculine, stay in touch with the feminine, adopt new perceptions, etc. while female rigidity and stubbornness is celebrated and encouraged. It's demoralizing for a young man in this age to see so much support for seemingly everyone and everything but him, and this is the widely expressed sentiment from male youth. (mind you I'm speaking to the youth narratives, not my own)
As for self-confidence, I think young men widely go from left to right due to seeing any tactic they use to change their party for the better on the left as hopeless due to their focus on women and otherwise aberrant behavior. Within the right, I've more often found that if I'm the strongest, can present my argument the most sound, and get enough voices to regurgitate my own sentiments, then even falsities can become the narrative pushed as truth. The right is known among clinical psychology practitioners to be the most gullible due to their respective naive moral senses of compassion as a collective, and I think young men with great zeal don't just find themselves faster within the right, but thriving and growing beyond their naivete and finding a community foundation that won't necessarily shame them for playing with ideas outside of the box like racism, sexism, misogyny/misandry, etc. I find more often the right will disagree with you and say, "Fuck you, now have a beer and shut up," while the left will burn you at the stake for minor deviations, speaking collectively of course.
You already know I'm less partisan, I don't support Trump as this savior figure, simply a figurehead for our chosen political party. I don't think Trump has any answers to any of these questions, because I don't think he has earnestly thought about the male youth outside of how to get them to enlist in the military faster, which credit should be given to his advisers and not him on that one. As for young men paying the highest prices for these changes I'll try to keep it a little bit more concise:
-Incel pandemic (we've discussed this, it's a broad issue given a simple name)
-Divorce-rape and child support (new colloquialism for unfair laws favoring women in court, often under archaic methodology that no longer applies in modern times)
-Hedonism in all of its forms leading to what is seen as moral decay and death of the family
-Loss of identity (identitarian politics purposefully excluding and shaming people based on identity, whites being a primary victim now with the script being flipped as opposed to eliminated for diversity, equity, and inclusion)
-Loss of community (no attempt being made to assimilate foreign immigrants,but every attempt made to shame anyone who wishes for assimilation and unity, among other things like identity politics)
-Traditionalism being viewed as oppressive (young men have checked out as a majority from dating due to shaming of the nuclear family)
-Social agendas that overwhelmingly favor everyone but young men at the personal, professional, and government levels
-Constant anti-male propaganda on social media, especially if you discuss the topic frequently
-Shaming, relentless shaming and cancellation for anything that dares push back in favor of young men
-Exclusion from college campus events and organizations based on male identity while open discrimination is okay from the opposition
-Women are illogically supported as both empowered and victimized simultaneously, and thus no long-term growth that promotes the male/female dynamic occurs at any meaningful level
-Women insisting upon occupying and being made to occupy male spaces that they claim they could do better within despite action and reaction showing otherwise
-Undermining of age-old wisdom and science concerning gender/sex/roles/etc. leading to a loss of identity at the interpersonal level and leading to aberrant behaviors
-No strong, masculine leadership at any level of society outside of marginal examples, and the left being so out of touch they have to establish entire think-tanks to resurrect young men in their party, then shaming their own party for their findings and efforts
I believe the crux of the issue is feeling discriminated against, powerless, helpless, and as if violence is the only way to be heard. Yes, they prefer tyranny to what we currently have so long as it favors their identity in image, but much more so they prefer chaos where they can pave the way for themselves as opposed to a restructuring of the social infrastructure that obviously does not wish to hear their input and desires unless it keeps to the status quo. In my experience, this is the modality of western politics right now, and it's getting worse because authoritarianism (the use of forceful/force tactics such as shaming, degradation, targeted litigation/judicial action) is seen as the only solution.
Absolutely, they want to break the clock, break society, and make everyone feel the pain they felt, because it is as you say: They will not be tolerated in today's world.
That very sentiment is what the youth see you fighting against for certain groups, and railing for as it concerns others. It's a problem the left is targeted for specifically and ad nauseam.
They will bring the pendulum to shift in their favor, or like so many times throughout history they will simply break the pendulum.
As for why this is the deomocrats' fault, it isn't solely, they're just an extremely easy target because they lead the charge in all of the misguided, most-oft racist/sexist/anti-nationalist/anti-family/anti-traditionalism/etc. endeavors we endure in society today. The right and left exist to balance one another, and I think we're quite near to falling right on our collective asses.
If you want to listen to an excellent, scholarly conversation on anti-racism and why the left is an easy target, among other things, here you go. It's a superb stepping stone into the perception of the right. As well, if you choose to branch out, I'd ask you compare some of the top liberal scholars to this now-rightwing scholar, take notice of the diction and presentation, and listen in earnest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzzxBqW6TM0&t=878s
Also, we may not agree on many things, but I hope ya know I deeply respect your passion for your side of the aisle. I don't actually want ya in your grave, if anything I want you on my side of the aisle, or at least somewhere we can stand in the middle and yell at people.Most intriguing, Kyler, your candor is appreciated. It is hard to get straight answers from conservatives regarding these things.
To objectify a bit:
“White Americans hold a disproportionately large share of the nation's wealth, with White households holding 84.1% of total family wealth in the second quarter of 2024. While White households make up 65.9% of the total, this means they own 28% more wealth than their representation in the U.S. might suggest.”
So, who is really the “underdog” here?
In reply to your first paragraph, Trump and his followers amplify racism intentionally for political gains and that is not going to play well, ultimately. We are obviously having problems with plebs are they are the ones making all of the fuss. The very story of America is the one about identitarian issues, maintaining an unjustified advantage of one group over another through bigotry and exclusion that was only rectified at the bang of the gavel, or the point of a bayonet. So, the victim or underdog gets an opportunity to come up for air, is that a bad thing?
Second paragraph
Economic collapse is bipartisan so the only reason that the young men cling to Trump and the Right is because that they merely tell them what they want to hear? But, just being told what these young men want to hear does not really address the issue at hand and its cause, does it? How is altruism defined, is it not concern for the needs of others and isnt it the antonym of selfishness?
“With layoffs skyrocketing, middle class becoming non-existent, taxes increasing, living expenses inflating, etc. all while the wealth gap grows exponentially with every new crisis, the youth would rather dissociate than participate at their expense and the benefit of those causing the problems.”
So what and who is the cause of all this? The capitalist system that the conservative extols creates this and perpetuate its continuation and its exacerbation. So why is breaking the clock associated with supporting Trump as his only solution is more mumbo-jumbo?
Third paragraph
How are democrats focused on women? The struggle for reproductive rights is not a reasonable focus on and for women? Women make up half of the population. It seems to me that the issue is that of women receiving parity within society and not just getting “more rights” at the expense of men. Funny the rabid right wing use to say the same thing about the black community at one time, “too many rights”. The same old song has a repeated refrain. Is it not better to get beyond immaturity and naivety rather than rally around it as Republicans want them to do. Yes, men have been asked to adapt, but do they not basically run the planet and haven’t they always? Maybe, that is the clock that needs to be broken? Playing with ideas “outside the box” is playing with me and my struggle (old black guys) for parity within the society. So, it may well prove be dangerous, such as opening a Pandora’s box. What could result would be pandaemonium that would make the 1960s look like a folk dance in comparison. Promoting biases instead of challenging them is not the answer.
Fourth paragraph
Yes, I am partisan because one party is far more in line with my values than the other and I am not ashamed to admit that. So, if Trump is not helping, is he really any better? Ok, where there is unfairness in how domestic related court issues are handled, it is a logical area to take offense.
Does Trump give the young men hope that these advantages that women have had for so long will be addressed? Is hedonism a new concept? What does maintaining family values mean and why are young men banking on the idea, is it supposed to give them an advantage? I don’t see any attack on those immigrants that choose to assimilate. What unity is desired is being undermined daily by Trump and the mileau that he promotes, using the same racist attacks and identity politics that his crowd supposedly abhors.
Social agendas that favors anyone else besides young men, are these the same guys that complain that they have difficulty getting dates. Speaking with a on the street lady in a passing conversation, she told me that “traditional” minded men discount their identity and their aspirations in life, and as a result would be a poor fit. What is it that these young men want to push back to? The new dynamic is mutual respect and rights and where that is not found, it should be corrected. I have always advocated that women should not be excluded from the requirement to register for selective service. So, fair is fair.
Paragraph 5
Like I said, the complaints of young men is the desire for a “zero sum” outcome, I win, you lose. Chaos and tyranny will decimate society and what they hope to accomplish will become mere gossamer in their hands. It not a matter of “they” being tolerated, it is the idea that one group is allowed to take hegemony over another based solely on who they believe they are.
Instead of looking for easy targets and scapegoats, why not zero on the bullseyes as to the true reasons why young men believe that they are displaced todayYou make a lot of references to support for Trump, and I'm not the guy to ask those specific questions to. My fundamental belief on politicians, "Fuck them, don't trust them, fight them, send them mail and missives criticizing their poor choices and expressing constructive alternatives, make them afraid to act against the people's interests."
I'd sooner revolutionize and be an extremist against politicians than throw in my support for any of them. They don't gain their seats by merit, but by bribery, sycophancy, and nepotism. They're scum, the lot of them, regardless of the good works they do, this is the toll to be paid for being a politician. The people are better directly served by community members, and I'd argue that most, "great," politicians would have far more impact within those community roles than in service of the nation as a whole.
“White Americans hold a disproportionately large share of the nation's wealth, with White households holding 84.1% of total family wealth in the second quarter of 2024. While White households make up 65.9% of the total, this means they own 28% more wealth than their representation in the U.S. might suggest.”
The plebs of all parties and dispositions have recognized that whites profited off of slavery, and I challenge you to find one pleb who isn't concerned with the actions of our ancestors at their roots. No one is arguing this point, but the left will often touch back on things so far beyond modern man's control that the major point of, "we all need to move forward together," devolves into, "Alright, if I'm guilty of my ancestors' crimes, then I guess I also want to imbibe of their actions' boons too."
Double-edged sword that one, because on one side you have this altruistic desire to be equal in fair wealth, and on the other you have a desire from everyone to right every wrong possible. Thus, conflict arises, and the middle ground becomes no-man's land. Needs to be non-partisan, and politicians need to stop using racism in both directions so that people have leaders to stand staunchly behind and create that middle ground.
As for the solution to economic woes, you're going to see, "eat the rich," continuing to come to life. Class wars, revolution, social turmoil... Capitalism, or in less newspeak terms the free market, or any solution to the problem always results in a disproportionate hording of resources by a specific class. This is the way of things, and any solution implemented will have the same results. It's a sad sentiment to embrace, but history says this is the way. No side wins, the wealth simply redistributes, and I blame human nature for this.
Democrats are focused on any minority they can raise beyond their current levels, that's literally your tagline. However, I'd argue the resistance to it is because of two things: Propaganda/psychological warfare, and results often going against the best interests of individual communities that form the collective that is the USA. We regularly forget that many of the left's social initiatives promote foreign incursion on our soil, and just to give a specific example we have a porous border allowing in foreign state-sponsored agents en masse. The right, at least in appearance, hates how broad the left's strokes are.
As for degrading the identity of women, I agree. Keep in mind you have impressionable young minds being bombarded by propaganda both domestic and foreign on the matter on a second-to-second basis. This is relatively new with the inception of social media and everyone's constant connectivity to it. You'll see this change for the better as the necessary male leaders establish roots, and it is a slow, arduous, painful process that we can work together on. It's a social disease that has a cure if we can truly make it non-partisan. The cure being fairness, representation, and middle grounds where we can all be heard as individuals, and I think that comes with community leaders as opposed to grandstanding, dickhead politicians.
I agree with Trump being an absolute cunt, everyone sees it and either openly or secretly agrees. Another social disease with a cure of non-partisanship on the topic. As for what men want to push back to, the American dream, of course. We want the nuclear family, we want a staunch culture that promotes the American dream for all, we want non-partisanship as a collective community value, and we want the government to support Americans as much as they support foreign wars and agendas. We want a return to a non-partisan nationalism, a sense of security in our social lives, and an unfounded sense of American unity where we can all thrive together.
Yes, currently young males have chosen to bomb IVF clinics, commit mass shootings, rob, rape, murder at an increasing rate... All the while they cry for help and are told they are whining, not being man enough, and just generally being dismissed. Throughout history we see that this repeats over and over, and still people will sit and ask, "WTF, bro?"
Just some examples of this:
"1. Rebellions in the United States:
New York City Draft Riots (1863): Hundreds of young men protested the federal draft lottery, initiating a violent uprising in New York City.
Civil Rights Movement: Youth, including young men, played a vital role in various aspects of the movement, from sit-ins to Freedom Rides and voter registration drives, with groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) being instrumental in organizing these efforts.
Vietnam War Protests: Young men were at the forefront of anti-war protests, driven by their potential for being drafted and their inspiration from the civil rights movement.
2. Rebellions in the American Colonies:
Stono Rebellion (1739): This was the largest slave revolt in the 13 colonies, and while accounts mention "dozens of enslaved men" who participated in the rebellion, the specific age of the leader, Jemmy, is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
Nat Turner's Rebellion (1831): Nat Turner, a young man who believed he was chosen by God to free his people, led this impactful revolt in Virginia.
3. Other Notable Cases:
Standing Rock Standoff (2016): What began as a protest led by a teenage group evolved into a larger movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline, involving young individuals like Jasilyn Charger.
Newsboys' Strike (1899): Thousands of young newsboys, some as young as seven, went on strike to protest against newspaper moguls.
Taos Pueblo Revolt (1680): While not explicitly stated as led by young men, the Pueblo Revolt involved a coalition of Pueblo peoples rebelling against Spanish rule in New Mexico."
Piss off the young males, and they will be sure you get your dues in return. This is the way of man. Railing against it, being partisan, dismissing them with cruelty and shame... You're gonna feel the wrath as those before us did.
You want to be heard, I want to be heard, they want to be heard. Fuck the politicians, fuck this society, and fuck anyone who stands in the way of true progress. We all deserve a voice, and right now the elites have chosen to continue down their path at all of our expenses. Still, it starts with the plebs seeing through the veils they cast over our eyes.
These are the sentiments of the youth, the drivers of the future, and we should pay heed to their warnings.As for politicians, what do these fellows think that Trump and his cabal are?
If anarchy is their goal, we can have a post-apocalyptic America or a Mad Max system akin to a Wild West scenario, ask them if they really prefer that?
Government is a positive good as long as corrupt elements are eliminated or kept to a minimum. We cannot eliminate all of the negative implications associated with human nature, as corrupt politicians are not a new concept. Wealth and affluent people corrupt politics and it was the conservatives that support this as “free speech”
“The plebs of all parties and dispositions have recognized that whites profited off of slavery,”
I don’t think that the Republicans party or conservatives in general know or appreciate that point. I am realistic and fair in regarding that I wont hold people living today for something that happened so long ago. But progress has been made to correct the disadvantages faced by the progeny of slaves at great cost and I just ask these young men to not revert on that and that is what Trump and his “ideology” represents.
Conservatives also like to distort information, equality of opportunity is different from equality of outcomes. We cannot fix what was broken in the past, but there is no reason to create impediments here and now.
Capitalism, by its very nature, is exploitive, so there needs to be brakes on just how much those with the most dollars can control the society and rest of us. In other words, I resist giving that specific class unlimited power and caprice. Our government should take it upon itself to prevent that. I have a pen pal or two in Britain, they say that while they have their wealthy, they are not allowed to have inordinate influence on how the government is run. Conservatives negatively refer to what I consider superior, socialism, I say that that is far better. But again, that is another perspective and point of view to be discussed later.
Extreme and continued inequity is the stuff from which revolutions are made. And it may occur here. This talk about the left encouraging incursion on American soil by aliens is more bullshyte. Instead of looking at the supply, how about the demand, how are those that hire people that are undocumented punished? Ask Trump about the Mexican gardeners he hired on his place?
I ask that the impressional “Young minds” to start thinking rationally instead. What is the motive of those that initiate the propaganda against women? Is it just another power grab in disguise? It is a problem that both male and female leaders need work upon with the goal of fairness for all. And it is not non-partisan as Republicans has stood in the forefront of resisting women’s rights. Republican legislatures in red states attempting to undo the outcome of ballot issues, plebiscites that explicitly supported women’s reproductive rights and options. You talk about “community” these legislators forget who they work for and believe that they are a power to themselves and not accountable to the people that elected them. That is a Republican, conservative phenomenon. I wont negotiate with that kind of attitude.
Yes, Trump is a C***, but these young men voted for him, regardless. I question the American Dream, it is as the late George Carlin once said “you have to be asleep to believe it.” There is little generational social mobility in this country. So, their dream is a fantasy. Non partisan will not be attainable for the foreseeable future as the differences between parties and ideologies are far too great for any chance that that chasm can be bridged. That is my opinion. We could probably say too much top down and too little bottom up.
On the cry for help, when minorities made the cry they were dismissed as thugs and whiners, why do the trials and tribulations of young (white) men prodigy of the richest and most powerful tribe in America seen as a national crisis?
Commenting on your “examples”
New York Draft riots of 1863
Rich man's war, poor man's fight":
The draft law allowed those who could afford it ($300) to avoid military service by hiring substitutes or paying a commutation fee. This created a perception of an unfair system where the wealthy could escape service while the working class was forced to fight.
Racial tensions:
Working-class Irish immigrants, who felt they were being forced to fight a war for the emancipation of African Americans, directed their anger towards African Americans. They feared that the war and emancipation would lead to an influx of black workers who would compete for their jobs.
Violence and destruction:
Rioters attacked draft offices, businesses, and homes, often targeting African Americans and the wealthy. They burned buildings, attacked police and soldiers, and engaged in widespread violence.
Colored Orphan Asylum:
A particularly brutal act of violence was the burning of the Colored Orphan Asylum, resulting in the near-destruction of the building, though all the children inside miraculously escape
There is the combination of the arrogance of wealth, capitalism and racism that we still deal with 160 years later.
———-
Newsboys' Strike (1899): Thousands of young newsboys, some as young as seven, went on strike to protest against newspaper moguls
Just so they could grow up and become the moguls themselves
——
I appreciate the power and passion of the youth, I was involved in various protests highlighting different issues during a different era. But, there were about liberating people and insuring rights, not taking them away.
So, what is true progress, who gets to define it? I know what it means for me and it may very well be in conflict with what these “young men” want. While I can wish that the “elite” go away, history says that is not likely. But responsible approaches tend to limit their power and influence on the rights belonging to the man in the street. I try to be patient and wait on evolutionary change until I realize that certain concepts and attitudes will not change and has to be ferreted out or otherwise made inert. Trump and Trumpism is just such a circumstance in my opinion.Just an encompassing note for the overall conversation: The male youth sees our future battle as one versus left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism. They see it all in extremes, and I don't think our leaders are doing enough in the way of being an example contrary to this widespread belief. If you want source on the claims, look into the studies done on the dark tetrad traits and their presence within their respective sides. Findings show that the dark tetrad traits are almost synonymous with left-wing authoritarianism, while marginal in right-wing authoritarianism, it's an interesting hole of knowledge to stumble through.
The youth prefer right-wing authoritarianism to the left, and anarchy where the left would otherwise win. At least this is the current dynamic being found in psychological studies.
As for how the youth view Trump as an individual, they hold him in the same contempt as every other politician and elite: They don't have their interests in mind, and there is no trust. As for anarchy, it isn't the pinnacle desire, but it hearkens to the idea, "I'd rather we all lose than have my enemies win."
If we don't want young men to revert to racism, sexism, misogyny/misandry, etc. we need to assist them with directed efforts toward reestablishing the male identity in society, or they will fight viciously to do it themselves: "If a boy is not building his blocks, he will destroy them."
You must also let them explore the concepts openly as much as you push the counterpoints, or else they'll see themselves as being caged into ulterior agendas. Every light must have its dark, every point a counterpoint. You cannot have true knowledge of good without that of evil, nor be peaceful without being violent, and those are the lessons the left seem to want to eliminate in favor of just good, and just moral. It bites you in the ass at every turn.
Another thing to keep in mind would be the left's constant use of unfalsifiable truths and virtue signaling, and those things are interchangeable most often. The right sees the morality of the left as being susceptible to letting the proverbial serpents into the garden both knowingly and unknowingly. The left will violently defend the minority at the expense of the majority, and the right responds equally violently. I will say, however, the right is too slow to act on most everything good or bad preferring to sit and deliberate endlessly, and that goes back to my comments about the parties existing to balance one another, and we are failing there slowly but increasingly surely.
As for the claims of superiority of anything on the European continent, I couldn't comment in any appropriate way. Their cultures, religions, systems, standards, it all conflicts with American culture, standards, etc. Personally, I find their government policies to be well beyond authoritarian as it concerns social structure, and authoritarian in a direction I just couldn't support. Immigration and responses to crime are the reason I haven't moved away from the USA, as we seemingly have the most functional social welfare integration systems in the world, if not a bit too ham-fisted in every other way.
As for the lack of repercussions on supply and demand in immigration, the left shames and cancels the right for discussing it so those speaking on it with a meaningful platform must water down their presentation. I don't know a single sane individual on the right who hasn't called for severe repercussions for anyone enabling these problems. The biggest issue being we get no medium by which to hold the government accountable outside of that oncoming revolution. Violence is already erupting in the streets more frequently over this very issue, I was involved in several violent displays just yesterday in Los Angeles.
As for your view of the gender wars, and most everything else, if you don't drop the partisan view then you lose the youth. The youth are widely non-partisan outside of participatory conversation with partisans. The youth do not trust either side, this has been concluded by the left and right, and simply throw in their vote and voice as appropriately as possible while seeing their future become more bleak. At the end of the day, both sides are silencing all sides where it may undermine some agenda, and partisan language is the fastest way to lose one of the two majorities or even both simultaneously.
I could copy/paste your sentiments and change it to criticize the left, and it'd garner the same level of recognition and support from the right that you'd get from the left. It's its own zero sum game.
For the voting for Trump, that's because the right promotes more exploration of the many facets of society within a frame of thought that allows for good and evil to be explored equally. Trump, Musk, Rogan, Peterson the rest of the big rightwing figures right now once closely identified with the left. You lost your most influential figures among the youth, and Trump capitalized on that. You don't want to play to the desires of the other side in a constructive way, then you lose the other side to those you see as enemies.
You hearken back to a time that no longer exists outside of marginal pockets, and on an individual basis in America as it concerns the cries of minorities. This is why the left is losing the minority votes to Republicans as well. You want to base this on identitarian politics and moral authority, the right simply wants to move forward from it in a heavily regulated, slow way that favors the pleb over the elite. At this point, the youth see this argument as a, "divide and conquer," tactic from the authoritarian left, and the right see this as a way to capitalize on their rigidity. The youth generally believe in a race-blind collective, and the elites continue to pour gasoline on the fires of racism that should be long-dead.
I get no less than twelve state-sponsored work emails per day reminding me that I have to support every race, culture, creed, etc. except my own. I've had to go to court on several occasions, sue, and be settled out over discrimination, retaliation, etc. all centered around identitarian politics I avoid like the plague otherwise. This may be a California thing, and being a government contractor, but it's widespread in the industries I occupy nonetheless and most of us (mostly non-whites except me) find it disgusting, deceitful, and divisive.
Definition of true progress: Less partisanship, better universal social welfare, less foreign support during a social and economic downturn at home, non-identitarian equity, assimilation of those immigrating en masse, coherent culture, and separate but equally heard voices with equal action taken toward positive outcomes at the state level. The youth see society fracturing further and further, and progress to them is either the new accelerationist movement (which is very attractive to the youth despite its destructive ends), or unity in the sense of pursuing the betterment of the lesser man (plebs).
I'll close this specific response out by saying you need to keep in mind that the propaganda we are all exposed to is tailored to us as individuals. The algorithms show us propaganda based on our input, and are intentionally tailored to show us equal parts echo chamber and triggering polar-opposite extremism. Someone wants us radicalized against one another, and I'm unconvinced it's organic in any way as are most of my peers and those fighting this absolute garbage. We can't let the partisan divide and conquer strategy continue to win, it's archaic and counterintuitive.
The youth are particularly susceptible to this divisive propaganda, as they are the primary overconsumers of digital/social media.
If we don't start meeting in the middle, being the necessary non-partisan voices, then the elite will continue us down their path at our expense and their gain. I'd rather have a veritable revolutionary war than a civil war, and I already find myself warring with my fellow Americans at the behest of the elite.
Here's an excellent conversation in the perspective of the right concerning how the left's identitarian politics is perceived:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpjdSbjVZbAI watched 1:15 of the video before I was pulled away. Thanks for helping me understand what the hulabaloo is all about. The question remains is what is a left wing authoritarian? Give me an example of left wing authoritarianism . Just because Soviet and Nazi have “Socialism” in its title, it is far from that. Most of Western Europe is a much better model, that is anything but “authoritarian”.
———
In Conclusion:
LWA is a complex and controversial concept. While some studies suggest that it is a real psychological tendency, others remain skeptical. The idea that liberals can exhibit rigid adherence to authority and aggressive behavior towards dissenters challenges traditional understandings of the left-wing political spectrum. Further research is needed to fully understand the nature, structure, and consequences of LWA.
———-
“I'd rather we all lose than have my enemies win."
I take that position as well as the good soldier that I am. So we have a Mexican standoff, I can only find solace in the fact that I won’t lose as much as the privilege classes. Let’s see who survives in post apocalyptic America.
I ask the young men to grow up and direct their ire to those that are directly responsible. Who is responsible for the increase in the cost of living that require women to work outside the home, when there was time and I was there when the male was the breadwinner and the women stayed home with the kids. Who except the most affluent families can operate that way today? Rather than burning down an orphanage or blaming minorities and women, why not have the courage to take on the system that is responsible?
Re-establish male identity? What does that mean? How far back in time do these courageous lads want to go where they will be satisfied that they have the overriding control that they believe that they have lost? I am very curious as to their answer. Do they believe that the rest of us are going to be content with their assessment?
Identitarian politics come from my minority group, for example, from shared experiences, where and when we were all identified in negative way and treated as such. We were deliberately excluded and we only had ourselves to rely on. And I understand that much of it was in the past, that is until now. I am not sitting where you are but if I were, I could easily share your complaint.
And what are the proverbial serpents that the right speaks of? Is it the rule of law, equal rights, civil rights, due process of law, freedom of religion or freedom from religion. On that basis, ask them to show me a left wing authoritarian government anywhere on earth.
These fellows need to realize that denying freedom of choice and autonomy rights to women shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but for the Right, it is what drives them.
‘For the voting for Trump, that's because the right promotes more exploration of the many facets of society within a frame of thought that allows for good and evil to be explored equally.”
My problem is that despotism, dictatorship in support of tyranny is not something I want to consider at all, it is a none starter, period. Do these apolitical men really believe that they are going to address their grievances in this way?
—-
“The youth generally believe in a race-blind collective, and the elites continue to pour gasoline on the fires of racism that should be long-dead.”
‘You want to base this on identitarian politics and moral authority, the right simply wants to move forward from it in a heavily regulated, slow way that favors the pleb over the elite.”
Trump is restoking those fires with his race baiting policies and attacks, so is it over, really or is it a herpes virus, just lying in wait for the opportunity to be symptomatic again?
So they really think that Trump gives a rats ass about the “man in the street”? Trump is the elite and his associates and cabinet members support that, so who is fooling who here? I think for example attacking health care affects the man in the street but not Trump and Musk. That is unless these young man want to do hari-Kari and don’t plan on getting old.
“Definition of true progress: Less partisanship, better universal social welfare, less foreign support during a social and economic downturn at home, non-identitarian equity, assimilation of those immigrating en masse, coherent culture, and separate but equally heard voices with equal action taken toward positive outcomes at the state level. The youth see society fracturing further and further, and progress to them is either the new accelerationist movement (which is very attractive to the youth despite its destructive ends), or unity in the sense of pursuing the betterment of the lesser man (plebs). “
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/w … erationism
So these young men are attracted to this movement yet on their other side of their mouths that want a race neutral society? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.
We are more stridently partisan than anytime in recent history and it started with the election of Obama in 2008. Compromise has been considered the equivalent of surrender, thus nothing gets done.
The option of unity in the sense of pursuing the betterment of the lesser man is the better of the two you presented. It is and always has been about the distribution of wealth and the wielding of the necessary power to keep it. That reality has never really changed since the founding of the republic. It is just now, that that attitude is celebrated as a positive good. The have vs have not issue continues to be the real target of everyone's discontent, and should be recognized as such.Authoritarian: Supporting or utilizing coercive methods of enforcement to achieve or maintain stated goals.
Key features of the authoritarian left and right:
-Mandated ideological conformity on ideological issues (e.g., speech codes, identity politics).
-Top-down control over private sectors to ensure redistribution or regulation in line with equity goals/lack thereof.
-Suppression of dissent against left/right-wing social or cultural norms, often in the name of harm reduction or inclusion/exclusion.
-Strong regulatory or bureaucratic enforcement of policies promoting social equity or environmental justice/regulating said things.
-Government-imposed restrictions on behaviors or expressions seen as undermining traditional values/promoting opposition to these (e.g., on immigration, gender roles, religion).
-Centralized enforcement of nationalistic or moral norms, often through law enforcement or surveillance.
-Suppression of dissent against culturally conservative/liberal or nationalist/diversity narratives.
-Use of state power to protect entrenched hierarchies or economic elites under the banner of law and order/eat the rich.
Both left and right authoritarianism use the same methods, but the presentations of the methods and goals they carry out vary.
If I really have to break things down by specific examples on each one of these, then we are screwed as far as brevity goes. I'm sure you could give an example from either side for each one without my input, and if you can't then I don't want to participate in a one-way conversation.
"Rather than burning down an orphanage or blaming minorities and women, why not have the courage to take on the system that is responsible?"
I think the wanton violence we see is the as of yet marginal example of where young men are heading, and what most wish to avoid. As for blaming women and minorities, I don't see this as a widespread sentiment, but the sentiment itself is a reframing by the left to silence through shame those who are speaking their concerns on the many things we mentioned. "Das rayciss," or, "Das sexiss," to put it obtusely, is a form of authoritarian left speech control.
That isn't to say the right doesn't have its own preferred speech that it enforces with authoritarian tactics, nor to say many of the individual claims aren't valid, only to point out how worthless the speech control is for both sides.
"Re-establish male identity? What does that mean? How far back in time do these courageous lads want to go where they will be satisfied that they have the overriding control that they believe that they have lost? I am very curious as to their answer. Do they believe that the rest of us are going to be content with their assessment?"
For decades we have had to sit back and watch as fourth-wave feminism tore apart the male identity, and I'm not convinced this wasn't the continuation of the process by which we established our current broken education system, lack of work-life balance, and free markets overall. As for what we can do specifically, I've already listed the concerns young men have. If those concerns aren't to your liking, continue to brush them off, I don't know how better to convey the sentiments unless you want to specifically break things down one at a time and each in detail.
"And what are the proverbial serpents that the right speaks of?"
Those who accurately represent the dark tetrad traits, and find themselves easily nestled within the ranks of the left. Another topic I'd have to break down within its own message, as it's too broad and if you don't see it already then I'd probably have to argue for each and every prominent individual being what they are. Excluding the elite, I find these individuals rampant among the pleb left: Groomers, authoritarians, criminals, etc.
"My problem is that despotism, dictatorship in support of tyranny is not something I want to consider at all, it is a none starter, period. Do these apolitical men really believe that they are going to address their grievances in this way?"
I've told you they do not trust either side, but they hate the left more than the right. It's a participatory, volunteer system to vote, not some actual tool to get what it is they really want. Young men know they are increasingly sidelined, young women are shifting back to the right, and our system will continue to chug on where it has been absent of violent revolution regardless of which side is in charge.
"Trump is restoking those fires with his race baiting policies and attacks, so is it over, really or is it a herpes virus, just lying in wait for the opportunity to be symptomatic again?"
It's a social disease, one the human race has carried and will always carry, but war and revolution has stopped it countless times. This is the answer the youth crave, and they're just waiting for a chance to enlist under leaders who will actually carry it out in defiance of the partisan control system.
"So they really think that Trump gives a rats ass about the 'man in the street?' Trump is the elite and his associates and cabinet members support that, so who is fooling who here? I think for example attacking health care affects the man in the street but not Trump and Musk. That is unless these young man want to do hari-Kari and don’t plan on getting old."
I'll repeat it again and again if you really need it: THE YOUTH DON'T TRUST EITHER SIDE.
Suicide rates are rising, two men every minute and rising. Yes, they increasingly wish to throw their lives away if it means an end to their suffering regardless of any philosophical stance on that sentiment.
The youth are attracted to accelerationism as a symptom of the left's idealogues using authoritarian means to try to control them, and no it isn't a white supremacist movement though they're a convenient scapegoat to shut down discourse. It isn't, "Gee, I sure do hate women, immigrants, minorities, etc." It is, "Jesus Christ, all I said was we should return to more traditional roles, redistribute wealth downward to the pleb, and stop letting in all these foreigners to suck our tax dollars away and threaten our sovereignty and somehow I'm a white supremacist, regressive Nazi, [insert left-driven buzzphrases and dog whistles here]?"
The left is the main driving force for the youth shifting right, and the elites are the main driving force of, "divide and conquer," narratives like the ones we have been discussing this entire time. The system runs so deep that participation feels like you either get along to go along with one of the two retarded sides, or you check out, dissociate, and accept the destructive path we are on.
The youth blames the elite for the division, and the youth blames the elite left most of all for the continued division. Authoritarian left influence figures are insufferable, so much so that you lost the level heads of that demographic to the right, and even still those who drifted away to favor the future regularly call for the left to shut up, listen, and correct course so they can safely identify with the left again. However, the left tries to cancel them with every measure of control they have, and thus you push the youth further and further.
We oughta cut this conversation down to one specific point at a time, or we are going to lose out on good conversation lolKyler, Thanks for the interesting exchange. But, if these young men want what I it has been explained that they want, this tradwife thing, it going to be Helter Skelter and the resistance to reverting back will tear this society apart. Women are not going back to whalebone corsets and I certainly wont revert to “black jobs’.
Expect resistance, a great deal of it. So, are we ready to party, yet…..We are already organized, out in force, and growing in support by the minute. The streets of LA and New York are just the beginning. The world will listen and act accordingly, or they will witness history repeat itself, perhaps even both.
The best I can say is that you have a narrow partisan view of the problems the youth are facing, one I don't wish to shame you for and readily accept as par for the course due to our disingenuous news sources amplifying extremist sentiments.
Personally, and speaking for my collective of minds and muscle, we will continue to strive to solve the issues we face collectively whether it be by way of discourse or destruction. Preferably, we all ceasefire and meet in the middle to continue productive discourse.
Too late, as discussed in another thread, the forcing of women into all places (legal) where men could be men... The Boy scouts... Special Forces military units...
Means they will join those forces detrimental to society... Anarchists... MC clubs... Cartels...
There is nothing else for them.
Society has done everything to erase them, their roles, their purpose... All that is left is for the economy to fail, and then look out... America might become the new Afghanistan.Yes, I know more individuals preparing for war than for peace talks. Both sides are hungry for blood. You can almost taste the bloodlust in the air now, and I wish I knew why the brakes on this train haven't been engaged.
I do have something that will help give you that answer:
https://youtu.be/-zoCpFfOH04?si=-tevQw6cd7n0jHM-
I think you have a similar depth of knowledge to work off of.... regarding history and technology...
If so what he only touches on here you can fill in with added detail... Helps give the big picture ... Helps make sense of it all.This video perfectly encapsulates my ideas around hierarchies and the necessary winner/loser dynamics. I appreciate the concise format and content.
Not going to lie, I became a bit aroused if you can forgive the jest, when they mentioned the 150 acres. I immediately turned to my girlfriend and asked her excitedly if she was ready to go claim our 150 acres.
However, this further solidifies what I was saying to Cred previously. Hierarchies are a must, and men/males have forever been the driving force of the innovation, evolution, and thus domination cycle. It's necessary, and provides more good than it does bad, and I think we are seeing the forced death of these hierarchies in favor of some contrived, incoherent amalgam of aberrant identities.
Even worse is we can no longer have clandestine movements like manifest destiny, so we are marching on one another.
Crazy times, truly.You are spot on and delivered it well in your reply to Credence.
The destruction of male roles will ultimately dissolve society and cohesiveness (social norms and hierarchal structure)...
Add this to an end to the current economic system... and a technological revolution that will allow the creation of genetically enhanced bio engineered humans ... Drones and Robots with advanced AI...
The elites will have god like abilities and power. The rest... well look at the poisons they are feeding the population today... Not just our bodies but minds as well, including the indoctrination expected in higher education.
Damn it, then find something to do that is constructive and not choose to act as animals….
There is no where acceptable/legal for those with "toxic masculinity" to go... those places for such young men have been destroyed or invaded by women along with the lowering of standards and the dismissal of brotherhood and cohesiveness such unnatural "progress" requires.
Then we will have to destroy the boy and his blocks if we backslide against racial progress….. We will all relish in a post apocalyptic America where they can find new places to play with their blocks.
Explain something to me, Cred:
Why does the left's compassion and zeal seem to draw the line at creating/preserving spaces and cultures centered around men/masculinity/dominance? This seems especially the case if it has anything to do with lighter-skinned folks.
I'd like a modern answer, one that takes into account that racism, sexism, classism, etc. are, as a strictly enforced western practice, social crimes these days. Unless you're an influential elite, you really can't get away with practicing racism, sexism, classism, etc. in your personal nor professional life.
Don't answer the question with more questions like, "What defines masculinity? Who is an example of masculinity?"
Just go with the left's narrative that individuals get to define themselves regardless of unspoken social contracts in society.
I just don't see many of the ideological boogeymen the left claims to be fighting except within the left itself. Take yourself for example, by my perceptions you'd be a boogeyman to me because you think young men are just whining when they seek to have their needs equally as valued as all of the left's other endeavors. You'd rather grab some popcorn and sit back while people cry for help, then inevitably fight back when they're pushed into a corner.
Perhaps you'd also have some insights on why the left's narratives take center stage so often, yet in my observations the people who are militantly pushing these things (like chemical castrations of prepubescent kids for the sake of gender transitions) are generally outcasts that even the majority of the left won't associate with outside of a few, "hopes and prayers," posts on social media to virtue signal. Most of society likes the altruism that the left is supposed to uphold, but the modern left comes off as this rabid, multicolor-haired, piercing-laden, gurgling monstrosity that no one can associate with anymore and still maintain any meaningful status in their personal lives.
I just don't understand why one group is less worthy of consideration and compassion than another. Even if the group in question doesn't get what they want, they're worthy of consideration and compassion as opposed to, "let's duke it out and winner will build on the smoldering rubble."
Even when the right is outwardly vocal about their disgust of leftist initiatives, the left still gets to shape the social fabric of society while the right molds it into coherency. I mean, that's literally the left's job. You guys go guns blazing, and the right makes sure you don't knock the guard rails too hard. Mommy Left, Daddy Right.
Why have the left and right come to a point where one spark in the powder keg means scorched earth? Where the hell did all this hypocritical shit on both sides come from? What's the damn solution?
The answers to these questions, I think, would provide a lot of clarity for everyone involved. By my observations, we've all engaged in this sociopolitical war at the behest of people we've never met, and who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. In fact, they're dumping gasoline, smoking cuban cigars, and diddling kids as we burn.Alright, Kyler, will attempt to address your question as honestly as I can.
I will dance around the masculinity issue as I don’t need to touch on that to address your comment.
Does the price of preserving that space involve taking space from others, it use to, you know?. The scale is being balanced from those who have had inordinate power and wealth within this society in favor of those who have not. That, not always based on merit but at the expense of others. I think that the idea is overdue. As for young men, it depends on what those needs are. Who gives anyone the right to dominate? My universe says that everyone is equal and within our short life spans should be able to do or be anything consistent with their ability and desire to succeed. That should not be subject to cultural or social norms, or unearned advantages given to the wealthy that hamstrings. The trad-wives today that these men seem to be craving or prefer, were the trad-blacks a century ago. My point is that this sort of thinking never seems to depart the conservative mindset. The underdog is usually going to get the most attention, and in this culture that certainly has not been white males. Heaven knows that when blacks fought back against systemic racism in America, we were accused of being “militant”. We did not fight for dominance but for equality. If someone has to be underfoot for these young men to be happy, we may end up with smoldering rubble.
I believe the current administration has been challenging the very existence of guard rails and chooses to ignore them in a way not seen before. If a belief in democracy, equal opportunity for all is guns blazing, then let them blaze. The right, in what you call coherency, is just basically retaining the status quo that extols the traditional relationships where the white male has been dominant. It is about control and power and that societal and cultural norm need to be challenged. So, they still are getting away with IT, because Trump is bringing it back. I have to question if there were any real intention of ever having it go away.
I don’t want my life or the lives of anyone circumscribed by the expectations of others as to what I can or cannot do on based on specious and superficial standards.
I don’t consider myself a monstrosity and it does not mean that I support every trend and everything that is going on. But, I wont throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Everyone is entitled to consideration, but when Trump talks about Anti-white racism, is that really true, when the vast majority of power and resources are controlled by whites, particular the males? In the face of that, how in a general observation are you adversely affected?
We are all so polarized now, I am pessimistic about a solution, the Right want to revert to a societal model that will not be acceptable in the modern world, fondly reminiscing over a past that can never come again. And if the left is looney as many say that they are over some of the more controversial gender things, well, OK. With my experiences, I trust the left over the right from an ideological sense and an understanding of history.
While the scoundrels can be found on all sides, all I have to do is look at the legislation and policies the rightwinger advocates to know that they support the desires and objectives of the wealthy and powerful and will fight to the death to maintain it. The democrats while hardly innocent particularely our accomodationalists with the Trump regime is still a vast improvement, in my humble opinion.
It is not necessarily partisan it is the endless struggle between the have and have not, I want a more equitable balance as wealth disparity is more evident in America than in much of developed world.I think the biggest concern on the right, the modern non-elite right, the majority, is that the roles aren't shifting to equality, equity, inclusion, etc. In my broader personal life, the role of oppressor and oppressed are being reversed as opposed to ironed out. This is where the extremism is coming from, and I don't believe for a second that it is any more organic than if we were all attached to strings like marionettes. Hell, I'd even go as far as saying outright that these social wars aren't a war of the people, we are simply the pieces being moved on the board, and the goal of the game is unspoken to us.
Young men will attempt to find respite among the social justice fervor on the left, but find themselves ousted on the grounds of their gender alone. This makes no sense to me, because the left is our, as you say, more reasonable and coherent party on such matters. So young men choose violence, domination, and generally unfavorable aggression like joining a gang because that's now the only space that will let them explore their natural behavior, even if that environment doesn't hone it to maturity before they end up incarcerated.
"Does the price of preserving that space involve taking space from others, it use to, you know?"
No not necessarily, however, that is the historical, biological imperative of males especially among one another. Everywhere a man goes, especially if among other males, hierarchies will be formed. We see it all throughout males of every species in nature: Monkey/chimp troops, lions, rats, elephants, wolves, deer, dolphins, chickens... human males are no different and this is actually balanced by the same competitive interaction with others. If you don't let males openly compete and dominate one another, the males become deranged and immature.
Take rats for example, the antisocial rat who is not permitted to play with other rats will always try to dominate those who play with it. However, the social rat who plays with a smaller rat will let the smaller rat win a minimum of 30% of the time so that the smaller rat will continue to play the game, and thus both get what they want. On the monkey/ape side of things, social hierarchies are extremely complex and filled with social norms that further mirror the winner/loser dynamic, and we see inclusivity play a huge role in resolving disputes even in the animal world.
I believe both sides have forgone inclusivity for the sake of identitarian politics, and everyone is trying to be the big antisocial rat dominating everyone. We can't all be the silverback gorilla, unless we accept that there must absolutely be losers who will weaken the silverback if kept around, and this path leads to total extinction of the troop as a whole. Personally, I prefer the idea of letting the losers win 30% or more of the time, but never weakening ourselves to let the losers lead the way unless the loser becomes the winner. By my observations, we are currently at the stage where our troop is full of losers breeding with the females in secret, and thus producing more losers.
These paradigms exist within females, but human females show high trait neuroticism within the big five traits, and so their dynamics typically get dominated within male fields by way of natural occurrence. This is why you get that whole trad-wife desire from males. A woman who tries to enforce her neuroticism on men will be stomped out, and end up the single, childless, cat lady with a laundry list of ex lovers who used her into worthlessness on the sexual market.
This isn't to say any one group is a loser simply by existing, but to point out the importance of establishing those proverbial hierarchical spaces for groups to maintain their identity, and in all walks of life those hierarchies are established and maintained by the strongest males. Females have been forced into male spaces, male spaces have been appropriated for women and weak males, and we are producing weak social bonds that do not create a strong, coherent collective. We are establishing the grounds for constant war on an ideological front, and in what may be the near future an actual war for control of the mangled identity of our society.
The left has their hearts in the right place, at least in image, but their methods are as divisive as the right's railing against it.
Life is and shall always be a series of wins and losses that determine how things roll forward, and young men as a majority know that they (as the main driver of the world and all of its innovations throughout history) need to maintain their hierarchies and spaces in which those hierarchies thrive. Sometimes it is necessary for daddy to step into the ring and bop everyone on the head, and enforce what is right, and mommy and daddy cannot both play that role.For those that actually control things, the big money people, we are all relative pawns on the chess board. From their standpoint, we are all expendable, we can get all macho and gear up for wars which in modern times uses hapless ones merely to preserve the wealth of others. One side of the ideological divide is more amenable to these ideas than the other, I remain on the “other” side. What do the Right want these alternate roles to shift to?
It is unfortunate that the young men cannot find solace with the left. I am a man is anatomically evident. Violence, aggression, dominance etc, has never been a part of my DNA, so who says that these traits are primal in men? As a kid, I have had to punch a couple of bullies in the nose as a defensive move, but I never had a desire to dominate others. So, I walk the talk…. We had the crips and bloods phenomenon in the Denver area during the late 1980s and early 1990s, working with some of the young men on my spare time, I ask them, what are you fighting about? You don’t own any territory, it all belongs to “the man”. So, you are killing yourselves, setting yourselves up for a life of incarceration or at a minimum wasting precious time. Are you not playing into his hand? It is true that only fools fight in a burning house.
There is nothing wrong with hierarchical structures as merit and the permission of those that are subject to it. It is not based on what one does or does not look like, or the timeless theme of “might makes right”. Such attitudes are the ones that will destroy life on this planet. Unlike all the animals that you mention, human being are unique with the ability to reason. Any peaceful civilization and coexistence are dependent upon cooperation and not competitive intimidation.
All women are not neurotic, we are human beings that have the ability to move beyond reflex and instinct. Women bring different sensibilities to the table. As with the Star Trek theme, I like me the way I am. Who wants to be part of a Borg type of collective? With changing times come new realities, physical strength was an attribute that has been replaced by technology. Physical strength is not rewarded in the same way, it is now about wealth and power by means of influence. Hypermasculinity is less than useless in such a milieu. With a changing standard, women are not necessarily at a disadvantage in the same way. If I were female, I would accept the cat lady designation over totally surrendering my personhood and independence. My independence is more important than getting into line with social or cultural mores.
If maintaining a hierarchical space for domineering men mean the rest of us have to bow head and bend knee, we are going to have problem. The ones on top have always to fear, looking behind them as there always will be a faster gun, referencing an old west analogy. People will not revert or conform so the war we all wanted to avoid will come through an upheaval in our society.
So, why have men been the main drivers, did they repress the abilities of women and non white men to participate? I have no regard or respect for that. I certainly wont give anyone the right to rule over me because of that."What do the Right want these alternate roles to shift to?"
I would say that the right wants that return to traditionalism, but not in the extreme that the left paints it out to be. Respectively, they want male and female spaces and roles to be upheld as a foundational principle, but to branch out as needed to correlate with modern social and economical standards. Essentially, we need to eliminate this destructive drive to blend every person into this equality and inclusion collective, and instead recognize that we CAN segregate people by their INDIVIDUAL value.
Females should not compete in male sports, and vice versa, though there are some who can and we already allow them into those spaces, no need to push for anything further. If anything, we should ensure biological men cannot compete in female spaces like sports, modeling, pageantry, etc. A man has already won woman of the year, and that to me is a sign of social, moral, and societal decay.
"Violence, aggression, dominance etc, has never been a part of my DNA, so who says that these traits are primal in men?"
I disagree with you on your perceptions of yourself. You go out of your way to express violent ideation, and a desire to fight for what you want and believe in. You are innately the perfect specimen for this very male evolutionary mindset. This is almost unique to males in every species.
You've even enacted violence upon those deserving, or at least those you viewed as deserving.
As for gangs fighting over territory, or even the human race doing so ad nauseam, this is just the way animals behave. We are animals, and we hone and mature this nature through fighting. If we don't hone and mature this part of us, it comes out in fucked up ways like school shootings, stabbings, murder in general, suicide, etc. It is unavoidable, and to suppress it is to create a monster more diabolical than any conqueror. Suppressing it creates the very, "toxic masculinity," the left brings into the conversation. Your OGs come off the streets wanting to teach the youth the lessons they learned through that crucible of violence, and the right would simply like to skip the hardships of that street lifestyle in favor of creating spaces for these young men who will otherwise end up dead or incarcerated.
"All women are not neurotic, we are human beings that have the ability to move beyond reflex and instinct. Women bring different sensibilities to the table."
If we have to stop to specify #NotAllWomen, #NotAllMen, every time we speak in generalities, then there isn't a mutual respect for each other's knowledge here. I know when you classify the right, or at least I want to believe this is the case, that you don't include the entire population and you're just simplifying the language. I hope you feel the same when I am generalizing. Women, as a whole, show higher trait neuroticism, and this plays into their roles as nurturers, and is a very important facet of womanhood. A woman who doesn't show higher trait neuroticism is an entirely different beast, and an outlier that would require a whole different line of dialogue to discuss.
The important thing you stated here was women bringing different sensibilities to the table, FUCK YES. That's the whole point of creating spaces for these diverse roles we inevitably play in society whether we want to or not. You and I would never make good mothers, though statistically we would produce better results than a single mother in the same role, and we have active efforts from the left to convince society that men and women can perform the same roles. It is asinine, and all data says we need to preserve spaces to ensure a future worth living in.
The right wants to conserve respective roles and spaces, and only once that is foundational do they want to branch out from that where relevant. By all appearances, the left wants to do away with roles and coherent identity, and that is the death of a coherent species. The right has given in time and time again, we have passed laws to strengthen DEI and all of its facets, and it has brought more vitriol and active violence upon society despite the many concessions and alterations.
"If maintaining a hierarchical space for domineering men mean the rest of us have to bow head and bend knee, we are going to have problem. "
No one is asking you to bow head and knee except the elites, the plebs of the right are asking that everyone stay the fuck out of their spaces, stop trying to include everyone, and let communities form their own identities and practices without outside interference. You want a place where girls and boys can compete "equally"? (just as a general example of something weird being pushed today, so when I say "you" I don't necessarily mean you personally) Good, go elsewhere and make that space for yourselves and stay away from us. If anyone from our camp bothers you about it, let us know and we will ask why they're even deigning to go near your camp. Equally, stay away from our camp, we don't want you here and I hope we can contact you when one of your troop comes and pokes at our infrastructure.
"So, why have men been the main drivers, did they repress the abilities of women and non white men to participate?"
Yes, but we have taken and continue to take extreme measures to ensure that doesn't continue as a mass, institutional practice. However, I will say that if someone is statistically less likely to succeed, most societal processes will exclude them for the sake of the collective, whatever that collective may be. Discrimination isn't a problem, it's a natural instinct to ensure survival and continuance of the species. Call out racism, sexism, etc. but don't act like opportunity isn't in wider abundance today for all peoples of the world than it ever has been in history.
One of the left's biggest issues is claiming strength while simultaneously claiming to be ever the victims. We are in the year of whoever's lord, 2025, and crying victim while facing the most technologically and economically advanced time in history is beyond comprehension. Sadly, I will say we seem to be living in the most culturally devoid time, and I think the left contributes to that cultural void far more than the right due to their desire to only practice enforced, "goodthink."
Men will continue to be the drivers, because our gender just is, our DNA is wired for this. We are built for war, debate, conflict, subjugation, etc. There have been and will continue to be outliers among the women, and they will fight their way through just as the men are, and they deserve no special treatment where their male counterparts are left to continue the drive, and that process is necessary to weed out the weak, not to oppress anyone specifically (except in outlying cases where oppression is exactly the goal, but doesn't really apply outside of politics and big business, and not at the lower levels the majority finds themselves in within our modern infrastructure.)
Competition, hierarchies, exclusion, discrimination, genetic differences, masculine/feminine roles/spaces, etc.: All necessary facets of a thriving society, and it is our job to maintain the foundation of society as we explore better options. Guns blazing isn't really the best option for such fragile expeditions into human behavior, and this is especially so when the most fragile of us are the ones blazing the hottest.Sorry kyler I wrote all of this stuff just to have it erased by accident.
I will get back with you
I will say this though for the last paragraph, all of the “facets of a thriving society as you define it has historically kicked me in the butt. So, I don’t trust conservatives or the party that most sympathizes with them, the Republicans.It's a different time, Cred. Not to say we couldn't easily fall back into old habits, but it certainly is on most everyone's minds to avoid repeating and amplifying those mistakes if at all possible.
Well thought out.
Your ability to articulate the problems, though allowing for more good intentions behind some of these efforts than I believe there is (ie our touching on Marxist feminism) is commendable.
I have long felt like a lone wolf trying to point these issues out... with the exception of a couple, like Gus, it has been like talking to a wall.You're certainly not alone, and the education of a broader audience on these things is increasing in pace. It's exciting to see these conversations being allowed to happen on college campuses again, and seeing the amount of young men and women who show up to hear them.
I have to hold out hope that your average man isn't the driving force behind these malicious movements, I'd go insane otherwise.
There's still time to turn it all around. Anything short of literal scorched earth leaves time to turn it around. Just have to do it one scholarly conversation at a time.Holding out hope... Requires facing the facts:
Boyscouts -
https://www.city-journal.org/article/gi … boy-scouts
Special Forces Units -
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2024/02/19 … fter-fact/
It's funny... We still acknowledge realities like age... 70 year olds shouldn't be asked to be Navy Seals or Firefighters... Are there a handful of 70 year olds capable of such?
That isn't really the right question... It's what is best for mission accomplishment and unit cohesion that should always be at the forefront of questions asked.
Same for things like the Boy Scouts... A safe haven for boys ... specifically designed to help better them and hopefully help them develop into good men.I almost escaped. Your links triggered so much 'confirmation bias' that I worried about hitting the reply button in such a state.
So I scrolled past.
And then I hit Cred's response.
He's right, my response is usually an "Amen brother."
GA
Because, Gus, or GA is in reality just as conservative and on the same plane of thought that you are, Ken.
Nah... he has blasted me in the past for being cavalier and not doing the digging for facts to support (or refute) my position.
Something a person who likes to stick to the truth, the facts, and being fair and impartial about things will do.
Does he have biases... we all do.
I am much more understanding of where you are coming from today, what your perception is, than I was when we started discussing things a decade or so ago.
I chose to become more aware.
I chose to disconnect from the vitriol and angst our Main Stream Media pumps out every single day... much of which is reliant on "unnamed sources" or outright fails a serious fact checking.
I don't see that in you... I see you clinging to Salon articles and CNN reports... which are presenting the most biased and agitative positions possible.
I don't need that in my life, what years I have left I am not going to allow others to dictate to me how I feel about things as much as I can.
That goes for BOTH sides... all sides... any particular group or religion...
I will state what I believe, and correct course when presented with information that counters what I perceive to be the truth... Gus is more of a fence sitter trying to be impartial... that you classify him as a conservative speaks more to how you have drifted to the extremes than him, or I.Of course you can state what you believe is the correct course of action, just as I have the prerogative to present my view as otherwise. One can get their genitalia ripped to shreds with too much fence sitting negotiation. Of course, GA is a conservative, he would not deny it. But, you have been on the extreme since we first encountered one another, like the absurd idea that Irish indentured servitude was the equivalent to African based slavery in this country. Once you scraped the bottom of all sorts of specious sources to support that, I understood where you actually were politically and that we would likely not have much in common. I can accept that our difference are unreconcilable in most matters of import these days, can you?
Since you brought that particular aspect up... regarding servitude and history... that too showed that you were not interested in seeing any other perspective than what you have set in stone, in your head.
While I... not knowing anything at all about servitude, went digging...
I saw how servitude was the primary means of getting people to America, with lies to some, while emptying out jails for others, or grabbing people off the streets in other cases... few came voluntarily to be servants... many died before ever completing their 'contract' and being freed.
This was before slavery became the main source of cheap labor... so, in other words, if you do some digging, you would see for the first hundred years or two of the colonization of America... there were hardly any slaves... the bulk of 'labor' were mostly forced indentured servants, who had a shit life... just like most people had a shit life hundreds of years ago.
Even kings... hundreds of years ago... did not live as well as a 'Middle Class' person in America does today, not close.
How they packed slaves into ships, was first perfected by learning how to pack indentured servants into ship holds, no space wasted.
As for slavery... it was world wide... people as far north as Iceland had to worry about slave ships setting shore and rounding them up... ever hear of the Barbary Pirates?
The Barbary slave trade involved the capture and selling of European slaves at slave markets in the largely independent Ottoman Barbary states (North Africa).
But hey... you keep being you and denying any part of history that doesn't support your victim and oppressor perception... that is what is needed to keep people believing in the BS slung by the Left these days.This is the generally accepted reality of the differences between the two systems, it is the one accepted by most historians, or do I have to demonstrate that as well? So, if you come up with an “off the wall” revision, what are your credentials to compete with the opinions of the mass majority of scholars in the field?
——-
While both indentured servitude and slavery were harsh systems of labor, slavery in America was generally more severe and brutal than indentured servitude. Indentured servitude involved a contract for a limited time, while slavery was lifelong and inheritable, and slaves were treated as property with no legal rights. Though indentured servants faced difficult conditions, they also had some legal protections and the prospect of freedom after their term of service.
Here's a more detailed comparison:
Indentured Servitude:
Contractual:
Indentured servants entered into a contract (indenture) for a fixed period, typically 5-7 years, in exchange for passage to the colonies, room, board, and sometimes a skill.
Limited Duration:
The end of the contract meant freedom, though many faced poverty or continued hardship.
Some Legal Protections:
While subject to abuse, servants had some legal rights and could appeal to the courts for mistreatment.
Not Predetermined:
Indentured servitude was not based on race or birth.
Transition to Freedom:
Upon completion of their term, servants were expected to join colonial society, though many remained poor.
Slavery:
Lifelong and Inheritable:
Slavery was a system of forced labor without any time limit, and the status of a slave was inherited by their children.
No Legal Rights
Slaves were considered property and had no legal rights or protections.
Brutal Conditions:
Slaves were subjected to extreme physical and psychological abuse, including sexual violence, and forced labor.
Racial Basis:
Slavery in America was based on race, specifically the enslavement of people of African descent.
Economic Dependence:
Slavery was deeply ingrained in the colonial economy, particularly in the Southern colonies, and was seen as a profitable system for the wealthy.
In essence, while both systems involved exploitation and hardship, slavery was a more extreme form of oppression due to its lifelong nature, lack of rights, and racial basis.Just to use a relevant, but overused perspective from the left:
Socioeconomic and sociopolitcal factors of the time, regardless of law and hard work, often lead to the family of indentured servants (if they lived long enough to have one) being forced into a cycle of indentured servantry as well. It was rare for indentured servants to break that cycle, and that lead to much of the same outcomes a slave would face. At face value the two are unequal in harshness of existence, but in practice they were essentially the same for the majority.
I think this is the same reason we see the left of today comparing modern wages versus expenses as veritable slave labor. We (the collective we, not necessarily the us having this conversation) live to work, pay our bills, and for the majority there is little more than that in life. Maybe the occasional trip to the bar, or a leisurely outing once per year that we classify as a vacation.
Personally, I could make $10/hr and still live like a king just due to my frugal nature and investment strategies so I see most people as being fiscally irresponsible, but it's an interesting thing I see the left bring up often.Most indentured servants came from emptying the jails or getting round up off the streets, waking up from a drinking binge to find themselves on a ship... or sold a bunch of lies so they leave their farm and sign a contract they don't understand... not like people had Harvard educations back then...
Life was shit back then... Indentured Servitude was replaced by Slavery... but for many, those 5, 6, 7, the rest of their miserable lives in some cases it was the same... and because they were 'contracted' which if you do the real research you will find only allowed for their freedom if the person who held their contract CHOSE to give it to them... if they didn't break something or do something that ADDED to their time or their crimes.
Shit... talking to a wall.Ken, my wall is both impregnable and impervious to BS. It has been built that way. It is sheer political nonsense for the Right to suggest that slavery was a job training program. It is obvious that they want to ameliorate the reality for a malign purpose.
I am talking about American slavery not those of the Vikings. It has been America’s greatest sin and the lies surrounding the practice of the peculiar institution and its aftermath for the victims and its progeny will never be swept under the rug by right wing politics. Do you really that I am going to believe that the two systems are equivalent?
Yep.
You make conservative ideology sound like a bad thing, yet (perceived from the years of our exchanges), you believe in and promote many conservative beliefs: Rule of Law, Equal Opportunity, biological sexes, etc.
Your beef is with political zealotry, not ideological concepts. If not, your complaints would be against Republican actions, not conservative beliefs. But you've picked a team and stand with it just as zealously as those on the 'other' side.
The strength and societal acceptance of 'conservative beliefs' is what has enabled us to survive and have the security to complain that we haven't 'got there' yet.
You're welcome.
GAWell, as it is defined by the Trump regime which passes for “conservative” these days, it is a bad thing. Because all of the things you say conservatives are for is being undermined by Trump who you all voted for. So, I don’t know has much faith I should have that conservatives actually believe the concepts that I do when they have no problem putting them on the back burner when they become inconvenient.
Quite frankly, my “beef” is against both."And there you go, again . . . "
I spoke of ideology and you heard Republican. Your first thought was in your first sentence: Trump. Not the ideas or concepts of conservatism (as an ideology), just Trump.
Does your political party define your ideology? Do your beliefs change as your party's do?
I see those as rhetorical questions because you have answered both in your past responses.
As a side note, make up your mind. Am I a Republican Trump voter or a fence-sitter with mangled nuts? I can't be both.
GA
Being the “butter fingers” that I have been and my considering it important to offer you a reply to your concerns, I am taking your paragraphs a couple at a time. I see you as at least open to considering both sides of these debates.
————
What do the Right want these alternate roles to shift to?"
I would say that the right wants that return to traditionalism, but not in the extreme that the left paints it out to be. Respectively, they want male and female spaces and roles to be upheld as a foundational principle, but to branch out as needed to correlate with modern social and economical standards. Essentially, we need to eliminate this destructive drive to blend every person into this equality and inclusion collective, and instead recognize that we CAN segregate people by their INDIVIDUAL value.
Modern social and economic standards do not correlate with rigid, foundational gender roles or male and female “spaces. Such is the nature of changing times. When I think of how women could not own property, not have the right to vote, treated like children, exposed and vulnerable to every kind of abuse and exploitation, of course those with the upper hand want to maintain it. From that perspective, the reasoning in the past for these “roles” is not terribly different from the reasoning today. From my view, you can discriminate based only upon merit, not based on gender or race, that is what this has always been about.
———
Females should not compete in male sports, and vice versa, though there are some who can and we already allow them into those spaces, no need to push for anything further. If anything, we should ensure biological men cannot compete in female spaces like sports, modeling, pageantry, etc. A man has already won woman of the year, and that to me is a sign of social, moral, and societal decay.
There are anatomical differences between men and women. In my universe those differences are to be careful evaluated as to not be an excuse to circumscribe the opportunities available to women relative to those of men. However, I agree with the assessment of a problem with men competing in areas (sports) where for the most part women are lacking the strength that men have. The anatomical explanation is why there is a distinction between the fastest man and the fastest woman. And it has something to do with why women always on the average live longer than men, regardless of what society you are evaluating. I recognize those things, but in areas not directly involving that, let’s not discriminate."From my view, you can discriminate based only upon merit, not based on gender or race, that is what this has always been about. "
In many facets of life, capacity and capability for currently unmeasured merit is often based on gender if we are speaking in general statistics, and I'm wary of correlating race with capabilities though there are situations where correlation is relevant. There is a foundation there, biological and psychological foundations, and we are seeing just how bad ignoring that is becoming. If you want, I could list all of the supporting statistics that show women in male spaces is detrimental to their health as a whole, I provided you some from the military perspective in another thread.
It isn't as if people, credible professionals, are out here making these things up to put women back in the kitchen. Though, I'm sure there are some, it isn't a widespread practice nor one that can't be refuted automatically in the event it's exaggerated to push narratives.
Women deserve a fair chance in anything they are capable of doing, but like with a child making poor decisions, daddy needs to step in and direct the children to a healthier path. That, by my observation, is the general feeling from the right: "Daddy needs to step in and swat some booty, get things back on track."
"There are anatomical differences between men and women."
I think we should also take into account the overall biological and psychological differences as well. I just used the sports thing as an easy example to point to that doesn't really need statistics to back it up as credible. I'd refer you back to my data taken from the DoD on women in combat roles. They nearly triple the failure and casualty rate of men in training alone, and their after-care and long-term negative consequences are well above that of your average male, and this is due to the biological, and I would argue the psychological differences inherent in the genders.
We could also touch on the overall physical health decay of women in career roles that have been typically reserved for males, and the far-reaching consequences society is facing as women (and the left) seek to dismantle, reshape, and reform the definition of gender roles and identity across the board. Nothing good is coming of it other than a few misguided moral grandstands, the data says the shit is tearing women apart (biggest concern) but also the overall social paradigm as males feel completely ostracized by society for the sake of promoting aberrant, damaging ideologies.
I don't think these differences deserve any less discrimination than, say, a background check for a job, though I think before we dive into outright discrimination we need further exploration of the roots of these differences. Until that data can be better gathered, explored, and disseminated to the general public, I think we should heed the current data as a cautionary tale for where we are heading. I could compile some of that for you as well, if you'd like.
Starting solution: Encourage women to be the nurturers again. Make motherhood glamorous again. Let men be the breadwinners again. Establish hard labor and the career lifestyle as a predominantly male space, and give women back their spaces to do with as they so choose with the option to be a standout in male spaces if they so choose and are capable. No more sweeping accommodations based on protected statuses, simply guard rails to prevent unfair, unbridled discrimination.
The key part of the solution being making the respective roles attractive again. I'd settle for a social shift as opposed to an implemented enforcement of roles. The left has spent so much time demonizing traditional roles that even your average human has a kneejerk reaction to even the slightest hint that perhaps someone isn't capable of things they're trying to do regardless of how hard they try irrespective of gender/color/creed etc.
Sometimes the best option for someone is to tell them, "Hey, you literally suck and are killing yourself in pursuit of mediocrity. We're tired of picking up your slack, and adjusting social and operation standards to accommodate your fragility. It's dragging the team down."
This is a perspective I hold for both males and females. People need to start getting told they just don't belong in certain spaces and ventures.
In my most radical left of views, I want men to have exclusively male conversations on their spaces, and women to have exclusively female conversations on their spaces. Both sides of this conversation need to realize that there are two very clear, measurable, diverse roles to be played respective to their gender category. Each side needs to remain in their space and stop trying to invade one another unless invited into it, and the presentation is scholarly and strictly to promote cohesion between the roles when the invitation is extended.That's a lot...
But here is the question... why is it certain sexes and or races can have safe spaces... or exclude men...
But we can't have a Boy Scouts for boys in America?
And lets add, why can't we accept reality that women cannot perform the duties of Special Forces units nearly as well as men... and we have had to seriously modify (ease or remove) the very standards that ensured only the fittest and toughest men made it through those schools?
How many women players are in the NFL?
That is how many should be in Special Forces units like Navy Seals and Army Rangers. And if the standards had been held, that is how many would be... a big fat Zero.I'm against the idea of safe spaces, the idea of anything being, "safe," defeats the idea of establishing spaces to begin with. A male space is not safe for a female and vice versa, and to make it, "safe," would defeat the purpose of respective spaces, it would once again attempt to blend incompatible identities into one space. Life isn't safe, but we can make traversing the unsafe more coherent, planned, and reasonable.
As for why we attempt to make, "safe," spaces, it is because the left demanded them and we'd rather they make their own little spaces away from everyone else than have to alter the spaces of the majority to fit their desire for unreasonable accommodation. Most college campuses realized that safe spaces were just a way for people to exercise authoritarian control and thought monitoring, and no longer allow clubs to categorize themselves as safe spaces. They're mostly reserved for mental health clubs now, and they're only safe to such a degree you're required to, "listen, and don't judge."
I think the boy scouts can very well welcome girls without damage, but individual troops should be allowed to discriminate and say, "Hell no, get out, go join the girl scouts and get them to adjust to your needs. Not our monkey, not our circus."
Personally, I have no problem with people getting their own spaces based on identity as long as they respect the boundaries of that space. The spaces meant to thrive will do so, and the ones that aren't tend to die off very swiftly.
Combat roles are a male space, plain and simple. Time to swat some booty and direct the children to a healthier path.
I find it to be a slippery slope when discussing inclusion and exclusion, especially if we start talking about including males in female spaces and vice versa. Can easily slip into the logic realm of, "Well if girls can be in [male space], then why don't we just put boys in [female space]?"
I'd rather we just stick to the traditional mindset: "Wanting to be in the opposite sex's exclusive space is gay and weird. You don't belong here."
Once that's foundational, then the consensus within the space can change without affecting the broader whole of the society in which the space is established. If it's meant to be larger, it will find itself so organically. However, most of these social movements promoting inclusion and diversity don't seem to be organic at all, more so political soapboxes funded to divide and conquer groups based on identity as opposed to establishing coherent, functional, healthy communities.
Women deserve a fair chance in anything they are capable of doing, but like with a child making poor decisions, daddy needs to step in and direct the children to a healthier path. That, by my observation, is the general feeling from the right: "Daddy needs to step in and swat some booty, get things back on track."
And who is daddy? I leave it to the idea that women have to have the opportunity to do whatever it is that they are capable of doing and leave it at that. On a background check for a job, why should I be eliminated for non-job related discrepancies? Perhaps on the combat issue, based on your points, I will need to reconsider my position. Combat, particularly infantry is an extreme place and example, but those circumstances are to limited. I don’t feel comfortable with women in men’s rest rooms or vice versa. So, there is a line to be drawn that I respect, but I don’t use it to discriminate against women in every aspect of life. But, I still have to consider this:
Countries with Women in Infantry:
Canada: Canadian Armed Forces says they have deployed women in infantry units, including in Afghanistan.
Australia: Women account for approximately 10% of deployed troops in Australia's military, including in combat roles.
Israel: Women serve in various combat roles, including artillery, rescue, and anti-aircraft forces.
Norway: Norway was the first NATO country to allow women in all combat capacities.
United States: The US Army has integrated women into the infantry, with some serving as officers and enlisted personnel.
France: Women serve in combat posts.
Germany: German women serve in combat roles, including in dangerous areas of Afghanistan.
New Zealand: Women in the New Zealand military have had combat restrictions lifted.
Denmark: Women serve in combat roles.
United Kingdom: While women are welcome in all roles, they are excluded from roles such as tank drivers or front-line infantry, according to CBC News.
Other countries: Several other countries have women serving in combat roles, including those in Scandinavia, such as Sweden and Finland, as well as Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland.
——-
solution: Encourage women to be the nurturers again. Make motherhood glamorous again. Let men be the breadwinners again. Establish hard labor and the career lifestyle as a predominantly male space, and give women back their spaces to do with as they so choose with the option to be a standout in male spaces if they so choose and are capable. No more sweeping accommodations based on protected statuses, simply guard rails to prevent unfair, unbridled discrimination.
Have you looked around, Tyler, the cost of living and the economy precludes the “Leave it to Beaver” scenario? With the average salary hovering around 70K, both parents have to work to maintain a middle class lifestyle, especially if you have kids. Otherwise, why do we have all of these day care centers? The world that you want to return to has been made impossible due to sheer economics. I grew up in that world, but it does not exist anymore. Face it, the Susie Homemaker ideal is now in the past. The guard rails were created to prevent unreasonable gender bias in employment and other opportunities in the first place, which were quite real and not a figment of anyone’s imagination.
All I am saying is give back their spaces (if they so choose) but give them the opportunity to enter traditional male spaces if they so choose and are capable. Jobs in the so called male spaces always pay more so why shouldn’t women take advantage of this for their own economic advantage? I don’t demonize traditional roles, I just believe that no one should be trapped within them. If a mans space is economic and political hegemony over everyone else, then that is a space that needs to be invaded and altered.I am aware the ideals of the past are dead, but I don't see this as anything less than a concerted effort by power players to increase their bottom line. The first step to correcting this is reestablishing a glamorous culture for traditionalism. We succeeded in demonizing the traditional roles, surely we could at the very least dull the sting caused by demonizing it through similar social/psyop methods.
I believe that making the traditional style of life desirable, essentially sexy again through media and influence not even actively enforcing anything on anyone, would do immeasurably large amounts of good for social infrastructure as a whole. It was the left, or at least their loudest and most influential proponents, who have driven us down a path in the opposite direction. I think that would be a reasonable concession, and one that would take effect over decades as we just shift the current narrative out and the new one into existing programs.
As for giving women the ability to prove themselves, I absolutely agree. However, women expect to be treated differently than their male counterparts while occupying spaces in male fields, and weak males overcompensate for the inequality by pandering to their needs for accommodations. We need to reduce that dynamic, and not just for gender, but for every protected status.
You don't get to claim equality when everyone has to walk on some sort of eggshells to ensure your success, and that accommodation of your success is enforced by command, HR, policy, etc. where say, your white male in the office would be constructively transferred or terminated for the same requests and needs. If you want to be equal, let's level the playing field first.
If we remove the current accommodations for protected statuses, but retain discrimination statutes for protected statuses, I would say that is enough so long as we also have the social culture being targeted as well. The psychological effect alone would be enough to begin shifting professional spaces of all kinds back to their respective genders and even implementing a more balanced equity system that includes everyone equally.
As for male spaces being economic and political hegemony, I believe anyone in a position to seek such power wouldn't turn down the temptation to pursue hegemony. Male, female, black, white, brown, trans, asexual... humans are drawn to consolidating power in all of its forms. That's why we split the power among branches of government, and why I like the idea that we should split spaces as a foundational social and cultural practice, and then allow those spaces to branch out from there organically. Personal choice is a big thing to me, and I don't think anti-discrimination is all that important in the face of personal choice outside of blatant hate crimes and purposefully oppressing people.
Let's look at an extreme here, and go back to my comments on chemically castrating children. This is widely supported by power players on the left, and you know what, I'm all for them chemically castrating whoever they want outside of society's purview. However, if they come into society's purview, I would hope that we execute them, and where we cannot execute them we ensure they cannot thrive and continue the practice. Say they bought an island where these demented people can go to international waters and slice children up, well, that's none of my business unless they come back to my society. That is their personal choice, and if they can create a space to do that where I don't have to be affected by their endeavors in any way, go ahead and be sicko freaks.
It's all very complex, and I try to have compassion for all sides. At the end of the day, I want more personal choices and spaces where my skin color, gender, culture, etc. can thrive without malicious outsiders getting an immediate say, and if any regulation is to occur it should be at the level where personal choice becomes weaponized to the detriment of society.
This is probably coming out as a jumbled mess because we have so many angles we are discussing and I'm trying not to expand on every single point. So if it sounds retarded, it probably is and isn't coming out in words the way I picture it in my brain.As to his point regarding combat arms... Infantry... Artillery...
That's like the difference between a High School team and the Pros.
The discussion was on Special Forces Units in particular... just saying.Ya lost me, I'm sort of spiraling balancing our many different perspectives within the conversation. Did I miss something or go beyond context?
Tyler, most stimulating conversation
How do you make traditionalism desirable? I told my niece at her high school graduation to learn to be self sufficient, go to college and acquire a skill that cannot be taken from you and while marriage is nice, avoid going in to relationships completely vulnerable with no skills of your own. Because things always change.
As I said earlier, I don’t believe that most families can afford to have “Jane” stay at home and watch the kids. Betty Friedan said as much over sixty years ago in her book the “Feminine Mystique”, which I would never had learned about without a course in women’s studies. A male dominated society means that the only knowledge of any value is those relating to men.
“If we remove the current accommodations for protected statuses, but retain discrimination statutes for protected statuses”
I could live with this……without having a further concession as stated in your paragraph. To avoid reverting to an era of blatant discrimination and bias through out American life, anti-discrimination is important.
The left encouraged women who wanted more fulfilling lives than just having hubbies dinner on the table. You should watch some of those retro ads in the 1960’s where the woman pulled her hair out wondering why hubby did not like his morning coffee, instead she needed to switch to Maxwell House. Even when I was a kid and watched “Bewitched”, I always wondered why Samatha with greater powers than Superman was spending her time washing dishes and hanging out with a dork like Darrin Stevens, marriage vows or no. Such was the power of male hegemony and how society thru the media encouraged women to submit to it.
I am not keen on the extreme on chemically castrating children and would tend not to support such ideas.
Live and let live, with everyone having to opportunity to explore their potential in life, at least I believe that is important. That more so than those that want to sacrifice that pursuit in life over adherence to cultural and social expectations, traditional norms and standards by those that have every reason to control the aspirations of others as a threat to themselves. ."How do you make traditionalism desirable?"
There's the million-dollar question, right there. I'm happy to see we have already developed and implemented the mid-stages of doing this. It actually began with comedy, and utilizing it for important political discourse without the vitriol, in many cases shaming the vitriol that attempted to silence discourse in a funny and attractive way, and it branched out from there.
You know of Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Adam Carolla, Russell Brand, Dave Rubin, Rob Schneider, Tim Dillon, Roseanne Barr... These are just examples of formerly-left individuals who now promote traditional values as a practice. Their shift opened up the way to making traditional values sexy for other people to discuss, mainly for the youth of the nation, and they all continue their endeavors, and they do so in the hopes that the left will listen to them so they can be associated with the left again. Keep in mind, we are only in the stage where targeting the youth is the goal, and it is working.
From these individuals and their influence making it more okay to publicly discuss and decry the wrongs of the left, we saw shining lights in the dark arise like Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, Camille Paglia, Douglas Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Bill Maher, Dennis Prager, and so much more as the list continues to grow.
I'd love to expand more on the exact methodology and how far its reach has extended, such as the schools that have been built that strictly promote this traditional community mindset while teaching real-life skills over compulsory topics no one remembers after graduation, but I think you would get far more value out of exploring these individuals like Jordan Peterson without my influence, and I don't want to make this any longer than it is already going to be. We are seeing a paradigm shift among the youth, specifically high school-college. It keeps the hope alive that we are reaching a sort of consensus, and if not a consensus then at least generating spaces where these voices and cultures can thrive and expand their base where originally they were cancelled at every turn.
We can't return to a strictly male dominated society, it would cause violence, but that isn't the goal here. The goal is to make traditionalism into a foundational culture again, and then branch out from there. Traditionalism being a widespread acceptance of inherent roles that can be expanded upon endlessly, but needs that expansion guided by level heads who are community leaders, not politicians or business men with ulterior motives and the need to grandstand.
I'm telling ya, the extremists always get the most media attention whether they're right, left, centirst, populist, etc. However, the youth, especially the males, have chosen alternative media as a source for their culture and information. It's doing wonders as it concerns mutual progress across party, gender, cultural, etc. lines.
"Live and let live, with everyone having to opportunity to explore their potential in life, at least I believe that is important. That more so than those that want to sacrifice that pursuit in life over adherence to cultural and social expectations, traditional norms and standards by those that have every reason to control the aspirations of others as a threat to themselves."
This is where society has found themselves confused thus far, because most people these days view the left's social initiatives as divisive, strictly identitarian, and hostile toward the household and personal choice. Personally, I don't care what the crazy people among the left have to say, and nor do I care to any extreme lengths they take their practices. It is my observation that we can create a space that they manage, operate, fund, and respect the boundaries of so long as they keep their bullshit like chemical castration to that space and do not request that society make accommodations for them should they step out of it.
Let's give an example of an aberrant community on the right that I personally would never want to partake in nor see them pushing to grow in influence, but are very much tolerable and deserve their space to be protected and respected: The motherfuckin' Amish.
I think these folks are extreme, culturally regressive, and weird. However, it is their culture to maintain a well-guarded space, and to keep their community within that space. They are typically happy, healthy, independent folks with a wide range of skills both within their community, and they can function within society without seeking accommodation. Their idea of traditionalism is extreme, but they're an excellent example of what a respected space looks like, and I believe the structure is something to be emulated across society for other social groups.
I'm tired of this destructive narrative that prior to things like DEI, we were in need of saving from drowning in our homogeneity and high-trust communities. Gone are the days of phenotypical homogeneity, our species needs to interbreed to ensure the best traits are adapted, inherited, and carried on (and to be blunt on the matter, I hate stereotypical whites, especially the women and prefer the cultures of other races and creeds), but sustained and protected cultural homogeneity among individual communities is very important and I think we are witnessing the era of death or flourishing for this mindset.
It's like the old religious adage of the wise man and the fool building their homes. One built on the rocky foundation, and the other built on the sand. Society is getting smart to the fact that this guns blazing method of diversity and inclusion from the left is building upon the sand, and the rocky foundation is a coherent culture centered around traditional values being sexy and attainable, even if in reality we have to modify "traditional" to suit current economic and social standards.The problem arises with the power centers that are pushing the destruction of the nuclear family, nationalism, and the way things were...
They want a borderless...globalist... elites and peons world... once you understand that you realize why Biden, the EU the UK bring in millions of low/no education migrants and put them on government assistance... It's to speed up the decay and dissolution of the current system so once it fails it can be replaced by something that allows them far more control and the peasant masses far less freedom.Yes, and the right with their initiatives to replace tech industry career workers with Indians among other things like supporting Israel to such a degree we will pass authoritarian laws unilaterally granting them privileges (a complex issue that needs to be approached with more America First mentalities). The elites are about themselves, which is why my answer to who, "daddy," is in my analogies would be community leaders as opposed to politicians or businessmen.
I don't think many people project out to what the ultimate goals are.
For instance why the push for support of feminism and the deconstruction of family, roles of men, etc.
If you consider human nature and how the pendulum swings... From one extreme to another...
What will the counter response to this be?
Maybe that's why there are so many protections for Islam in the UK ...the plan is for something a lot less 'liberal' than exists today.
A lot less.I've been really concerned with the amount of unrest in other countries that the general American public is not being exposed to by our media.
Spain, Poland, Italy, France, etc. regularly experiencing what they are describing as racially-driven movements of violence. What little news they do have coming out is simply trying to paint it as right-wing violence as opposed to those countries' nationals finally taking things into their own hands.
Even as we get closer to having everything flushed down the toilet like a pile of turds, I'm still happy to be here in America where it is legal to, at the very least, be vocal. After Trump, I'm worried we'll dive further toward the authoritarian left like we see on the other side of the pond.I think we will see a collapse. Economic and Social.
Then I think we will see the vast majority of men join Islam and we will reshape America under it's Sharia Law.
That will restore control. The men who have been dismissed and rejected by Western Society will be all too happy for it.“Then I think we will see the vast majority of men join Islam and we will reshape America under its Sharia Law.”
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that if I were you, Ken.Strangely enough, I think the idea of having Sharia Law as a widespread practice in the United States in the near future isn't beyond probability. I have many friends who are converting to Islam from Christianity, and many of them are actually first-gen immigrants from other countries.
Islam has a lot of steam in its engine right now. Personally, if I'm touching on religious stuff, I prefer to remain within the realm of Abrahamic gnosticism or being agnostic. So I'm not certain I wouldn't be inclined to support that level of traditionalism, Islam, if it came down to being beheaded, supporting the current course, or converting.
I'm more for orthopraxy than orthodoxy where there cannot be both, though.Yes, there is a lot of money and power... real power... behind the easement of Islam into the UK, France, and even parts of America.
There were also people at the highest levels in the CIA that openly championed it. Then there was the Obama Administration's alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and so on... the Pendulum will swing back, hard, once the economic collapse occurs. Trump is not a hard swing of the Pendulum, it is masking what is to come.
But... as a practical matter, when you consider how far the pendulum has swung to dis-order, moral criminality, and the destruction of male roles and purpose throughout the West... it is likely the goal of those wanting Islam to take root to support the most extreme 'Progressive' / 'Feminist' efforts.
We had equality of races and sexes established by 2000 if not earlier...since then has come the insanity... from invading the Boy Scouts to forcing the acceptance of Trans (insane people)... so yes, it is clear the destruction of our social mores is desired... it is by who, and for what purpose... that should be the question.
Why is London predominately Muslim today for instance?
Why does France and Sweden and other Western Nations have 'no go' zones that are controlled by those practicing Islam?
There is a purpose behind it... it takes money and power to make these things happen and force the native populations to accept it or face jail.
My brother lives in Spain, and he says that there is immigration related strife, but it is not racial but based on outsider rather than citizen. You can be accepted as a Spaniard even though you are not white male, straight and Protestant. I got into more trouble on my visit to Europe proving that stereotypes of American tourists did not apply to me, than over my skin color. It is a cultural education and acceptance that can be learned and not based on something as impossible as changing the color of your skin. I would find that a vast improvement. He says that there was lot of baggage that he once thought as essential living life in America that he could now abandon, just as ridiculous as wearing a space suit at Waikiki.
I guess, I can say that I have no problem with traditionalism as long as none of us are compelled into that standard against our will. If you can actually sell that idea, that is great. At only the most isolated venues is cultural homogeneity possible, in the United States. I am not for forced anything but there should be laws preventing unmerited bias against people in the public sphere solely because of their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. Otherwise, everyone is free to have their “spaces”. I am not compelled to live under the terms and conditions of the Amish, that is the difference.
It hate to say that a male dominant society would be a source of violence, but it would be the source of endless litigation and challenge to the very foundation of the society under the rule of law. No one, in that sense, will have peace, an unmanageable amount of cauldrons will be stirred as a result.I actually became somewhat obsessed with the idea of segregated spaces after my two years of being embroiled in LA's many communities and issues. Couldn't even begin to list the number of, "this-race-only," or, "this-ideology-only," spaces that exist there, and for the most part they function extremely well among their respective communities. It was only when they tried to force it on others that you'd find any hate or violence.
Mainly, blacks-only businesses and spaces are out there, but everyone except whites had their own businesses and spaces that were accepted socially for their discrimination against others. Luckily, I tend to fit in everywhere except with privileged whites (LMAO because I grew up wealthy), so I was often the only white person permitted into specific clubs, bars, and spaces, so I got to see firsthand how well homogeneous spaces work when they don't force it on society as a whole.
I think the coolest part about these segregated spaces to me, though, was the fact that being invited and welcomed into it made it special even if it was just a hole in the wall hangout for degenerates and streetfolk. It's like stepping into a whole other universe where people respect individual identity, and once you're in and show you're open to their ideals, they let you express your own while exploring theirs.
At the end of the day, I've never met any ideologically isolated group that was unhappy as a general practice within their space. The unhappiness came in with imposition of outsider views and values. I'd like to see more of these respected spaces established for everyone, but we have to make that foundational to American culture. Right now, if you have any meaningful white and/or male space, you can damn well guarantee the media will have a shitfit even if they keep to themselves like the majority of the communities in LA do.
Kyler, I wanted to address this part of your earlier comment
Violence, aggression, dominance etc, has never been a part of my DNA, so who says that these traits are primal in men?"
I disagree with you on your perceptions of yourself. You go out of your way to express violent ideation, and a desire to fight for what you want and believe in. You are innately the perfect specimen for this very male evolutionary mindset. This is almost unique to males in every species.
You've even enacted violence upon those deserving, or at least those you viewed as deserving.
As for gangs fighting over territory, or even the human race doing so ad nauseam, this is just the way animals behave. We are animals, and we hone and mature this nature through fighting. If we don't hone and mature this part of us, it comes out in fucked up ways like school shootings, stabbings, murder in general, suicide, etc. It is unavoidable, and to suppress it is to create a monster more diabolical than any conqueror. Suppressing it creates the very, "toxic masculinity," the left brings into the conversation. Your OGs come off the streets wanting to teach the youth the lessons they learned through that crucible of violence, and the right would simply like to skip the hardships of that street lifestyle in favor of creating spaces for these young men who will otherwise end up dead or incarcerated.
————
My violence is defensive, I and no one else are going to sit idly by while their lives, rights are being stolen. I am going to protect what is mine, doesn’t everybody? I disagree with the idea that we are animals, then the advance of civilization is rendered as impossible and we must eventually destroy ourselves in our animalistic fury. There are always going to be the criminally insane among us, but must we concede to it as an excuse to not pursue a system based on law and equality. There is a place for violence, as I SAY NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE. And it is more than just a platitude. Ending up dead or incarcerated is waste of time and talent as I talked to some of the young guys as to how to constructively get back at the “system”. You have nothing to gain by fighting over something that you don’t own."I am going to protect what is mine, doesn’t everybody? I disagree with the idea that we are animals, then the advance of civilization is rendered as impossible and we must eventually destroy ourselves in our animalistic fury."
No, not at all, just for an example we see this within the gender dynamics during times of drafts. Women are specifically targeted with propaganda to encourage them to demoralize and turn in any men who are against being drafted. Even further they are encouraged through propaganda and authoritarian enforcement to enter industrial jobs unsuitable for the majority of women and forgo their roles as mothers, supportive partners, and nurturers of the home. Women are typically observed not defending what is theirs if it is not the social paradigm being promoted at the time, and will go with whatever the most powerful flow is.
Male spaces have been invaded such as the military and combat roles, because weak men stopped defending women from the horrors of enlisting and defending our country. Everyone is too scared to say, "No, you don't need to be here, you don't belong, and we do not want our women dying with us. Go home, make love to your husband, nurture your children, and thrive while we fight. Make sure we have a reason to come home."
If you want more on that go down this rabbit hole of information, "No pussy, no participation."
It's a gross oversimplification, but it effectively encompasses male perspectives on the lack of traditional roles and thus traditional females to choose from, and their feelings of helplessness and lack of motivation to participate in society anymore.
That isn't to say there are not suitable roles for women outside of combat, or perhaps very specialized all-female units, but I'd rather just take a hardline stance on that for now. The culture to protect even just the men isn't there, let alone start experimenting with women any further.
As for the spaces where men can go to exercise their violent tendencies, they just aren't there anymore. We have a culture where promoting masculine spaces is considered misogynistic, discriminatory, and unnecessary. To even discuss that men and women, males and females of all species, have clearly defined foundational roles is borderline sacrilege and a social crime worthy of punishment these days. That isn't to say we are locked into those roles if we do observe these foundational principles, only to say that if we don't honor the foundation and instead take jackhammers to it, we will not survive in this forward-progressing momentum we all strive for.
Young men feel this, and young women are starting to see it and feel the consequences of it. We are already in motion to changing the culture around it, and the hope is that blood need not be shed to really bring things back into perspective at the societal level.
As it concerns the idea that we are animals, we're no more advanced than the Greeks were. We haven't surpassed the Egyptians nor the Romans. Sure, we have some flashy gadgets, and things are a bit more efficient in some ways, but we are no more culturally nor technologically coherent as a society than a troop of apes. We, despite our ability to reason, develop and utilize tools, have complex notions of past, present, and future, have achieved no higher purpose nor unity than that of animals. I'm unwilling to measure our progress from base animalistic tendencies based on technological advances and incoherent social thought alone.
Once we master coherent culture, even at a national level, I will consider us being above animals. Until then, we have achieved nothing but flashier and faster ways to act like animals.
Come on Credence...
What have these young men heard growing up the past Quarter Century?
Toxic Masculinity...
Me Too...
Perhaps you haven't noticed, the last couple of decades have been all about replacing Men with Women... they even repeat some of the same old stories as if it is new and groundbreaking... for instance: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation … 04311.html
What has the messaging been lately... that it is OK for men to be women?Ken, toxic masculinity is defined as being a bully and subjecting others to your will.
I see it as having women take a larger role and not replacing anyone. After all, they are half of the society.
I am really focused on the young men attitudes toward women XX chromosome's and why….
I did see the article, I am not intimidated, I don’t know why the mention of an all female crew would be heavily emphasized, there was a lady Cosmonaut 60 years ago, this gender hang up stuff is American problem when other societies, particularly western ones had have female prime ministers and women in leadership roles. Why is America so retrograde in this matter? I ask you.
I think the reason men are leaving the democrat party is they don't know what is a man. They don't even know what is a woman. This is why the democrat party pays $20 million dollars to learn why men are leaving their party. I'm wondering if democrats have any men in their party. If they did, they could save the $20 million and ask them.
Reminds me of a poem by the legendary writer Rudyard Kipling.
If—
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
By Rudyard Kipling 1865 – 1936Ok, what here redeems the whining of our young men today?
I think democrats may want to listen to what young men are telling them and actually hear what they're saying.
I also believe that NOT referring to them as "whining of our young men today," should start immediately.
From a conservative perspective, it’s pretty clear why a lot of men are drifting away from the Democratic Party these days. One big reason is the cultural shift within the party. The Democrats have leaned heavily into identity politics, focusing on race, gender, and social justice issues in ways that many men, especially white men and working-class guys, find alienating. It feels like their concerns and values get pushed aside, replaced by what some call “woke” culture. This includes things like critical race theory and a redefinition of gender roles, which for many men comes off as an attack on traditional masculinity and family values they grew up with.
On the economic side, a lot of working-class men have been hit hard by deindustrialization and job losses. Many of the policies pushed by Democrats, like tougher environmental regulations and free trade agreements, are seen as contributing to the decline of manufacturing and mining jobs. These guys feel left behind because the party seems more focused on tech, service industries, and coastal elites than the realities of their lives. There’s also a growing perception that Democrats are out of touch with blue-collar America, reinforcing the feeling of alienation.
Then there’s the issue of crime and public safety. Over the past few years, especially with some Democrats talking about defunding the police, many men have grown concerned about rising crime rates and see the party as soft on law enforcement. For men who prioritize security for their families and communities, this is a huge turnoff. They often find themselves more aligned with Republican calls for law and order.
Foreign policy is another factor. Some men prefer a strong, assertive military and national defense stance, while they view Democrats as more hesitant or dovish internationally. This clashes with a sense of patriotism and national pride that many conservative men hold dear.
Lastly, religious and moral values play a role. Many men who are religious feel the Democratic Party has moved away from their core beliefs, especially on hot-button issues like abortion and traditional marriage. Conservatives tend to emphasize pro-life policies and family values, which resonate strongly with this group.
The numbers back this up too. Pew Research shows that women tend to identify with Democrats more than men, and men have been drifting Republican for some time. For example, in the 2020 election, about 48% of women voted Democrat compared to only 42% of men. Gallup data also reveals that white men favor Republicans by a wide margin, sometimes by 20 points or more. When it comes to working-class men, NPR and AP analyses confirm they are among the strongest Republican groups, driven by both cultural and economic concerns. Crime is a big issue too, with Gallup polls showing Republicans consistently more worried about crime than Democrats, influencing men who value public safety. And religious men overwhelmingly side with Republicans, with Pew Research indicating 60-70% support among observant men.
In short, from a conservative viewpoint, men are leaving the Democratic Party because they feel culturally and economically sidelined, concerned about safety, and disconnected from the party’s stance on national defense and traditional values. It’s a combination of these factors that’s pushing them toward the Republican side.Even democrats acknowledge that the party is out of touch with American Citizens.
This is a poll done by democrat Super PAC (Political Action Committee).
I hope the democrats continue to do what they're doing. They may not win a national election for a very long time.
"New poll delivers troubling signs for Democrats"
The Democratic Party’s credibility with voters has plummeted even further since the 2024 election, raising alarm bells as the party looks to rebuild ahead of the midterms and the next presidential election, according to a poll obtained by The Hill.
The poll, conducted between May and June by Unite the Country, a Democratic super PAC, showed voters perceived the Democratic Party as “out of touch,” “woke” and “weak.”
The party has seen its support erode with white men, Hispanic men and working-class voters across the board, with approval ratings sitting below 35 percent across those demographics. And enthusiasm within the party continues to wane in the wake of 2024, the poll revealed.
“This is the reality of the perception of us as a party, and until we accept that, it’s going to be hard to move forward,” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau, who serves as senior adviser to the super PAC. “There’s a perception out there, outside of Democratic elites, and it’s taken hold in not just the MAGA crowd but people that should be with us.”
“Democrats need to realize that in order to improve and get better to not only win in 2028 but to win in 2030 and 2032 and beyond,” Mollineau added.
Democrats have been searching for a way out of the wilderness since their devastating loss in November, when they not only lost the presidency once again to President Trump but also the House and Senate.
Since then, party officials have conducted a number of postmortems — including polls, focus groups and strategy sessions — as part of the party’s rebuilding effort.
The super PAC’s poll revealed that Democrats’ prime emphasis on fighting for democracy — while still popular within the party — is no longer going to cut it with the general electorate, and soft-on-immigration policies turn too many voters away.People do not support the Globalist Agenda...
Look to the post I made above, watch the video... it aptly explains what we are going thru and why... there is no way around it, we are in the midst of a major upheaval of change.
Nationalism goes against that... our entire system goes against what they (elites and highly educated) predict and are trying to bring into reality.
If they are wrong... if they cannot pull off this shift to a global system... which honestly I do not think they can or will be successful in doing at this time, not within my lifetime... then the pain will be unlike anything anyone alive has lived through economically... its going to lead to a collapse of all governmental systems with no way out but war on a scale that will literally near the apocalyptic nightmares predicted in many movies.
The reason why I believe they will fail:
All other systems required the conquering of other civilizations... of other nations... to go along with these transitions... this globalization... this dream of a one world government with a controlled digital currency to keep everyone compliant... how do we get there without war?
Clearly the BRICS nations have plans of their own... its laughable to think nations like China and Russia would ever trust America to lead us into this future after we decided to try and break Russia and risk global annihilation by taking on the one nation with enough nukes to make it happen... these people running things in DC and the EU have become totally delusional, not only in regards to how they are dealing with their own populations... but thinking nations like China and Russia are willing to play along and be subjugated to their whims.
I see very bad times ahead... that video while telling... glosses over the hardships and trials ahead, or the possibility that we might not make it thru.
Related Discussions
- 43
The Great American Divide: Gratitude vs. Bitterness
by Sharlee 5 days ago
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Americans disagreed over policy but shared a common love for country. That time has passed. Today, it feels as though we are not simply two parties or political factions, we are two different nations coexisting uneasily within the same borders. The...
- 85
Why is Antisemitism so Prevalent in the Democrat Party?
by Readmikenow 16 months ago
Cheering terrorism: Democrats must deal with their far-left antisemitism problemIf we’re ever going to obtain peace in the Middle East, we’re going to have to confront the reality of rabid antisemitism, not only in the Muslim world, but also in the the Democratic Party and in the news and cultural...
- 400
The Frightening Violence of the Left
by Readmikenow 7 days ago
During the last few months the violence of the left has been put on full display. A health care executive is executed outside his hotel, Tela's are firebombed, IVF clinics are torched, Governor Shapiro's house in Pennsylvania is set on fire.The common thread in all of these incidents is they...
- 156
The AIM of the DEMOCRATIC Party in America
by Grace Marguerite Williams 16 months ago
In recent decades, the Democratic Party has become increasingly leftist. Examples of these are the decriminalization of marijuana, lax rules regarding criminals-there are no jail time for petty crimes, & the proliferation of illegal immigrants to the United States among other...
- 172
Has Donald Trump Killed the So-Called Republican Party?
by Scott Belford 16 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
- 76
What Happened To The Democratic Party We Once Knew
by Sharlee 7 months ago
What happened to the Democratic Party we once knew? It seems that over the years, the party has shifted, and not in a way that resonates with the people who once felt truly represented by it. In the past, the Democratic Party prided itself on standing up for working-class Americans, fighting for...