I predicted that as more Trump supporters realized they’ve been duped and grifted that they would be mightily upset.

This is stochastic terrorism in action.

To him, it’s win-win. Either he expands territory and genocides Ukraine, or her consolidates power as a wartime dictator and commits internal genocide by purging dissidents, ethnic minorities, etc. All the while further concentrating power.

Our modern Hitler.

For sure but I’ll sure as shit pocket this for a discussion with swing voters and the apathetic.

So let’s entertain the eating of pets thing was real (it’s not)… How do these help with that? In what way is disrupting hospitals obviously leading to patient care declining not 10000% worse than, eating a duck or cat or whatever…?

Fuck sake.

It’s times like this where I sometimes feel people need a license to surf the internet.

Following the Debate I had a Trump supporter come to my door. We have yard signs but, uh, the dude went a step deeper and knew our names. Weird but okay I guess that shit is publicly available in registration dbs after all…

Anyways, he seemed innocent enough but boy would he hop skip around point to point. Just as you corner on one thing, they jump to the next. “I’ll show you the source on my phone!” yet he wouldn’t and jumped to the next subject. I asked him to identify his sources for information and he dodged that as well, just vaguely alluding to, “googling.” Really fascinating and kind of fun to interact. I can see why Klepper does it so much lol.

On the flip-side it’s just a bit sad to see people who seem like decent people but are completely led astray and living in an alternative reality. “You’ve been… Living in a dreamworld, Neo.”

Let’s not kid ourselves…This article isn’t being read by Trump supporters or even fence sitters. It merely identifies the problem; it doesn’t prescribe a method of outreach.

Read further down in other comments, but:

• It’s important to identify the problem.
• It’s important to identify the target audience of this piece.
• The crowd that this article is referring to isn’t reading an editorial editorial piece from The Conversation.
• This is thus mainly internal dialogue pointing to an example of the problem.
• How we convey the problem to those ensared by it is a totally separate thing.
• divisive for them; unifying for us, and helps the occasional apathetic bystander identify the bullshit before they themselves are ensared by it.

Well said and fair points. Ultimately I can agree that this entire article could be written as-is but for the exclusion of white. No doubt toxic masculinity is a problem. And no doubt there a considerable amount of white privilege; though the two probably should be separated as opposed to conjoined in discussion. Trump is a spoiled, silver-spooned manchild whose position has come about through a considerable degree of white privilege. Though as you said, one must be careful to narrow the scope of the conversation. That strictly applies to him, and probably should not be generalized more broadly.

Whereas toxic masculinity is more widespread and certainly not unique to white men (although in the moment under the MAGA banner and the audience of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan, it just so happens to predominantly be this group). I’ve read several articles about how inroads are being made with hispanic and black young male groups just the same — again, due to right-wing propaganda making inroads.

This where Walz could come in and why the VP Debate may be a bigger deal than many people realize. Walz has the capacity to do just as you said and project a certain male confidence. In his speech just yesterday he explicitly said, “Don’t mistake kindness for weakness.” If he carries through with this message as a military veteran and as a coach who can speak the frat bro language… Well, it may resonate with some and bring some back.

I second Approval Voting. STAR as well, but perhaps slightly less intuitive.

It’s sad that this has been repeatedly explained to this user, and yet without any substantive rebuttal, they persist without any evolution of their view.

Isn’t that a bit… Odd? Perhaps suss? Weird?

Spoiler Effect, too!

Gerrymandering only has to do with US Congressional House districts. Though I take it your point may be that the EC and Gerrymandering are propping up a dying party., which is absolutely true.

Bonus: Weevil ran away from a discussion we had when they tried to claim Democrats were blocking DC statehood because they, “didn’t want a black state.” when in fact it has always been Republicans to blame for blocking it. lmfaowtf360bbq.

Sinema+Gabbard vibes.

Stay far away.

Why is it stupid and what is the correct takeaway?

Israel is a terrorist state. No different than Russia.

I don’t believe a government shutdown ever occurred at least in recent decades without the majority of the population blaming Republicans. Thinking back particularly to the times Ted Cruz orchestrated them.

Is it racist to identify the elevated white male privilege, compounded by spoiled child syndrome? I don’t think so. I’m a white male and don’t find this in any way racist against me. Hits the mark in my opinion on why many of my fellow white male men are duped into maga bullshit.

Communication scholar Paul Elliott Johnson argues that Trump’s brand of demagoguery is “defined by a reliance on victimized, White, toxic masculinity.” Some scholars have focused on how this rhetorical strategy appeals to men who are “secretly insecure about their manhood,” as The Washington Post reported in 2018.

Trump’s own white masculine insecurity was on clear display throughout his debate against Harris. It was a different type of pathological masculinity than the aggressive and aggrieved toxic masculinity Trump perfected as MAGA stagecraft.

Trump’s performance in the debate illustrates why insecure white masculinity should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. When triggered, it short circuits the candidate’s strategic thinking and elicits demagogic and dehumanizing arguments.

You either play by the rules of the game to change the rules of the game or just lose by default.

They did and they do. Especially for partisan policies.

Show me the Republican Senators in 2017 willing to support DC statehood that would get it across the finish line.

These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.

Major Citation need for an extraordinary claim. Where is your proof Democrats of today whose presidential nominee is black is trying to stop this? Lmao?

How is DC statehood bad for Dems? Lol.

In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism with the vast majority who voted to support DC Statehood being Democrat. There is no reason Democrats wouldn’t want another state that would be the bluest in the country to statehood lol. Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority for like, two months, and if you recall that kind of had other things going on at the time in 2009—including but not limited to health care reform and recession recovery.

In 2017… You know who was President and who controlled the Senate, right…?