SSCReader
1mo ago
Isn't this completely false? Last I've seen they had trouble attracting young women, with young men flocking to the in droves.
Trump got about 56% of men under 30, while Harris got about 59% of women under 30 (55% Harris to 42% Trump overall for 18-29, because more women vote than men). But the young men were most concerned about the economy, so it's hard to tell how many are going to the right vs how many were just voting against the current party because the economy sucked. Presumably some of those 56% will shift back if the economy sucks again in 2028, but we can at least say that they are willing to vote for Trump/the right, even if some of them weren't specifically flocking to the banner. Trump was up from 36% in 2020 to 42% of 18-29 in 2024, so there was certainly a swing.
However as I pointed out previously Bush got between 45% to 49% of the 18-29 vote when he won in 2000 and 2004, so Trump hasn't got back to where conservatives were a couple of decades ago. How that vote shakes out in 2028 is probably going to determine if we can see a long term swing rather than a single election cycle swing.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Indeed which is why I said assumed here, and then later pointed out that their prefences may be entirely different as well.
Still you have to do both sides of the equation if you hope to make proper comparisons.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Sure there are other dynamics, but you have to measure both sides the same in the first placebefore you can the measure the dynamic differences.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Assuming your definitions are accurate for the moment, Have you done the same in reverse? How many men in your pool meet the 9 basic criteria women would put on them?
For example if we assume women also have non obese in their preferences that filters out close to 30% of those men in one fell swoop, just like it did for women.
The pool for 9/9 women is 9/9 men. A man who only meets 2/9 criteria is going to be paired with similar women. The pool of 9/9 women is irrelevant to him and vice versa (in general).
On your modal outcome where 10 men are pursuing every 9/9 woman, well if 9 of them are not 9/9 men then most of your problem goes away. Their reach exceeds their grasp. They really do need to lower their standards to meet their own achievements. If all 10 are 9/9 men then yes you have a problem.
This is a pairwise function, not an independent one. You can't evaluate only one half of it.
You need to build the same estimate for number of single young men who meet the 9 basic criteria women have, then compare those two estimates. Of course for women their criteria may be different. For example if women prefer a man with some experience then their bodycount criteria may be 5-10 not less than 5.
Or to put it another way its irrelevant logically how many men in total are pursuing marriageable women. It matters how many marriageable men are pursuing marriageable women in this context. Non-marriageables have to be filtered out on both sides for the comparison you want to do. They are in their own pool together.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Well, i am from Northern Ireland and its not quite that simple. We're not Scottish Protestants any more, we've been there for hundreds of years. Half my family is of Scottish descent, but the other half is from Ulster even before the Plantation happened.
I'm both Irish snd Scottish by ancestry. And thats very common, after all the Plantation of Ulster happened in the 1600's. Thats longer than the United States has even existed as a country. Plenty of time for inter marriage between settlers and natives who converted to Protestantism to create entirely separate ethnic family trees. Its why its Ulster Scots, not just Scots.
SSCReader
1mo ago
The UK of the 1980s was quite modern and interconnected. In another time, the Troubles could have been more traditional uprising instead of very long terrorist campaign.
Well it was already the remnant of a traditional uprising. The partition of Ireland and the Anglo-Irish Treaty was a solution to the Irish War of Independence. It's extremely unlikely the Troubles could have become a more traditional uprising because most of the people who cared were placated enough by the freeing of the Republic (nee Irish Free State) and the peace deal ratified by both Irish and British governments.
The Provos always struggled to recruit enough people to do anything more than they did. The Troubles was essentially the very long death rattle of the Irish War of Independence (and the Irish Civil War between those who supported the Anglo-Irish treaty and those who did not within the new state). It was the end state of a traditional uprising, not the beginning.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Except.... Romney got 37% (lost to Obama), McCain got 32% (lost to Obama) so it starts to look true, but Bush got about 45% (beat Kerry) in 2004 and 47% (beat Gore) in 2000. Clinton got 55% to Doles 35% in 1996, so back to being true and Bush Senior got 34% (lost to Clinton) in 1992 but 53% (beat Dukakis) in 1988.
Partially it's just whoever wins will in general do better with most groups than times when their side loses (because that's how you win!). If you compare to times when Republicans win Trump at 43% in 2024 is a touch below Bush in 2000 and 2004 and less than Bush Senior in 1988.
If you look at 1984 to 1996 it looks like youth support for Republicans is in free fall from 59% (Reagan win) to 53% (Bush Senior win) down to 34% and 35% (losses to Clinton) but they jump right back to 47% and 45% the next two elections (Bush wins). Then drop back down into the 30's (losses to Obama) and then pop right back up for Trump in 2024. It looks mainly to be an artefact of who is winning/losing in general.
I wouldn't pay too much attention or be surprised when youth vote percentages are high when you win and low when you lose. It's just a subset of winning/losing. In the last 50 years Republicans have been as high as 53% (or even 59% if we go back to Reagan in 84!) and as low as 32% for McCain. Trump is still well within those norms I think. Actually his win in 2016 is maybe the odd one out. He won with just 36% of that youth vote. Which in most years would correspond with an overall loss (and he did lose the popular vote of course, not that it is relevant much). 36% again in 2020 with a loss, which is about on trend. Then up to 43% in 2024 with a win.
If anything it is the opposite, if you compare like with like. Trump at 43% and 36% with wins compared to Bush at 45% and 47%, Bush Senior at 53% with a win and Reagan at 59% and 44% with wins. On his loss he is on par with Romney, a touch ahead of McCain and Dole and Bush Senior on their losses.
Or if we average (a very blunt tool!) Trump has 38% across 3 elections which is just ahead of Romney (37%), ahead of McCain (32%), behind Bush's average of 46%, above Dole's 35%, below Bush Senior's average of 43% and below Reagans average of 51%. So pretty much middle of the pack.
So I think we can say Trump did NOT get a significantly higher percentage than most Republicans get. He did do better in 2024 than Romney and McCain when they lost, but that's kind of to be expected! And he didn't do as well as Bush or Bush Senior when they won.
SSCReader
1mo ago
Yup and 45% of women overall, up from 42% in 2020 and 41% in 2016. The differences are often over-estimated I think. It's only a few percent across the board.
Nope: Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 51% supported Harris while 47% supported Trump. Gen Z men did go 55% for Trump though. Women went 58% for Harris. That is closer than it was in 2020 however but still not a majority for Trump in Gen Z, let alone overwhelming.
Though I don't think that would suggest they are indoctrinated into wokeness either to be fair. A basically 50/50 split wouldn't support that (or at least that things like the economy can override whatever woke feelings there are).
Edit - It actually seems to be closer to 54% for Harris and 43% for Trump depending on which exit polls you aggregate. Which doesn't change the argument much.
SSCReader
1mo ago
I'm a neo-liberal capitalist with a twist actually. And it was very nice of you with the gas station worker, bit that illustrates my point. You built a relationship with her over time then she could ask you for a favor.
You can't speedrun the relationship.
Danish Miss Teen America (?) takes your order sure. Try asking a French waiter a stupid question though. Norms are different in different places at different time for different people. You have to learn to navigate the ones in front of you. Not the ones you wish there were.
SSCReader
1mo ago
It generally corresponds with scale and culture, and is much more the case in
Absolutely it can I agree. But even in a small tea shop in the Cotswolds if you go in, and ask them how the labor relations are between management and staff, after saying you don't want to buy anything, I'm not sure you'll get much of an answer.
SSCReader
1mo ago
inhumanity of the fact that two 'normal' people can't talk anymore about current events because of...all the stuff you just said
Setting aside whether she might get fired, it is entirely human not to want to talk to random strangers about things at your job. Being a neighbor is just geographical proximity. Even is she lived next door she may not want to talk to you about anything and that is very human. Especially if she can detect the disdain in which you hold her.
If you want her to act as you think a neighbor should then you need to make an effort to not judge her like:
"almost comically short and fat, like a cube. Her hair was greasy, thin, obviously unwashed, and would've benefited from a cut some months ago. She was curt, bordering on rude, asking what I wanted. When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
Is this how you describe the people you want to form a neighborly community with? Is this how you talk about them? Never once in your vent did you speculate that your neighbor maybe overworked and underpaid, that she might be working multiple jobs, that she might have a point in what she did, that perhaps she picked up on your immediate reaction to seeing her. You described her entirely in a negative fashion. You called her a soulless NPC.
Why should she act like a neighbor to you? Did you act like a neighbor to her? You didn't even buy a coffee at the place she works, you went out of entirely selfish reasons and on the very first time you met her, asked her a badly thought through question. You didn't start with small talk about the weather or any of the other socially acceptable ways we have of building rapport.
If you want to have a neighborly community, then you need to start treating people like your friendly neighbors. Not treating them like sources of information to satisfy your curiosity, going into their place of business with no intention of buying anything. You admitted below you should have at least bought something, so that is a start. You skipped over a whole bunch of steps in the making friendly neighbors dance, and then are confused when she doesn't treat you like one.
When a guy moves in next door, he is not automatically your friendly neighbor you can ask possibly difficult questions to, because of geography, you have to build that relationship before you ask "Hey, your employer is having a labor dispute, what is the real skinny on that real quick?" You invite him over for a bbq, you ask if you can help him move in, you lend him your lawnmower, tell him where the best bar is. We have social conventions and rules and structures for a reason. They are crucial in building relationships.
So make up your mind, was she a soulless dumb fat cow? Or was she a neighbor you want to build a real communal relationship with? If she read what you said about her, do you think it is likely to make her want to treat you more like a friendly neighbor or less likely?
SSCReader
1mo ago
I was happy to buy a coffee and buy one for the employee, or one of her colleagues, for their candid take on current events. I am their neighbor, at least, on paper. This entire conversation is satanic.
Note that is not what you said in your OP! You never mentioned anything about telling her you were willing to offer anything in return.
"When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent."
But you are not their neighbor. That implies they know you already. You are a stranger. A potential customer. This is their place of work, not a place to make friends. As an ex customer service worker myself I really want to stress this. People suck to deal with. The workers generally don't want to make friends with you. They want you to engage in the transaction that they are being paid for, so they can earn their money and go home. It is not their job to give you their take on current events about their business. Especially with the possibility their job is at risk.
If you want to reorganize society such that a Starbucks employee giving their honest opinion at work to a random customer, means they do not risk being fired for it, then go ahead and work on that, but note that still does not mean they have to engage with you on anything outside the service they are being paid to deliver to you. Your relationship is transactional. Nothing more. The barista is not your friend, she is not even an acquaintance. She sees hundreds of people every day. Some of whom are nice and some of whom are unpleasant. She likely just wants to get through her mind numbing shift as easily as possible.
If you want to talk to someone who is off duty and make that same offer, then you have a bit more leeway. They aren't on the clock, they are probably a bit more relaxed, not being measured by their productivity, not having other employees over their shoulder, so many customer service employees will be much more happy to give you the truth (though they may still be suspicious if you come across as a journalist in a situation where there is a national protest or something going on).
SSCReader
1mo ago
For asking a question that you should have known if she answered may have got her fired? Back in my customer service days I'd have just rolled my eyes and ignored you, and called for the next person, as you had already said you didn't want to buy anything. Perfect plausible deniability for me. Then bitched about you to a colleague once you left. You'd probably make the "Can you believe what this customer did?" list when winding down after work. You may not have been at the top of the list. There are a lot of customers who do unbelievable things after all, but you'd probably have been on it.
To recap you walked into a retail establishment, to ask a contentious question about a labor dispute to a basic barista out loud in the open, where anyone could hear, and apparently did not consider that the barista would have been gambling that you weren't a snitch or that anyone overheard her, and expected her to answer. That is probably not your finest hour to put it mildly.
I don't think you thought through the consequences of what might have happened from her point of view. And therefore you are entitled to her scorn. That she kept it professional is to her credit. You are entitled to be treated professionally when ordering a latte or asking where they source their soy milk from. When you ask questions, the answers to which might get someone fired, you are off that reservation, and out on your own. She is not paid to answer those questions. It was rude of you to ask. Therefore rudeness back should be your expectation.
SSCReader
1mo ago
When I told her I wasn't necessarily interested in ordering anything, but was very much interested in her thoughts on the 'strike' et al she gave me a stare that made a cow look intelligent. When she told me she didn't have anything to say about that, and would I like to order anything, I asked for a glass of water and if she'd mind if asked one of her colleagues instead.
Why would you expect a random employee to answer you honestly on a question that is obviously contentious with her employer and may get her fired if you are recording her or from management? Your "just for fun" is her job, and for a working class person can be very precarious. Retail workers are not dancing monkeys, especially when you weren't even going to buy anything or tip her!
I'd say the fact she treated you professionally is more than you had any right to expect, given your approach. She may well have looked at you and was judging YOUR intelligence for asking such a question right there in the open.
Welcome to Starbucks - we hate people who ask questions that might get us fired (and aren't even going to tip), seems like an entirely reasonable position.
Honestly you come off as being very entitled here. Did you even consider that if she did answer you and was reported she might get in trouble or lose her job, or that she might worry about that? Would that be worth sating your desire for an anthropological survey, with absolutely nothing to gain for her? Heck anthropologists at least brought shiny beads to gift their subjects!
As for Starbucks itself, it's overpriced but the benefit is as with all chains that you know roughly what you are going to get. The little Ethiopian coffee shop down the road is probably better, but may not have such a broad selection, is much more variable and harder to find.
SSCReader
2mo ago
I have not watched all their output, but I would say Humphries was the least risque, Mrs Browns Boys does have a lot of adult humor and vulgarity and the like and may be more of a match for O'Grady's non-primetime stuff. Some say: "With its emphasis on profanity, drag, vulgar sexual humour, physical clowning and sentimental family values, Mrs Brown’s Boys is a show that unashamedly taps into an end-of-the-pier comedy tradition"
Mrs Brown: I remember one night, me and Redser, walking along the beach at Portmarnock. He started chasing me into the sand dunes…so I was lying there, I said (flirtatious, sexy voice), ‘What do you want?’ (laughs remembering). He said I want your knickers around your ankles (flirtatious laugh). I had to get my feckin’ handbag and put them on!"
SSCReader
2mo ago
But also did appear as Lily Savage on Breakfast programs and primetime television shows. Pantomime humor from Panto dames is built heavily on innuendo and adult jokes that go over children's heads, but can entertain their parents. Lily Savage was very close to this, just dialled up a notch. Seriously go on Youtube and pull up Blankety Blank which was a primetime show. They call it risque but it's just the same kind of innuendo you would find in panto. Now it is on a spectrum and Savage is more crude than a panto dame at his worst, but he settled into a fairly generic prime time career.
Lily Savage's prime time persona was fairly tame. Whether the actor playing the character is gay or not has no real impact on what the character said. Indeed O'Grady himself was much tamer than Savage in his TV persona once he switched out. He himself made the point he only dressed as a woman for money, just like Humphries et al.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Lily Savage (Paul O'Grady) was a pretty standard Drag Queen until they broke out to become a prime time TV star with what was essentially a panto dame performance. So some crossover at least. I'd say panto dames certainly used to be what I would call a sub culture, I don't think it is as big a thing as it used to be though.
Drag brunches tend to be PG (with some light innuendo) and remind me pretty heavily of panto dame performances, which is what made me think of it.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Pantomime dames in the UK/Australia, which leads into crossdressimg comedians/entertainers like Dame Edna Everage and Mrs Brown?
SSCReader
2mo ago
Ahh no harm at all done, it's hard enough keeping track of peoples politics let alone their personal histories!
SSCReader
2mo ago
Not unless we're counting being a senior civil servant as a disgusting job!
I have slaughtered and cleaned animals on my grandfathers farm and mucked out cowsheds and unblocked septic tanks and the like but I was never paid for that. Just part of my upbringing with a mostly rural family.
SSCReader
2mo ago
After all, the first question St Peter asks you is "What was your GDP?"
Milton Friedman outcompeted St Peter in efficiency, by leveraging capitalist incentives, now like entering New Vegas you need to have proof of wealth. Turns out you CAN take it with you.
SSCReader
3mo ago
We should write in ways that do not feed the wolf of anger, as the old parable goes. We should write such that others are not explicitly excluded. But there's no way to avoid all the possible tripwires.
Nope, but we can get most of them. It's not that difficult, I don't think. And the main issue that gets people banned is they don't even try as far as I can see. It's just the same repetitive reflexive boo outgroup stuff.
But I disagree above, we can in fact overcome those gulfs. And in fact if you find it makes you resentful that is (in my opinion) part of the problem. It doesn't make me resentful when I have to rephrase something so I don't offend a Christian or a white nationalist. Why should it? I WANT them to read and engage. I want to hear from them, so spending a bit of time to hopefully increase their engagement is a positive thing in my mind.
Letting go of all of the emotional baggage of what people do outside of this space, is I think key. Treat it as its own world. Even if 99.9% of gay librarians or white nationalists would just yell or seethe, we are writing for those who come here and want to engage. Don't resent rewriting your words, that's the whole point of the space. See how well you can predict those you disagree with, if you have a good understanding of them, then you should be able to do well in reducing heat, if you don't, then that's the other thing this space is for!
I've been here and back when we were on Reddit for years, and I don't think I have ever even picked up a mod warning let alone a ban. I am sure I will at some point, but avoiding the most obvious boo outgroup stuff, and wording that is likely to enrage or annoy your opponents is fairly easy. You just have to want to spend the time and energy to do it. Regardless of (to go back to my original point) how much you hate or despise or think they will be ungrateful, or wouldn't do the same in reverse. Do it for you, not for them. Because you want the conversation that might result. Those moments when you can for a second connect with someone you think is entirely wrong about the world and might even be harming it, when you can see through their eyes for just a second. Even if they never see through yours.
What we do here has no impact on the outcome of the culture war, there are no stakes. It's just for the love of the game.
SSCReader
3mo ago
Several years experience and the fact we're on our... third? fourth? retreat location is indicative that there are, in fact, absolutely zero ways to write complaints in a way a progressive gay librarian would want to engage with.
That does not follow. Just because there would not be many doesn't mean there are none. We are all unusual here in one way or another. After all I consider myself on the left and I am here. And we have had people farther to the left of me. Most white nationalists probably don't want to post here either. And very few Red Tribe normie conservatives. But we should want them as well.
And if that means hewing close to our mission statement and "writing as if everyone else is reading and we want them to be included." then I am more than happy to do it.
Otherwise we aren't doing anything here we couldn't do on Red State or Truth Social.
I would say it's fair to say they are still having trouble attracting young people overall. Even Bush at his best with the post 2001 bump couldn't break 50%, (I think Reagan was the last conservative to do so in 1984). It's also fair to say they aren't having trouble attracting young men specifically and that Trump appears to have reversed that trend somewhat.
I suppose it depends what you mean as "trouble attracting". Not being able to get a majority of a group for 50 years, maybe qualifies? I'd suggest the claim Democrats are having trouble attracting men is true for similar reasons. They haven't got 50% of men (though Obama in 2008 got close), since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
More options
Context Copy link