Trump isn’t an icon of positive masculinity. He also did very little for young men during his four years as president

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    But he has their prejudices, incel misogyny, and hatreds on public display. That’s good enough for many.

    Also, there are far too many that see the world burning as some kind of entertainment. I hate to be the old guy yelling at people on the lawn, but I don’t know if the popular social media theme of destroying or damaging things, or doing mean shit to people for lols, is a symptom or a display that encourages or makes that behavior ok. There’s no consequences for that behavior, it’s entertainment, and some of that same attitude seems to bleed over into real-life actions.

    I have definitely worked with people who voted for trump for no other reason than lols and to stir shit up.

  • Dramaking37@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

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

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

        • DancingBear@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

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

  • chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

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

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

    • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

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

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

    • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

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

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

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

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

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

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

      • qed123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

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

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s ending DEI initiatives.

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

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

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

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

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        That said even I bitch about it at time.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    The US will get the leader they deserve.

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

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • piefedderatedd@piefed.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

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

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

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

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

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

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

          In other words, all the metrics have gone down.

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

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII,

        This is very misleading

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Germany just elected their first far right government since WWII

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

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

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

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

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      126
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

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

      • aramis87@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        86
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

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

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

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

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

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

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

          “(laughing) Yeah, I’m a bit of a redneck.”

          Silence. Wrong thing to say there, buckaroo.

          “…uh, just how redneck?”

          “I loathe Trump if that’s what you’re getting at.”

          “Oh, whew! Just checking, can’t be too careful these days.”

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

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

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

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

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

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

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

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

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

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

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

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

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

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

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

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

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

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

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

        • bassomitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

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

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          4 months ago

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

          How the fuck do they think Trump is macho?

          • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

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

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 months ago

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

          • Kalysta@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

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

        • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 months ago

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

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

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

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

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

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

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

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

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

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

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

          • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

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

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

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

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

            • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

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

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

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

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

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

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

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

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

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

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

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

        • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

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

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

          That’s my reasoning anyway.

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

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

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

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

      • confused_code_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree with everything you’re saying, except:

        We’re founded under a “1 person, 1 vote” ideology

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

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

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

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

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

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

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

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

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

    • terminhell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

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

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

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

  • littlewonder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    This all comes back to supporting young men and men in finding positive social groups and support systems that don’t have extreme ideology attached. In the absence of a general, common avenue to community for men, it seems like these edge groups will continue to leverage that component to lure them in.

  • Rayspekt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • Rayspekt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

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

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

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

    • perestroika@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

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

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

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      In many ways yes. They’re being a bunch of pathetic losers, and could probably use some men helping show them how not to be pathetic losers. Hell they could probably use some women to explain how to stop being pathetic losers.

      For my part I stopped being a pathetic loser around the point that I realized that I needed to become someone I liked more than learning to like myself. When I realized that a partner wasn’t going to fix me. I did deep reflection, actually went out and talked to people, and did the slow hard work of improving my material and emotional wellbeing. Anger never solved half as much as asking if I’m acting like someone I’d like to be around did. And I don’t know anyone who’s benefited from anger as much as me, why sometimes it looks like it’s benefitted me even a portion of as often as it’s hurt me. And yeah that’s how I went from a whiny loser to a woman with a good career, happy marriage, and positive reputation in the communities I take part in

  • Jagothaciv@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    Losers all of them but they got voting power.

    • kofe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

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

    • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • makyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 months ago

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

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