Outlaw83
3mo ago
I'd actually probably agree with her on which sort of country music is better, but unfortunately, the market has spoken on this.
While it's probably just semantics, I'd also wouldn't say the shift is so much to going after an urban audience, but rather a more upscale exurban/suburban audience - instead of the more downscale working class audience (which has drifted to rap/hip-hop no matter their race), modern country music is aimed the type of guy who can buy the fully kitted out Ford F150 to drive to his car dealership job and maybe out to a lake cabin he rented, but never actually hauls anything or the woman who posts on Instagram about Jesus, but also had a fun time at college and so on. But in some ways, it's just the inevitable end of the fall of rock music (as there's lots of big songwriters in Nashville today that used to work in Los Angeles in the 80's) + the southernization of all of rural/exurban America, which made the culture of country music more available, but also flatter.
For all the talk of safety in art, the 'safest' genre as far as being afraid to offend anybody is absolutely modern country music.
It's fine to not like her, but Taylor Swift was not the first of her type, she was just the most successful by a giant margin.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
pop-country sellouts who helped destroy country music.
Pop country had already destroyed "real" country music either 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or hell, 30 years ago depending on what generation you are. Unless your girlfriend's into some real obscure alt-country honkytonk sort of stuff, whatever she considered real country that might've been playing on the radio in 1995, 2003, or whenever she was younger was considered as 'ruining' country music by the next generation up.
I'm old enough to remember Garth Brooks being seen as the Taylor Swift of his time by country music fans.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I think the thing anti-immigration hardliners don't realize is most people don't care about the issue as deeply as they do. Looking at the most recent UK elections, there's about 15% of the voting population that's truly and deeply anti-immigration.
There may be majorities super majorities for various anti-migration actions, but people's actual feelings on them are actually, 'sure, why not' to 'not really caring one way or the other, but it seems better' then not thinking about it again, and other issues may easily shift their view on said issue.
So, the fact polling shows a majority of people may say they want draconian immigration measures is sort of like the polling my left-wing friends sometimes point too as proof people want a wide raft of progressive economic stuff, but then don't vote for the candidate supporting said things, either in the primary or the general.
That's because they may agree, but they care less about those issues than issue y or z.
Like, I'm a left-wing social democrat who cares deeply about a lot of things, but I also realize I'm a weirdo who cares more than 95% of the US does about any specific issue, so I understand issue polling is at best, hazy.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-white-evangelical-gay-marriage-907627
"Muslims, by a margin of 51 percent to 34 percent, favor same-sex marriage, compared to just four years ago when a majority, 51 percent, were opposed. There were similar results for black Protestants, with 54 percent opposing gay marriage in PRRI's 2014 American Values Atlas, compared with 43 percent in the latest findings.
Indeed, opposition to same-sex marriage is now limited almost entirely to white conservative Christians. Fifty-eight percent of white evangelical Christians and 53 percent of Mormons—an overwhelming majority of whom are white—are opposed to allowing gay couples to marry."
This is from 2018, but there's polling show even black Protestant's have become more socially liberal (as seen here on abortion - https://x.com/ryanburge/status/1817372877538074993).
Now, maybe there's some backlash on this in recent years, but that means there's also been some on the evangelical side as well. Plus, on other social issues such as abortion, abortion is just a generally less important thing even in conservative Islamic law, from what I know.
Even then, I'd argue American Muslim's are closer to black Protestants than white evanglicals, in that even if they're socially conservative, they're largely not voting on it.
OTOH, to be fair, Gretchen Whitmer lost support in the Dearborn area of Michigan (about 30 points), even as she increased her overall support in her re-election bid for Governor.
Again, Europe is different, but I've seen no real evidence of the same issues w/ second or third generation Muslim immigrants as Europe is having.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
The median American view on transgender issues is, "I don't get it, they have the right to do what they want, and I might have some worries about what's going on in the schools, but that's something I'll deal with a school board race, and I don't get why Presidential candidates think it's more important than the economy/immigration/abortion/whatever."
Again, America is an inherently libertarian and 'mind your own business' country, which will frustrate both left-leaning and right-leaning people occasionally.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
DEI is still pretty popular as a basic idea - https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/4727744-americans-favor-dei-programs-poll/
Now you can argue people don't know what DEI really is or just not believe polling, but just throwing it out there isn't a boogeyman outside of right-wing circles.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I mean, maybe in Europe because they can't appear to assimilate people moving to their country that hasn't been their for 300 years, but in America at least, Muslim's are more liberal than evangelical Christian's on most social issues.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
As I've said before, the problem is the core of the anti-immigration people aren't willing to give up some of their other right-wing policy goals.
Meloni in Italy seems to be doing fine, if not doing as much as perhaps she promised (like all politicians), but there's no deep state plot to remove her or whatever people claim about anti-immigration politicians, because she's pro-NATO and acts like a normal politician within the Overton Window of Italian politics.
But also, there was a super anti-immigration party on the ballot for the UK. Eighty six percent of the population chose somebody else. That 14% doesn't get veto power via rioting, and that's why you see strong support among the populace for harsh measures for the rioters.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I mean, any resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, or in past elections, Florida & Ohio can tell you that TV stations have no problems taking anybodies political ads and running them.
As far as memes go, I thought with Musk in charge, X was now the land of free speech where the true non-restricted views of the people can run free.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Sure, because ironically, the 'moderate Republican' was really an Obama-era Democrat who would've actually won by a wider margin if she had stayed as a Democrat, but I legitimately think didn't understand the Top 2 voting system in Washington, so thought she had to run as a Republican to be in the general. Like, if she'd just been the normal Democrat she basically was, she could've won with 65% of the vote instead of allowing said police abolitionist to run as the only Democrat in the race, and probably getting the votes of plenty of low-info normie voters.
Like I said, voters will vote for tough on crime Democrat's, but they're not going to vote for Guiliani-style Republican's as long as crime is still far below 90's levels.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
As Democrats, no, we're really not. We're happy to say unfortunately, when this was more of a racist country, unfortunately due to historical political ties, there was a very odd alliance of African-American's, unions, and racists. Thankfully, we eventually forced them out of the coalition thanks to the works of great men like Hubert Humphrey and so on, but unfortunately for the country, instead of casting them out and refusing their support, the Republican's were happy to allow with these racists, and now, that stain has been shifted to them and creating the festering wound that led to Trumpism.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Speaking as somebody who lives in one of these cities that are supposedly falling apart, this just isn't true. Sure, Bill Gates home is in a small suburb on the eastside in a suburb Seattle on the other side of the water, but there are plenty of well-off people living in parts of Seattle not far away from the 'bad parts.' There are brand new $2000/month apartments blocks away from homeless services buildings and so on.
Hell, there are streets that wouldn't look out of place in any American suburb a block or two away from Aurora, the street that's been well known for prostitution and various other petty crime since the 70s in Seattle, and the values of those homes only continue to go up.
It's nice to blame wealthy leftists for it all, but the reality is, the median voter in a large city is less uncomfortable with chaos and disorder than many other people are, at least compared to the style of crackdown people here want. They won't vote for out and out police abolitionists or whatever, but they're not voting for a Guliani-type anytime soon. Even in NYC, part of the reason Eric Adams won is because along with talking about crime, he also had the legitimacy of having issues w/ the NYPD before.
So, a couple of months ago (I think - time is a flat circle), there was a conversation and some slight complaining about how center-right parties in Europe never work with "far-right" parties, and how that's proof that the elite are against the votes, etc. and it's actually unfair the center-right aligns with the center-left instead of the far-right and there was even some talk it was somehow undemocratic.
Well, I just saw a poll about voting preference for Kamala Harris among German voters that shows something important about the underlying feelings of actual electorate-
https://x.com/ElectsWorld/status/1818288736549159376
% who would vote for Vice President Harris (D):
Grüne: 99 %
SPD: 92 %
CDU/CSU: 89 %
FDP: 85 %
BSW: 52 %
AfD: 26 %
Forsa, 26/07/24
Obviously, the SPD, Green, and AfD numbers all make sense. For those unaware, BSW is the new anti-immigrant economically left-wing party recent created by a former prominent Die Lienke member, so they're sort of cross-pressured on this, ironically.
But, the important number to show is the CDU/CSU & FDP numbers. This is why these center-right parties end up aligning w/ the center-left because on the big issues of the day, the CDU/CSU & FDP voter is closer to the SPD or Green Party than the AfD
Obviously, yes, the chances are some of that 15% in the FDP or 11% in the CDU/CSU will eventually also move to the AfD and obviously, another chunk of the voters if they actually lived in the US would end up voting for Trump the same way a lot of normal Republican's who have voted for Republican's their whole life end up voting for Trump, but this isn't a case of some Elite spitting in the face of their voters and aligning in some globalist conspiracy against the voters.
No, the voters are with the leadership for the most part on this. This isn't going to be correct for every country, but this is also why most of the center felt closer to Communist's than the former National Front in the French parliamentary elections as well. As I've said before, people want harsh immigration policies, they're just not willing to accept the rest of the right-wing culture war and lack of competence that comes with it when it comes to current far-right parties like the AfD.
If you truly think Muslim immigration is the worst problem facing Europe, then that person needs to accept LGBT rights, a massive welfare state, supporting Ukraine, and so on, and you might get somewhere.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Because J.D. Vance's weirdness, whether it's banning abortion, attacking childless women, and the various stuff included in Project 2025 and so on is something median voters care about. They don't care about transgender issues or whatever the Culture War issue of the day really is, as the 2022 midterms showed, when even GOP voters put it at the bottom of their concerns.
Transgender issues are very important to Republican's and centrists who still live in deep blue cities or your typical reactionary Christian's who hate all social liberalism, but the median swing voter in Wisconsin doesn't give a damn, whether they do end up voting for Trump or Kamala in the end, and actually, focusing on transgender issues as your comeback will just make you look more weird.
The median voter's view is, "look, I don't get it, but why are you so obsessed with it, weirdo?"
Outlaw83
3mo ago
This is legitimate logical argument in theory, except it appeals to nobody outside of like, nineteen people in a Discord, because both pro-life and basically 98% of pro-choice people think forcing a woman to have an abortion via pressure is a terrible thing to do.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Because there are differences between cis-men and cis-women, the responsibility differs - with women, the responsibility continues through the pregnancy with the option for termination, but the man, because he's not carrying the child, the responsibility begins the moment he chooses to have sex with a woman.
Also, a truly financially destitute man won't really be on the hook for more than a meager amount of child support.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Well, responsibility isn't needed in a world where you can be made to be financially responsibly by the state.
First of all, the social sanction that outside of small communities like this, men who try to find ways to not pay their child support are largely seen as terrible human beings among all ideologies, races, and income levels. About probably the only thing a non-college educated Trump-voting guy making $40k and a PMC woman whose still sad Hillary lost that is making $250k can agree on is guys who don't pay reasonable child support and try to avoid it are a-holes.
Plus, the collapse of cash-only jobs means it's impossible to have any income that make senses that avoids wage garnishment.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Except they have to work anyway, and would die anyway. The number of men who die on a job who would not be on that specific job if not for child support payments is likely not that high. Unless there's some society with a much lower workplace death rate that has divorce banned I'm unaware of.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I mean, the actual reality here is it turns out, women are actually much better at the type of schooling initially dominated by boy's for decades - aka, sit at a desk and listen to a teacher for hours upon hours, which even with whatever changes to pedagogy there have been, still seems to be the prominent way education is done, except maybe now there's a few more computer screens.
It's interesting how there wasn't there criticism of this type of schooling when men were 70% of college students - no, the boys were just told to sit down and listen instead of being given excuses by conservatives.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
Because as a man, to me, a 'financial abortion' is still a fundamentally irresponsible act.
Getting an abortion if you get pregnant and don't want a child, putting aside morality, is a responsible act.
Walking away from a child you've created and that will be born is an irresponsible act.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I mean, yes, there has been social change, but the vast majority of that has been positive in my view, and in the view of the vast majority of people. It's up to those guys to determine if their deepest worry is about the gender or race of their favorite superheroes or the average bust size of the women in video games or whatever is proof that SJW's have taken over. I truly do think 'the SJW's have ruined everything' types do really overrate how much everybody in nerd culture was really on their side, as opposed to people who weren't opposed to the nerd culture of 1994, but also aren't opposed to the nerd culture of 2024.
If your deepest view is culture was great in 1995 and everything was fine, yeah, you're going to be left behind, just like if you're belief that culture was great in 1970, even in 1995, you'd be considered an out of touch old guy that's being passed by. 1995 is actually a long time ago now, when it comes to culture.
I've also made this point before - in 1994, if two nerdy (likely) white dudes are having a political argument, they probably don't have too deep a connection to many of the political arguments, even if they have different views on something. On the other hand in 2024, the left-leaning person is far more likely to have non-white people, LGBT, or other groups that are effected by conservative policies, so it's not a shock that now they have a closer relationship with those folks, they're less likely to be seen as just arguments.
Like, why do I want to be personally friendly with people who want to make the lives of my other friends worse? I'm fair about this - I don't expect somebody whose pro-life, anti-transgender rights, or super anti-immigration whatever to be my friend if they deeply care about those issues.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
The problem with this argument is if everybody was actually on your side in nerdy spaces in the first place. There were plenty of people who wanted to kick you out from the jump.
Again, I've made this analogy before, but in 1997, if among your friend group, one of the guys in your local area that is into anime, Warhammer, Doctor Who, or whatever thing you're deeply into is kind of off, occcasionally says cring things or whatever, you may put up with it, because that's the only option you have. But, this did make a current brand of nerd think they had more support than they actually did.
But, in 2024, you don't have to deal with that guy anymore, and thanks to the increased popularity of nerdy things in general, there are plenty of people with more normal views on stuff.
If the option is somebody who might know less about cool thing y you're into, but also doesn't complain there are now non-sexy women or non-white people in prominent places within said cool thing, a lot of people are going to side with the person who knows less because they're less annoying to be around, even if you don't care one way or another.
I'd also argue video games are part of the capitalist system, while crochet groups really aren't, even though there have been rows about crochets involving race. But yes, it turns out people who own businesses want to make more money, and they'll drop their appeal to males 18-34, if it'll help them also win over older males and women.
I think a big thing your side doesn't get is the actual reason for the desexualization of games is actually less evil SJW's, but the fact that programmers, engineers, and actual gamers are getting older, having kids, and it's far more defensible to a wife to be playing a game on the lbig living room TV with characters that look like the modern Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, or whatever the game people have determined is full of 'ugly' people, as opposed to the polygons with boobs of the late 90's.
Ironically, I would compare this to a refugee situation, where refugees sometimes put up with extremist or less than fantastic parts of their refugee community because they all have to stand together. Well, some of the refugees found a new country and they have to follow certain rules and stop saying certain things and don't find that a problem, while there's a smaller group that wants to hold on to outdated traditions because that's the way it was.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
This is a time thing - Hillary was basically Public Enemy #1 (even more than Bill) from their arrival into national politics in 1992 to Obama showing up in 2008. So much was thrown at her (the truthfulness is up for you to decide) that it seeped into even left-leaning people's view of Hillary.
Kamala's only been a national issue for around five years and in that time, honestly, the wider Right has been from the outside, seemingly more obsessed with AOC & Hunter Biden than Kamala.
Outlaw83
3mo ago
I mean, this is a general problem for the current GOP, which is different from the past.
As a dirty left-winger, I opposed the Bush GOP with all my heart, but I understood they were trying to win majority support. They failed in 2000, but even putting aside everything post-9/11, they governed in a way to try to get a majority in 2004 - Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc. along with social conservative stuff I didn't like, but was at least far more popular at the time.
Which, they were then rewarded with the last electoral Presidential majority a Republican candidate has received in 2004, that then they decided to blow-up by trying to privatize Social Security.
Now, the GOP seems not interested in actually winning over a majority of voters. The view seems to be, run a straight flush, win with 47.3% of the vote, then act like you won a 35-state mandate in your actions afterward, then be shocked you become unpopular 19 seconds into office.
Ironically, that's why beyond pure partisanship, it would've been nice if what looked like was possible in 2004 - Kerry winning w/ a popular vote loss - would've happened, because then there might've been a bi-partisan movement to trash the Electoral College, and I'm not saying that as somebody who believes the GOP would be unable to create a platform and argument to win a national popular vote.
Here's the thing - as a left-winger, I agree there's wasteful spending in the federal government and bad regulations. We might even agree, if we went line by line on some. But obviously, there's a lot we would disagree on.
But, what I would agree too is a commission with equal numbers of liberal, libertarian, conservative, and left-wing economists. Of the regulations or spending, if a supermajority of all four groups agree a regulation or spending line on the federal budget is inefficient, they all go to an immediate up or down vote in both the House & Senate immediately after the end of the commission, if a supermajority of three out of the four agree, it's put forth in the pertinent committees, etc.
More options
Context Copy link