Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I have no idea what the first part means if it doesn't mean either (1) expressing empathy but silent as to agreement or (2) accepting their causal analysis.

Neither. It means to sit with them in their feelings, listen, and not argue with them or attempt to explain them away. It’s what separates empathy from sympathy.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I got the impression that he didn’t read it based on his reaction, which seemed to be more of a reflexive response to a light skin, but if you did in fact read it, @wildcat09, I apologize. 
 

 

This:

What proposal? Why would anybody ever talk to an angry kid that way? It’s pure projection and totally bizarre.

 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Dude.  Most of our current information ecosystem aimed at young white males is "talking to angry kids" in EXACTLY that way.  That's a huge part of the problem.  

 

59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, I agree with you and I made no such proposal that was something we should do in order to get people back into a voting coalition.

I think we have to meet people where they are to confort them, and we have to accept the truth of their personal experience do them. But that is a far cry from validating their most corrosive and misplaced resentments. 

The upshot of the essay, after all, was that minorities and women didn’t do anything wrong. They just got jobs.

I think we're done here.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, because it was sloppy argumentation. You didn’t read the piece before you reacted, and then compensated by putting thoughts and motivations into the minds of people you don’t know, and then proposed a truly bizarre counterfactual scenario that involved me taking a position I wouldn’t. 
We’ve interacted enough that you know I try to give as good as I get, which is what I did then, too. That’s why i dismissed it that way. 

Even if someone didn't read the article, we can see your angle through your what you've personally written. I am pretty sure that's where @wildcat09 is coming from.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Ignore the reply where I noted that it very much depends on what the firm does/specializes in.  Different practices often have different ethnic mixes of the candidates who are interested in that practice.  Zero racism by the hiring firm necessary, the pool of M&A candidates is gonna be a lot whiter than the pool of family law or even litigation candidates.

Yeah like immigration law. I'm sure @sheeeit can guess what the demographic would be there. 

Posted
I did not ignore this.  The guy who made the post can answer for himself.  But in my close circle of friends and family there is an unusual high percentage of lawyers.  I am not aware of any firm (especially firms that hire 10 or so summer interns each year) that are practice specific.  Virtually all have a variety of practice specialties within the firm.  And the vast amount of law school students do not know what they want to specialize in while in school.  Some obviously do but most do not.  

And I’ve practiced for three decades and know plenty of firms that hire good numbers of associates (including mine) that do not have a broad-spectrum practice. For example, we have several practice groups/disciplines, but all in the same “space.” That space tends to draw more women, decent numbers of minorities, and in several practice groups, people with a technical background.
I know other firms where the practice is more “corporate” in nature. The poop of candidates interested in that is whiter and more male.
None of these are “exclusive” to one demographic or another, but the practice and firm type often skew things.
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I know other firms where the practice is more “corporate” in nature. The poop of candidates interested in that is whiter and more male.
 

What kind of fucking background screening are you perverts running over there? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Even if someone didn't read the article, we can see your angle through your what you've personally written. I am pretty sure that's where @wildcat09 is coming from.

I have no idea what this means. What’s my angle?

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I have no idea what this means. What’s my angle?

Look man, I haven't commented on this subject much because I like to let the whites argue amongst themselves on topics like this. It's pretty obvious that the whole reason you brought this forth is because this resonated with you. Your whole viewpoint started based on feelings and not facts, and feelings is almost always a terrible way to form an opinion. The reason Millennials are getting squeezed out is far more complex. Most of it is because the olds aren't leaving. The workforce is getting older so not as many spots. Another is white male university enrollment has been steadily declining for years. I can go on but you get the picture. Bottom line is statistical analysis of demographics in the workplace across different genres doesn't support your worldview. The numbers have changed a little but far exceed the representation in population. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

It's pretty obvious that the whole reason you brought this forth is because this resonated with you.

I should hope so. I repeatedly said it did.

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Your whole viewpoint started based on feelings and not facts, and feelings is almost always a terrible way to form an opinion. 

My viewpoint “started” because what the author of the essay described aligns with my (and others who also posted) first hand experience as an older person watching/involved in the hiring/promotion/layoff process while we tried to correct historical underrepresentation of women and minorities. I questioned how much we accomplished at the time because it seemed like the people benefitting were already mostly products of extraordinary privilege and it had zero impact on the power structures involved, but I really hadn’t thought about the cost or negative impact in generational terms. 

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

The reason Millennials are getting squeezed out is far more complex. Most of it is because the olds aren't leaving. The workforce is getting older so not as many spots. Another is white male university enrollment has been steadily declining for years

Indeed, so I’m not sure what it has to do with what I posted. It would be asinine to suggest that diversity efforts are the primary reason millennials or even millennial males struggle, and it would also be inconsistent with hundreds or perhaps thousands of observations on the labor economy I’ve posted here and in previous incarnations of this community over the last 20+ years.

37 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Bottom line is statistical analysis of demographics in the workplace across different genres doesn't support your worldview. 

I’m not sure what you think my worldview is. That’s why I asked about my angle. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


And I’ve practiced for three decades and know plenty of firms that hire good numbers of associates (including mine) that do not have a broad-spectrum practice. For example, we have several practice groups/disciplines, but all in the same “space.” That space tends to draw more women, decent numbers of minorities, and in several practice groups, people with a technical background.
I know other firms where the practice is more “corporate” in nature. The poop of candidates interested in that is whiter and more male.
None of these are “exclusive” to one demographic or another, but the practice and firm type often skew things.

I am sure this is true.  Not sure of the point though?  Hard to think of or even imagine a law firm in Texas that has a specialized practice that overwhelmingly only appeals to white women and white men.  Couple that with Wildcat apparently being a lawyer there and it is almost impossible to invision.

You are trying to suggest there is a scenario where a guy like Wildcat (we all obviously know his thoughts on just about everything) is working at a firm that specializes in practice areas  that overwhelmingly only attract white women and white men?  With Wildcat's views?  Unpossible.

If he doesn't want to defend his statements, I suppose I do not really care.  But I will say he is the picture of hypocrisy because he calls out everyone he disagrees with and expects everyone else on here to defend their statements. 

Wildcat has ripped white, straight, conservative males thousands of times on here.  Thousands.  Yet he apparently works for a law firm that overwhelmingly only takes white men and white women as clerks.  He so wanted to get a story in the thread where he could rip some straight/white/conservative law clerks he exposed himself.  Or maybe he just made it all up?  I have tried to think of every scenario that could give him the benefit of the doubt but I can not come up with any.  He either works for a racist law firm or he is a blatant liar.

Posted
15 hours ago, TexasEd said:

r/LateStageCapitalism - I fixed that famous cartoon to show a more accurate representation of wealth inequality

This right here is something every single person should look at that blames minorities for their economic life being in shambles. It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

I don’t know who the person or group will be that finally breaks this down and takes back the money that all Americans should have access to in the form of better pay or even programs to help people attain a better education, but I’ll support them. The amount of good paying jobs that could be created for people with that hoarded money would go a long way towards our society finding some middle ground. It’s all so pointless and ridiculous that we’re going into the year 2026 and we’ve still got a set of ghouls like the person in the center of the picture doing that to everyone. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

This right here is something every single person should look at that blames minorities for their economic life being in shambles. It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

I don’t know who the person or group will be that finally breaks this down and takes back the money that all Americans should have access to in the form of better pay or even programs to help people attain a better education, but I’ll support them. The amount of good paying jobs that could be created for people with that hoarded money would go a long way towards our society finding some middle ground. It’s all so pointless and ridiculous that we’re going into the year 2026 and we’ve still got a set of ghouls like the person in the center of the picture doing that to everyone. 

Totally agree, and it illustrates how intellectually captive we’ve become. Fixing this is a handful of pretty straightforward changes to the tax code. But in order to do that, you need a major political movement to capture a political party and put the economic solidarity of the middle 60% of net worth ahead of literally everything else. 

I don’t mean it has to exclude everything else. The opposite- it can’t exclude anyone as long as they are willing to put economic solidarity first. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

It would take a massive societal upheaval to get equality for everyone in how we all live, but this is where you start. That we have people hoarding unconscionable amounts money that should be in circulation for everyone just really strikes a nerve with me. Even right now trying to type out my thoughts on that picture really overwhelms me.

 

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Totally agree, and it illustrates how intellectually captive we’ve become. Fixing this is a handful of pretty straightforward changes to the tax code. But in order to do that, you need a major political movement to capture a political party and put the economic solidarity of the middle 60% of net worth ahead of literally everything else. 

I don’t mean it has to exclude everything else. The opposite- it can’t exclude anyone as long as they are willing to put economic solidarity first. 

NOW we are getting to some interesting cocktail party conversation (and I still gag everytime this thread is bumped and I see the title "Lost Generation" and it not being a Hemingway or Post-WWII expat literary community reference).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I still gag everytime this thread is bumped and I see the title "Lost Generation"

Yeah I was like “don’t give up on the ticket scalping.” 

Posted (edited)

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

Edited by Iceman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

Maybe sit this one out.

  • Haha 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Yeah...the answer is in the fucking tax code.  LOLz.

Every.fucking.time.

The fact that y'all think the answer is there is a huge part of the problem.

This isn't going to be one of those "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and you too can be a billionaire helping to increase the skyrocketing wealth inequality" things, right?

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

This isn't going to be one of those "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and you too can be a billionaire helping to increase the skyrocketing wealth inequality" things, right?

nah, it's more of a "stop worrying about kids' feelings and provide proper direction as parents.  Reward desired behavior and be deliberate as stewards of our youth.  Confidence comes from achievement, not the lack of red ink on a test or lack of a trophy for a non-winning effort" thing.

Then again, and I have admitted this many times; there's not a lot of political capital in my answers; but they are effective AF.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
32 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

So the answer to combat unsustainable wealth inequality is to stop handing out participation trophies. Got it. Good stuff.

Taxation of the middle class, as it stands today, is thinly veiled theft. Leave the 98% alone.

Tax the billionaires. Full stop.

Posted
10 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I should hope so. I repeatedly said it did.

My viewpoint “started” because what the author of the essay described aligns with my (and others who also posted) first hand experience as an older person watching/involved in the hiring/promotion/layoff process while we tried to correct historical underrepresentation of women and minorities. I questioned how much we accomplished at the time because it seemed like the people benefitting were already mostly products of extraordinary privilege and it had zero impact on the power structures involved, but I really hadn’t thought about the cost or negative impact in generational terms. 

Indeed, so I’m not sure what it has to do with what I posted. It would be asinine to suggest that diversity efforts are the primary reason millennials or even millennial males struggle, and it would also be inconsistent with hundreds or perhaps thousands of observations on the labor economy I’ve posted here and in previous incarnations of this community over the last 20+ years.

I’m not sure what you think my worldview is. That’s why I asked about my angle. 

Shortly after posting the OP you then posted this. 

On 12/19/2025 at 5:43 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but taken at face value what do you think? 
Look there is a lot about this essay I find very silly. But the reason why it resonated with me was because it aligns with my first hand experience and direct visibility to what was happening, which is what 956 saw as well and describes above. 

If I was a millennial male who was denied opportunities exclusively on the basis of my race and/or gender I would be pretty bitter and pretty cynical also, and I have to think it drove a few people straight into the arms of the American right wing or whoever wanted to pursue that grievance. 

This where you were trying to drive the conversation and we could all see it coming. Based on your experience, which is statistically incorrect across the entirety of the workforce. You suggested that white Millennial males are being pushed toward MAGA because minority groups are getting jobs, despite multiple people on this thread trying to steer you away from that. 

You go on to say this......

Quote

White men, out of the box, have one really big advantage: if they interact with police they almost certainly won’t die. That’s a very big deal and I don’t want to minimize it. 
But otherwise, the vast majority of white men under 45 are just as fucked as everyone else and the vast majority of them will struggle all their lives and not amount to shit. 

and this........

Quote

For somebody under 45? Nah. If you take away the ~5% with money and family connections and they are just as fucked as everyone else.  
It’s nice not to get shot, tho. That’s not nothing. 

and this.....

Quote

I think that is the intention. That’s one of the reasons it disturbs me. The other reason, which is far more troubling, is the truth it contains, because real grievance is much more powerful in politics than the confected variety. 
 

Look at this thread. Multiple people are copping to the fact that yeah, millennial men probably were discriminated against en masse in certain fields for about a decade exclusively based on their race and gender, but most are kind of brushing them off as  “mediocre white men.”


But since the vast majority of all people in the workforce and population are pretty mediocre, what y’all are really saying is that it’s fine for an individual to have their opportunities limited because of their race and gender if it squares up the  ledgers of representation grievances. That’s a real political problem for progressives, among other things

and then lastly this......

Quote

No offense to anybody but this thread is pretty much what I expected and it’s disheartening.
This board is a pretty representative sample of mainstream progressive discourse, and this essay has proven to be a really interesting Rorschach test. My hope was that some class consciousness had crept back into this part of the left as we head into the next cycle, but the reaction here and other mainstream-left spaces to this demonstrates to me that class consciousness is still mainly symbolic if it exists at all, and nominal racial representation still trumps everything. Older affluent progressives (ie Mainstream white democrats) are still struggling to find empathy with voters they need to win. It’s troubling.

 

This pretty much paints your worldview that progressives pushing diversity in the workplace are responsible for the current political climate, and we need to slide backwards in order to "win back" the white male vote. 

As a member of a minority group, I would politely like to tell you to fuck all the way off with that bullshit. We've put nothing but centrist in the white house for decades and the right is still unhappy. They won't be happy until they claw back ALL the rights of everyone who is NOT a white male. That's a no go in my household my guy. White men already control almost everything, and when those white men die off a new crop of them will replace them. It just so happens that these current white men won't let go of the fucking rope. Quit blaming minorities and diversity. Look around you. The fucking president is 79 years old. The previous guy was 80 years old. Jerry Jones is 8 fucking 3. Buffet, Penske, Rady, Miller, Cole, Greenberg, etc etc. My fucking next door neighbor is in his 70's, has a brand new black on black suburban, bought his wife a new 5 series BMW, AND has a 911 tucked away in his garage. This motherfucker is still out there working and trying to live like he is 30. All across the country old ass white motherfuckers are holding onto their positions instead being put to pasture. Behind them is us. Waiting for them to die the fuck off so we can finally ascend. It's a log jam, and has very little to do with fucking minorities. Geezus fucking kr-I-st, let's placate more to the demographic that has everything. That will solve the problem. Let's get back to the days of minorities only being housekeepers and racial fucking covenants. Fuck yeah!

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

So the answer to combat unsustainable wealth inequality is to stop handing out participation trophies. Got it. Good stuff.

There’s something so funny about the apotheosis of American conservatism being the ultimate participation trophy guy. 

Posted
16 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No, because it was sloppy argumentation. You didn’t read the piece before you reacted, and then compensated by putting thoughts and motivations into the minds of people you don’t know, and then proposed a truly bizarre counterfactual scenario that involved me taking a position I wouldn’t. 

This is every progressive response to something microscopically racial

22 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

This pretty much paints your worldview that progressives pushing diversity in the workplace are responsible for the current political climate, and we need to slide backwards in order to "win back" the white male vote. 

As a member of a minority group, I would politely like to tell you to fuck all the way off with that bullshit. We've put nothing but centrist in the white house for decades and the right is still unhappy. They won't be happy until they claw back ALL the rights of everyone who is NOT a white male. That's a no go in my household my guy. White men already control almost everything, and when those white men die off a new crop of them will replace them. It just so happens that these current white men won't let go of the fucking rope. Quit blaming minorities and diversity. Look around you. The fucking president is 79 years old. The previous guy was 80 years old. Jerry Jones is 8 fucking 3. Buffet, Penske, Rady, Miller, Cole, Greenberg, etc etc. My fucking next door neighbor is in his 70's, has a brand new black on black suburban, bought his wife a new 5 series BMW, AND has a 911 tucked away in his garage. This motherfucker is still out there working and trying to live like he is 30. All across the country old ass white motherfuckers are holding onto their positions instead being put to pasture. Behind them is us. Waiting for them to die the fuck off so we can finally ascend. It's a log jam, and has very little to do with fucking minorities. Geezus fucking kr-I-st, let's placate more to the demographic that has everything. That will solve the problem. Let's get back to the days of minorities only being housekeepers and racial fucking covenants. Fuck yeah!

Art

Posted
30 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

This where you were trying to drive the conversation and we could all see it coming.

If this means that it was something I thought was worth talking about, indeed that’s why I wrote that.

30 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

ased on your experience, which is statistically incorrect across the entirety of the workforce. You suggested that white Millennial males are being pushed toward MAGA because minority groups are getting jobs

No. That’s not what that means, which is only what it says- if I personally were a millennial male who was denied opportunity, I would be bitter about it, and I have to imagine a subset of those people (ie “a few”) were radicalized by the experience.  Thank you for a close read, however:

30 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

This pretty much paints your worldview that progressives pushing diversity in the workplace are responsible for the current political climate, and we need to slide backwards in order to "win back" the white male vote. 

That is not my worldview or anything like it, so let me make this clear:

- I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status. 

- I have NEVER proposed giving back goddamn inch on anything, particularly when it comes to opening up opportunities in the workplace. 

- I spent a good bit of my career working on this stuff, which is why I’m trying to be thoughtful about how we could have done more and better. 
 

Hope that helps. As for the screed at the bottom, it’s got nothing to do with me, what I think, what I said, or what I do, but if it made you feel better to get it out, I’m glad. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status. 

I think it's hard to argue against that at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, G650 said:

I think it's hard to argue against that at this point.

Evidently the counter argument to that position is “quit blaming minorities,” and “bringing back racial covenants.”

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Evidently the counter argument to that position is “quit blaming minorities,” and “bringing back racial covenants.”

Help me understand… so do blame minorities? I didn’t realize we had that kind of soft power in the US. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, YChang said:

Help me understand… so do blame minorities? I didn’t realize we had that kind of soft power in the US. 

No, he wants to blame affluent white progressives for attempting to help minority groups. That way it's totally not racist.

Bozo thinks he had a potential political career fucked over by someone overly concerned about racial identity politics and has been bitching about it here ever since. He doesn't even get the history right. The Democrats began abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests long before the party began championing progressive social issues.  The abandonment of majoritarian middle class economics goes back at least to Carter's administration and sped up with Clinton's first election. And while that abandonment aligns to some extent with the economic interests of big Democratic donors, it wasn't driven by their financial interests. It was driven by the fact that they got the shit kicked out of them by Reagan running on a small government platform. Democrats looked at their pro-labor political messages and this result and the conclusion they drew was that America was deeply conservative:

 download.jpg.5968e8a096e3ad53a2a12e910c338778.jpg

From ~1980 to 2012, the party tried to split the baby on "narrow social issues" pretty much every election. They were for civil rights but also tough on crime. They wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. They didn't think gay people should be able to get married, but thought they should be able to enter into civil unions.  Etc. They very much thought American politics was about turning a dial that had a clear "left" and "right" on it, and thought that by landing right in the center of that dial they could win.

The party didn't really begin embracing a politics focused on embracing social issues until around 2012, when Obama came out in support of gay marriage, which was in response to a growing shift in public sentiment in support of gay marriage. They then became a bigger deal during Trump's first term in response to his white supremacy and particularly in 2020 after George Floyd, and the party finally actually embraced abortion as a political issue during Biden's administration after the repeal of Roe. But again, these were all in response to shifts in public sentiment; the poll nerds just looked at that and said "hey the center of the dial is actually left of where it used to be now, we have to move to the new center."

Where the party actually failed is that they completely forgot that political figures can change public opinion and thought the answer to all of politics was in simply chasing public opinion to triangulate perfectly in the center on as many issues as you could. But Bozo doesn't get to play the victim in that story. 

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
Quote

I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status. 

Bingo GIF by Hawkeye

Posted
24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

- I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status. 

The boldest points to a more interesting discussion than whether the obvious has happened. How does the Democratic Party put supporting the middle class economically at the center of its messaging? When it comes to 30-something white men, I don't think paid maternity leave, health care, increasing the minimum wage, clean energy, expanding child tax credits, and the like have or are going to resonate with the brosephs swayed by Rogan or Jordan Peterson to vote for billionaire tax cuts. Those policies may help them (health insurance is pretty fucking importany, clean energy efforts lead to good jobs, etc.) but the guys we're talking about are going to need those policies dressed up with MMA stars holding some guns and/or enticing ladies with BBLs and tits for them to give a shit.

Like I said, I don't think we need to argue whether they were "lost." Election results and Rogan's gigantic contract tells us they are. What's next? As someone who never, not for even one minute, thought Ayn Rand had something interesting to say, this "lost generation" is simply not my people. You seem to be raising your hand saying these are your folks. How do you think progressives get a couple percentage points of them to even listen to someone outside the meathead right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

How does the Democratic Party put supporting the middle class economically at the center of its messaging?

I would think the candidates running in 2026 have gotten the message and we‘ll see the election as a laboratory on what messaging seems to work best before 2028.  
 

It would also seem to me that the predominant sentiment here is “why are you even arguing about middle vs working class conflicts when the elites profit from that discord?” that’s mirroring some of what the primary candidates are exploring.  
 

My biggest concern is that the Democrats feel like everything is solved with smart policy and that’s either overly wishful or doesn’t resonate beyond a single election.   It’s also one of the things that @Bozo_Casanova has repeated here and on other threads-we don’t have a great solution for the Jacob Savages of the world but it they will clearly vote against us if we paint them as racist asshole incels instead of admitting “yeah, you got a raw deal in some respects.”

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, softlynow said:

How does the Democratic Party put supporting the middle class economically at the center of its messaging? When it comes to 30-something white men, I don't think paid maternity leave, health care, increasing the minimum wage, clean energy, expanding child tax credits, and the like have or are going to resonate with the brosephs swayed by Rogan or Jordan Peterson to vote for billionaire tax cuts. Those policies may help them (health insurance is pretty fucking importany, clean energy efforts lead to good jobs, etc.) 

Marrying the wrong person is the number one financial mistake for men in their 30s and 40s and dealing with custody issues, child support, and any other financial impacts that come from the result (losing house, alimony etc.)

Posted
1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

It’s also one of the things that @Bozo_Casanova has repeated here and on other threads-we don’t have a great solution for the Jacob Savages of the world but it they will clearly vote against us if we paint them as racist asshole incels instead of admitting “yeah, you got a raw deal in some respects.”

They'll still vote against the Dems even if you make admissions and show empathy, but yeah, the first step is admitting the problem/failure.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Totally agree, and it illustrates how intellectually captive we’ve become. Fixing this is a handful of pretty straightforward changes to the tax code. But in order to do that, you need a major political movement to capture a political party and put the economic solidarity of the middle 60% of net worth ahead of literally everything else. 

I don’t mean it has to exclude everything else. The opposite- it can’t exclude anyone as long as they are willing to put economic solidarity first. 

I agree with this, but I'm confused. You've spent most the thread yelling at people for suggesting this exact problem and solution. Are we allowed to discuss the actual problem or not? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Marrying the wrong person is the number one financial mistake for men in their 30s and 40s and dealing with custody issues, child support, and any other financial impacts that come from the result (losing house, alimony etc.)

My firm's bottom line is counting on this to continue. But I feel that a bet made on the premise "pussy is undefeated" is just good analytics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, softlynow said:

They'll still vote against the Dems even if you make admissions and show empathy, but yeah, the first step is admitting the problem/failure.

What? No. 
One of the weirdest things about this thread is the conflation of empathy, which is merely an effort to understand and accept the reality of another person’s experience and view of the world with some kind of performance, like an admission or apology or explanation or whatever. It’s just super odd. 
 

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If this means that it was something I thought was worth talking about, indeed that’s why I wrote that.

No. That’s not what that means, which is only what it says- if I personally were a millennial male who was denied opportunity, I would be bitter about it, and I have to imagine a subset of those people (ie “a few”) were radicalized by the experience.  Thank you for a close read, however:

That is not my worldview or anything like it, so let me make this clear:

- I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status. 

- I have NEVER proposed giving back goddamn inch on anything, particularly when it comes to opening up opportunities in the workplace. 

- I spent a good bit of my career working on this stuff, which is why I’m trying to be thoughtful about how we could have done more and better. 
 

Hope that helps. As for the screed at the bottom, it’s got nothing to do with me, what I think, what I said, or what I do, but if it made you feel better to get it out, I’m glad. 

 

Brother, blaming progressives for helping minorities in favor of white men is a thinly veiled way of blaming minorities. We minorities are very adept at reading dog whistles. This is why I hate responding to these kinds of posts. Then the accusations of someone trying to play the victim come out when I could give a fuck, I'm getting mine regardless. 

What did you say? 

"- I very much do blame our current situation on affluent white progressives for abandoning majoritarian middle class economic interests in favor of narrow social issues and reinforcing their own economic security and social status."

As wildcat above pointed out, that wasn't how it went down. The abandonment of the "working man" was a direct response to getting washed 3 presidential races in a row while trying to run on a "working man and strong unions" based platform, while Reagan was running on cutting taxes for the rich and trickle down. Thats how we got a conservative Democrat in office that would famously say in a State of The Union Address that "The Era of Big Government is over". A democratic president that would sign the 94 crime bill, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall Reform, and push for China to join the WTO. All Republican agendas. 

This was long before blue-haired progressives and trans people. But go ahead and tell us how it was about "narrow social issues", as you called it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What? No. 
One of the weirdest things about this thread is the conflation of empathy, which is merely an effort to understand and accept the reality of another person’s experience and view of the world with some kind of performance, like an admission or apology or explanation or whatever. It’s just super odd. 
 

Considering how little I've posted on this thread, you'll forgive me if I feel you've missed the mark here. Generally, I feel, any person/entity that reverses course first admits, at least internally, to a misstep. That's what I meant. Putting Dem strategists in the stocks, while certainly amusing, and probably cathartic for some, would accomplish very little.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I agree with this, but I'm confused. You've spent most the thread yelling at people for suggesting this exact problem and solution. Are we allowed to discuss the actual problem or not? 

Now I’m confused. Where did I yell at anybody for that? 
 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Brother, blaming progressives for helping minorities in favor of white men is a thinly veiled way of blaming minorities.

Again, I think you are projecting. 
I’m blaming progressives for, among other things, failing to help minorities and disadvantaged people, and putting the performance of helping ahead of results in order to protect their own power and status.
 

You can miss me with the rest of all that. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What? No. 
One of the weirdest things about this thread is the conflation of empathy, which is merely an effort to understand and accept the reality of another person’s experience and view of the world with some kind of performance, like an admission or apology or explanation or whatever. It’s just super odd. 
 

I don't think you know what you mean with these words. Part of this is just a limitation of the English language. But what does it mean to "accept the reality of another person's experience and view of the world"?

Like, actually play out the conversation, because I think you're reading into everyone's posts something that isn't there. Just because we are discussing the actual problems and solutions here in this thread, doesn't mean we are saying that the empathetic conversation also includes discussion. Those are two separate things, which I've tried to make clear to you repeatedly. 

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Now I’m confused. Where did I yell at anybody for that? 
 

The entire fucking thread my man. That's all you've been doing in response to my posts. 



×
×
  • Create New...