Where's the source data for that, that shows that Trump won under-29 men by 15 points, compared to Biden winning them in 2020 by 14 points?
NBC News shows 2 points, 49% to 47%. It doesn't seem to have 2020 data on that specific combination of gender and age, though. But it does show an overall swing of about 11 points towards Trump for the under-29s of all genders.
CNN didn't break things out by gender but their data shows that Trump gained 13 points among under-29s generally, including women.
band together and hate a specific cause.
The thing with Gen X teenage nihilism was that the only cardinal sin was actually having a strong opinion. There wasn't much room to hate on anything, because actually hating something showed that you cared too much, and that wasn't what we were about.
Gen Z seems to be much more willing to embrace negative emotions and acknowledge that they care enough to hate. Whether that's a better or a worse thing, I'm not sure.
This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. Eventually the boy cries wolf too many times, townspeople stop listening to the boy, and stop responding to the cries.
The way we tell it, though, is that the boy is falsely crying wolf each time. And the townspeople eventually learn their lesson and stop responding.
One hypothetical that I always think about is what if the boy is correct each time, and there really is a wolf every time? Well, I think the townspeople would eventually grow numb to the cries and stop responding anyway, and kinda leave the boy to fend for himself because they're sick of helping him. We'd see the same result even if the boy did nothing wrong.
The worst part is no-one cared, fucking "they'll grow out of it" and now everyone is suddenly in shock. When I talk about it to my friend today he's even in fucking denial about it, "Oh they didn't actually mean that, it was all jokes".
Most edgy teens do grow out of it. I roll my eyes at embarrassment at some of the stuff I wrote in college, and high school me was even stupider.
But one difference in my high school years (in the 90's), edginess wasn't inherently politically coded. Some of it was racist, sexist, or homophobic, but plenty of the targets were also Republican constituencies: rural/small town people, Christians, fat people, old people, prudes, etc. In a conservative suburban area, jokes about abortion, sex, drugs, etc. were often designed to elicit shock and disgust.
I think we've seen a cultural shift in which edginess is seen as right wing in itself, in part because the right, which used to get offended at things like Harry Potter and Howard Stern and Disney movies, has fallen in line with edgy Gen X comedians who somehow didn't grow out of it, and made room for people who smoke weed and mock the Bible.
Any male born after 1999 can't fuck, all they know is Joe Rogan, vape, charge they phone, Twitch, be cucks, eat hot tendies and lie
I think it depends on a lot of real-life interactions, too. I had coaches and teachers and older work colleagues (including in heavily male dominated workforces, like the military) who were strong masculine role models. So when it came to media consumption I tended to gravitate towards celebrities or famous characters who already fit the worldview.
Nick Offerman played a libertarian Ron Swanson on TV, but in that fictional work the core cultural markers of manhood were explicitly presented as non-political, and seem largely shared with the left-leaning actor himself.
Terry Crews is similar, as you've pointed out. On Brooklyn 99 his character was presented as a loving father of young girls, who was in connection with his feelings, but also loved working out and sports and, you know, was a cop with a gun. In real life, in interviews, he seemed very much in tune with healthy masculinity and his place in the world.
Steve Kerr and Greg Popovich give off positive male leader vibes and often speak up about political and cultural issues, while largely being protective and supportive of the younger men who essentially work for them.
George Clooney is funny because he came off as a bit of a womanizer for years, but dove right into his long term relationship with a woman whose own career would arguably overshadow his. He is unabashedly and vocally a supporter of Democrats and other causes associated with the left in the United States.
Nobody is perfect, or deserves to be put on a pedestal. But there are little nuggets of positive examples all around us, including traditionally masculine men who support ideals that are more culturally and politically associated with the cultural left.
Year to year comparisons can be viewed here.
Strangely enough, he lost educated white voters compared to before. He won white people with college degrees the previous two times, but lost them this time.
I guess that means that the shift in minority support cut across education levels.
They're talking about specifically white women, not all women, which the link (and exit polling from other major sources) also reports had a 53% vote for Trump.
James Cameron has a history of making great things happen with a low budget, and spending millions responsibly to actually make a positive difference in big budget films.
is a “B-movie” now?
Did you not read the article? It was regarded as a B-movie when it came out: a low-budget sci-fi slasher/horror film. Arnold referred to it as a B-movie when asked about it on the set of Conan the Barbarian (which had 3 times the budget as Terminator). The New York Times referred to it as a B-movie in its review, as discussed by this article, which is also why the headline uses quotes around "B-movie."
I'm new to this community. What is this thread? Do people submit their own votes for a straw poll here?
As far as I can tell, it seems like most commenters have their own computer ranking systems that they're explaining as they submit.
It's all pretty interesting, but pretty intimidating for someone new to this place.
"I got into barefoot running but mainly for the savings"
Unless the drugger was in this person's group
Isn't that a pretty common thing, where a woman is drugged by a man she is actively on a 1 on 1 date with?
The logistics of a stranger kidnapping a roofied victim seems much more complicated if they didn't show up together.
TGI Friday's used to be a full blown singles bar advertised as a place for young professionals to meet for one night stands and the like. When their core audience got older and started getting married and having kids, they pivoted to a neighborhood family friendly restaurant.
I told the magic mirror a thousand times, I never wanted to meet a girl in person! I just wanted a corpse. You can't disappoint a corpse! I hate you magic mirror!
The true key is…counterintuitive as this sounds, not looking.
I agree with your overall comment but would also expand on this point. It's ok to be looking (and open about that fact) but you're right that looking for a romantic/sexual relationship is a lot easier when it's combined with looking for other things at the same time, like the other things you're talking about: people to share conversations with, to share hobbies with, to do things with, to learn from, to accomplish things with. Because after all, even if you do find someone to be a romantic partner, you'll want all those other things as part of it, too.
Most people who share your interests or want to do things with you won't be potential partners. I'm a straight cis guy with a lot of stereotypical straight guy interests, which means that the majority of people I meet through my hobbies are other straight guys, and none of us want to date each other. Even most of the women aren't in the dating pool (age, relationship status, other factors).
Being social creates opportunities to meet partners. For people who are able to do that, being social is the easiest way to create the environment where potential partners want to talk to you and want to explore compatibility with you.
Counterpoint: showing the sex and the puking in graphic detail in Team America were both important parts of the movie.