this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
217 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump’s 2024 victory reflects growing discontent among a segment of men, especially in the “manosphere” that criticizes women and celebrates traditional gender roles.

Fueled by grievances over shifting social dynamics and economic insecurity, many men view Trump as an embodiment of “alpha male” values. Despite his policies favoring the wealthy, Trump has gained traction among both white and minority men.

His administration’s Project 2025 agenda includes restrictions on reproductive rights, aligning with “red-pilled” anti-feminist sentiments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption

I don't know what spaces you hang out in, but that's never been the case anywhere I've been. I see more people complaining about this behavior than I've ever seen the behavior itself.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

From the article...

These are the men swimming in the electoral pool. It’s not too late for it to be drained.

The article is cautious at first, pointing at facts and figures. At times, it almost seems to care. But when it comes to the final arguments, it is just: We gotta get rid of these men. Not even a viable solution, much less a sensible one.

It's everywhere. It's not hard to find, but it's not always overt. Usually, it is dismissive: "Well that's not what we're talking about right now." "Well feminism would fix those problems too." Or the person gets lumped in with Nazis, or misogynists, or whatever when what they've said doesn't really support that.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The article is not saying the problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So your argument is "it doesn't literally say that to the letter, so you're wrong?" At best it suggests that this relatively wide swath of the population shouldn't vote. What's your interpretation?

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Calling out the problem is not saying they are irredeemable.

In one post I read, a user commented that he’s happy with women having fewer rights and left “barefoot and pregnant” by authoritarian, Republican policies, because he wants a cadre of “slave girls” serving him. Outside of the virtual locker room, there are men who have reportedly been red-pilled into anti-feminist mass killings and murdering their own spouses.

These are the men swimming in the electoral pool. It’s not too late for it to be drained.

Like, yes, these people absolutely do need to be flushed. Nowhere does that mean they are permanently branded Bad Forever, you're just making that up.