Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
What does this mean exactly?

His comments were completely fucked up.

It means that Wiz is subscribing to the idea that backlash such as this is cowing to liberal sensitivities and that Milo should be able to say what he wants with no consequences because = freedom.

The twitter ban being ridiculous I can get behind because they claim to be completely impartial and are somewhat unique as a speaking platform. But this is a private group that doesn't want to be associated with someone who readily admits that he's an obnoxious troll who uses his own sexual orientation as a crutch to get out of mental contradictions and who most other classical liberal thinkers consider a moron. Nothing of value was lost.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
It means that Wiz is subscribing to the idea that backlash such as this are cowing to liberal sensitivities and that Milo should be able to say what he wants with no consequences because = freedom.

The twitter ban being ridiculous I can get behind because they claim to be completely impartial and are somewhat unique as a speaking platform. But this is a private group that doesn't want to be associated with someone who readily admits that he's an obnoxious troll who uses his own sexual orientation as a crutch to get out of mental contradictions and who most other classical liberal thinkers consider a moron. Nothing of value was lost.

Reps

What I don't get is how there was a huge outrage when college campuses stopped his events or when Twitter banned him, etc. But then Milo talks about how pedophiles "help young boys find themselves" and we hear nothing but crickets. It's kinda appalling.
 

irishroo

The CNN of Irish Envy
Messages
572
Reaction score
44
Reps

What I don't get is how there was a huge outrage when college campuses stopped his events or when Twitter banned him, etc. But then Milo talks about how pedophiles "help young boys find themselves" and we hear nothing but crickets. It's kinda appalling.

Yep. I'm on board with the camp that says politically correct culture has gone too far and I'm a huge proponent of nearly-unlimited free speech, but the Right's embrace of Milo seems like it's a backlash against PC culture that's gone too far in the other direction. A lot of people on the Right seem to not realize that there is a difference between people getting upset at relatively harmless ideas and statements (i.e. true "snowflake" mentality) and people getting upset at ideas and statements that are genuinely offensive to most rational people. Much of Milo's commentary, including these most recent comments where he advocates for pedophilia, clearly falls into the latter category.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
Yep. I'm on board with the camp that says politically correct culture has gone too far and I'm a huge proponent of nearly-unlimited free speech, but the Right's embrace of Milo seems like it's a backlash against PC culture that's gone too far in the other direction. A lot of people on the Right seem to not realize that there is a difference between people getting upset at relatively harmless ideas and statements (i.e. true "snowflake" mentality) and people getting upset at ideas and statements that are genuinely offensive to most rational people. Much of Milo's commentary, including these most recent comments where he advocates for pedophilia, clearly falls into the latter category.

I don't really care what he says because who cares what some random brit with bad hair says about America. What grates me is that he always seems completely disingenuous when he speaks. I often feel when watching him speak that he's not arguing his points in good faith and is instead simply trying to say whatever will get clicks. I get that this is a valid strategy for movements which don't have the necessary "traffic" to get noticed, but when you're talking about libertarians and alt-right sympathizers, who are plentiful on the internet, its difficult for me to think that you have a strategy or a point. It seems like you're just kind of a jerk who doesn't really believe in anything you say.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I guess my thought all along is that the argument of protecting free speech, which I think reasonable minds can all agree, turned into an argument that anyone should be able to say anything they want without consequence. I hope this recent comment from Milo does two things:

1) Honestly... I hope it wrecks his career. He isn't like Shapiro or others. This guy is a dangerous provocateur. It's only a matter of time until someone is hurt by one of his mouth breathing followers.
2) Bring to light the long standing truth that freedom of speech does not absolve someone from the repercussions of those words. We have a right to say whatever we want, we do not have the right to pay the cost of saying it.

But still... on a board where every move of Trump is analyzed, where the main topic of conversations isn't even football related, but political. A main character in today's epic tragedy panders to pedophilia and not one of those people that have supported him in the past have found it necessary to comment. Interesting.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
What I don't get is how there was a huge outrage when college campuses stopped his events or when Twitter banned him, etc. But then Milo talks about how pedophiles "help young boys find themselves" and we hear nothing but crickets. It's kinda appalling.
Watch the video in context. Milo is not advocating for pedophilia.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Watch the video in context. Milo is not advocating for pedophilia.

Really? He calls the priest that raped him a "good man". Then tries to tell Rogan that having a sexual relationship with a 14 year olds (which btw, is a crime) isn't a big deal. Then says that he was at Hollywood parties where people were abusing kids and wouldn't say who they were. Or the comment, "it wasn't pedophilia, it was consensual".

Starts around the 2 minute and 4 minute marks.
https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg

What exactly is out of context, Wiz?
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Watch the video in context. Milo is not advocating for pedophilia.

Here is the podcast, which is actually different than the Rogan youtube, that the PAC refers to when they fired him. At the 58:30 minute mark they talk about the Rogan interview and he doubles down about why it's okay for someone to have sex with someone between 13-15 as long as the other person is less than 28 years old as long as it's consensual. What about that is "out of context"? Do you not consider a 28 year old sleeping with a 13 year old an example of pedophilia?

https://youtu.be/azC1nm85btY
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Here is the podcast, which is actually different than the Rogan youtube, that the PAC refers to when they fired him. At the 58:30 minute mark they talk about the Rogan interview and he doubles down about why it's okay for someone to have sex with someone between 13-15 as long as the other person is less than 28 years old as long as it's consensual. What about that is "out of context"? Do you not consider a 28 year old sleeping with a 13 year old an example of pedophilia?
No, by definition that is not pedophilia. Pedophilia requires that the victim be prepubescent. If you want to get biological about it, the only thing unnatural about a 28 year old man having sex with a 14 year old man is that they're both men. The age of majority is a social construct. Back me up, Whiskeyjack.

All this to say, I don't like Milo. But I love the hypocrisy he exposes. Lena Dunham:

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked.

My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success.

And she's a fucking hero of the left.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
All this to say, I don't like Milo. But I love the hypocrisy he exposes. Lena Dunham:



And she's a fucking hero of the left.

I'm all for laughing at hypocrisy, but I don't see it here. Lena Dunham is a "hero of the left" in the same way Milo is a "hero of the right." Extremist love them, leaners tolerate them but mostly find them frustrating because they misconstrue their ideology, and moderates hate them.

A troll on the right saying something similar to a troll on the left does not expose the left. Most people with a brain found Lena Dunham's writing dangerously flippant about sexual abuse. The same is happening here.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
I thought this was a reasonably good discussion of this Milo stuff, from a right-leaning perspective:

Milo Yiannopoulos: Bad Poster Boy for Conservative Free-Speech Rights | National Review

Let’s put this plainly: If Milo’s the poster boy for free speech, then free speech will lose. He’s the perfect foil for social-justice warriors, a living symbol of everything they fight against. His very existence and prominence feed the deception that modern political correctness is the firewall against the worst forms of bigotry.

I’ve spent a career defending free speech in court, and I’ve never defended a “conservative” like Milo. His isn’t the true face of the battle for American free-speech rights. That face belongs to Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington whom the Left is trying to financially ruin because she refused to use her artistic talents to celebrate a gay marriage. It belongs to Kelvin Cochran, the Atlanta fire chief who was fired for publishing and sharing with a few colleagues a book he wrote that expressed orthodox Christian views of sex and marriage. Stutzman and Cochran demonstrate that intolerance and censorship strike not just at people on the fringe – people like Milo – but rather at the best and most reasonable citizens of these United States. They’re proof that social-justice warriors seek not equality and inclusion but control and domination. Milo has the same free-speech rights as any other American. He can and should be able to troll to his heart’s content without fear of government censorship or private riot. But by elevating him even higher, CPAC would have made a serious mistake. CPAC’s invitation told the world that supporting conservative free speech means supporting Milo. If there’s a more effective way to vindicate the social-justice Left, I can’t imagine it.

The thing that is so weird about Milo is he's simply mean for the sake of being provocative. In many ways I don't agree with the views of the author of the piece I've linked, but I do tend to agree that someone like Milo can do something useful to the extent he is able to show that political correctness goes too far when it seeks "not equality and inclusion but control and domination." That's a valuable message, but it is undermined when it's carried by someone who is so senselessly cruel that his cruelty is indistinguishable from bigotry. Why would you proceed that way? Who preaches this gospel of meanness? It's almost antithetical to First Amendment interests; it borders on ideological obscenity. True, obscenity has had a historical place in shocking the establishment into recognizing its own excesses, and maybe that's something Milo is interested in doing, but the way Milo does it, it only confirms the belief among many on the left that he is just a bigot trying to hide his bigotry in plain sight by calling it something else.

It's just a wrong strategy, if that's what it is. You'll never convince people of the value of free speech by being offensive.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
No, by definition that is not pedophilia. Pedophilia requires that the victim be prepubescent. If you want to get biological about it, the only thing unnatural about a 28 year old man having sex with a 14 year old man is that they're both men. The age of majority is a social construct. Back me up, Whiskeyjack.

All this to say, I don't like Milo. But I love the hypocrisy he exposes. Lena Dunham:



And she's a fucking hero of the left.

Let me first put down the Dunham quote. This is common from people like you. The "but but but... look at what THIS person said" rebuttal. As if a comment from someone else not related to the the comment in question, somehow justifies it. We're talking about Milo's comments. I don't give two fucks what that fat bitch said, it doesn't change anything about the comments from Milo. You should want to be better than that.

Now, to your first comment. Well.. it is pedophilia according to the law and the definition of the word (sexual feelings directed toward children). "Children" is a construct clearly defined by law. So don't come on here acting like its different. How would you feel if a 26 year old dude came to dinner as your daughter's boyfriend when she turns 13? You wouldn't consider it pedophilia then?

Finally, I gave you four examples of his comments. 1) His comments about his priest 2) his quote about predators "helping young men find themselves" 3) The comment about partying with people abusing kids and 4) the quotes about it being okay as long as the abuser is under 28.
 

irishroo

The CNN of Irish Envy
Messages
572
Reaction score
44
No, by definition that is not pedophilia. Pedophilia requires that the victim be prepubescent. If you want to get biological about it, the only thing unnatural about a 28 year old man having sex with a 14 year old man is that they're both men. The age of majority is a social construct. Back me up, Whiskeyjack.

All this to say, I don't like Milo. But I love the hypocrisy he exposes. Lena Dunham:



And she's a fucking hero of the left.

Arguing semantics with regards to whether child rape is acceptable is not a good look
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
Let me first put down the Dunham quote. This is common from people like you. The "but but but... look at what THIS person said" rebuttal. As if a comment from someone else not related to the the comment in question, somehow justifies it. We're talking about Milo's comments. I don't give two fucks what that fat bitch said, it doesn't change anything about the comments from Milo. You should want to be better than that.

Now, to your first comment. Well.. it is pedophilia according to the law and the definition of the word (sexual feelings directed toward children). "Children" is a construct clearly defined by law. So don't come on here acting like its different. How would you feel if a 26 year old dude came to dinner as your daughter's boyfriend when she turns 13? You wouldn't consider it pedophilia then?

Finally, I gave you four examples of his comments. 1) His comments about his priest 2) his quote about predators "helping young men find themselves" 3) The comment about partying with people abusing kids and 4) the quotes about it being okay as long as the abuser is under 28.

triggered_by_mrlorgin-d9aahmc.png
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
No, by definition that is not pedophilia. Pedophilia requires that the victim be prepubescent. If you want to get biological about it, the only thing unnatural about a 28 year old man having sex with a 14 year old man is that they're both men. The age of majority is a social construct. Back me up, Whiskeyjack.

All this to say, I don't like Milo. But I love the hypocrisy he exposes. Lena Dunham:



And she's a fucking hero of the left.
This isnt true.

tumblr_my0utwdLda1shezzlo1_500.gif


I suggest we agree on a definition of the word and how we use before it gets more awkward.

Misuse of medical terminology
The words pedophile and pedophilia are commonly used informally to describe an adult's sexual interest in pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers. The terms hebephilia or ephebophilia may be more accurate in these cases.[9][24][133] This was especially seen in the case of Mark Foley during the congressional page incident. Most of the media labeled Foley a pedophile, which led David Tuller of Slate magazine to state that Foley was not a pedophile but rather an ephebophile.[134]

Another common usage of pedophilia is to refer to the act of sexual abuse itself,[5] rather than the medical meaning, which is a preference for prepubescents on the part of the older individual (see above for an explanation of the distinction).[7][8] There are also situations where the terms are misused to refer to relationships where the younger person is an adult of legal age, but is either considered too young in comparison to their older partner, or the older partner occupies a position of authority over them.[135] Researchers state that the above uses of the term pedophilia are imprecise or suggest that they are best avoided.[7][24] The Mayo Clinic states that pedophilia "is not a criminal or legal term"
-wiki
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
This is common from people like you. The "but but but... look at what THIS person said" rebuttal. As if a comment from someone else not related to the the comment in question, somehow justifies it. We're talking about Milo's comments.
That is exactly the opposite of my point. I'm not saying "Lena Dunham is terrible so that makes it okay that Milo is terrible." I'm saying "attacking Milo without attacking Lena Dunham makes you a hypocrite," and that's exactly what happened. There's no rational basis to defend Simon & Schuster for cancelling Milo's book without condemning Penguin-Random House for publishing Dunham's.

I don't give two shits about CPAC. Milo doesn't belong there anyways. But cancelling his book is fascistic.

Also, #FreePewDiePie.

For the record, it would be just as bullshit if a publisher cancelled a Lena Dunham or Bill Maher book.

In context:

The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -


Man: It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.
That last bit is OBVIOUSLY a joke.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PnnE_UizOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
16,090
There's no rational basis to defend Simon & Schuster for cancelling Milo's book without condemning Penguin-Random House for publishing Dunham's.

Yes there is.

Penguin-Random House is either OK with the content or doesn't feel that what is said within the book to be reflection on them. Either of which is within their right as a private company.

Simon & Schuster obviously feel that the content in the book is unacceptable or that what is within the book is a reflection on them and are uncomfortable with that. Either position is within their right as a private company.

Those viewpoints are not hypocritical because they are totally different companies. If they were the same I would say that you have a point about that fictional company being hypocritical. But right now you're attempting to say that it shows how hypocritical the "left" is, which doesn't really add up.
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Yes there is.

Penguin-Random House is either OK with the content or doesn't feel that what is said within the book to be reflection on them. Either of which is within their right as a private company.

Simon & Schuster obviously feel that the content in the book is unacceptable or that what is within the book is a reflection on them and are uncomfortable with that. Either position is within their right as a private company.

Those viewpoints are not hypocritical because they are totally different companies. If they were the same I would say that you have a point.
I'm not making a legal argument. Of course Simon and Schuster has the right to cancel Milo's book, I'm talking about whether they should have.

Just like Twitter has the right to ban Milo and Disney has the right to fire PewDiePie. Of course they can, but should they?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
No, by definition that is not pedophilia. Pedophilia requires that the victim be prepubescent. If you want to get biological about it, the only thing unnatural about a 28 year old man having sex with a 14 year old man is that they're both men. The age of majority is a social construct. Back me up, Whiskeyjack.

If you want to split hairs on the medical definition, it's still statutory rape. I often bring up the arbitrary nature of the age of majority when discussing the logical implications of severing sexual norms from procreation; but that sort of argument is only effective insofar as people are uncomfortable with promoting sexual promiscuity in adolescents. So Milo's way off the reservation here.

That is exactly the opposite of my point. I'm not saying "Lena Dunham is terrible so that makes it okay that Milo is terrible." I'm saying "attacking Milo without attacking Lena Dunham makes you a hypocrite," and that's exactly what happened. There's no rational basis to defend Simon & Schuster for cancelling Milo's book without condemning Penguin-Random House for publishing Dunham's.

I don't give two shits about CPAC. Milo doesn't belong there anyways. But cancelling his book is fascistic.

For the record, it would be just as bullshit if a publisher cancelled a Lena Dunham or Bill Maher book.

Bad take. Bring back the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, imo. Teaching people to read without first teaching them to reason hasn't worked out very well.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
If you want to split hairs on the medical definition, it's still statutory rape. I often bring up the arbitrary nature of the age of majority when discussing the logical implications of severing sexuality norms from procreation; but that sort of argument is only effective insofar as people are uncomfortable with promoting sexual promiscuity in adolescents. So Milo's way off the reservation here.
That's fine. Again, I'm not defending Milo's comments. I'm merely pointing out that every headline that talks about "Milo promotes pedophilia" is factually untrue.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
It means that Wiz is subscribing to the idea that backlash such as this is cowing to liberal sensitivities and that Milo should be able to say what he wants with no consequences because = freedom.

The twitter ban being ridiculous I can get behind because they claim to be completely impartial and are somewhat unique as a speaking platform. But this is a private group that doesn't want to be associated with someone who readily admits that he's an obnoxious troll who uses his own sexual orientation as a crutch to get out of mental contradictions and who most other classical liberal thinkers consider a moron. Nothing of value was lost.

Whether you like him or not, Milo is/was an asset to the right. Milo has been able to do something that none of the conservatives who are trying to bring him down, Beck, Kristol, etc. couldn't do - convincingly take on the SJW left. He's been extraordinarily effective with his college campus tours and that's precisely the reason everyone is trying to bring him down.

I screwed a teacher when I was in high school and she taught me a thing or two. I'm not a pedophile nor do I condone pedophilia.

Milo is sexually disturbed and should probably do less blow, though.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
That is exactly the opposite of my point. I'm not saying "Lena Dunham is terrible so that makes it okay that Milo is terrible." I'm saying "attacking Milo without attacking Lena Dunham makes you a hypocrite," and that's exactly what happened. There's no rational basis to defend Simon & Schuster for cancelling Milo's book without condemning Penguin-Random House for publishing Dunham's.

This is bullshit. I don't have to attack every pedo in order to have an opinion on Milo's comments. Dunham isn't part of the conversation and I don't have to bring up any random comments regarding pedophilia in order to have a conversation. I didn't condone her comment, know the context or frankly care in regards to this conversation. Because again... there is no rule that I have to acknowledge every case on the left in order to make a point about Milo. No one is holding you to that standard any time you make a comment about someone on the left. That is a bullshit argument.

I don't give two shits about CPAC. Milo doesn't belong there anyways. But cancelling his book is fascistic.

Also, #FreePewDiePie.

For the record, it would be just as bullshit if a publisher cancelled a Lena Dunham or Bill Maher book.

In context:

Well bring that up when it happens. Currently no one is talking about fucking Lena Dunham except for you.



Man: It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.


That last bit is OBVIOUSLY a joke.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PnnE_UizOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He said the priest was a "good priest" and "taught him". It wasn't a joke, he made several jokes in between, but that comment was sincere. His comments regarding age disparity were not a joke, his comments about his English teacher wasn't a joke, etc, etc.

Keep telling yourself whatever you want but you look like a sympathizing creep.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
The Week's Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry just published an article titled "America is afflicted with a deleterious disease: loneliness":

President Trump is a tornado. And all too often, we are so transfixed by the whirlwind that we fail to step back and see the larger weather patterns.

The Trump presidency could only blow over a society weakened by a deep and advanced stage of rot. The reason we find the idea that he might set up an authoritarian regime in the U.S. even remotely plausible is because we've all been aware, at least at a dim background level, of the unprecedented accretion of power in the federal government and the executive branch. Meanwhile, social media, hyper-polarization, and a sputtering press corps help feed the most problematic dynamics of his chaotic presidency.

Trump's rise was enabled by deep social maladies. And even if Trump is impeached tomorrow, these social maladies will persist and leave our society vulnerable to other "black swan" social-political fiascoes. The best way to get rid of Trump, or at least those parts of his political persona that are most troubling with regard to republican governance, is to cure those maladies.

What are they? Over time, I've grown to believe that the root cause of all these maladies lies in a simple word: loneliness.

For decades, loneliness has quietly been on the rise in America. Traditionally, America was known as a society of "joiners": not only churches, but lodges and fraternal organizations, civic society groups, PTAs, kids' baseball teams, Boy Scouts, fraternities and sororities, you name it. This was a uniquely American thing. There is a French word for "entrepreneur," but there is no French word that captures the quintessentially American concept of "community" — as in "this is a great community" or "he's a leader in the community." Famously, this feature of American life is what most stunned Alexis de Tocqueville when he visited American shores in the 19th century.

Americans are more divorced than ever, and less churched than ever. The sociologist Robert Putnam chronicled the new American loneliness in his book Bowling Alone, which shows the declining trends of membership in all social organizations, from labor unions to PTAs to fraternal organizations to volunteering with the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross. Putnam mostly blames technology and its atomization forces — and the book was written nearly two decades ago, a positive dark age compared to today's attention-sucking technologies.

A 2014 study by the National Science Foundation found that one in four Americans (one in four!) said they have no one with whom they can talk about their personal troubles or triumphs; the number doubles to more than half of Americans if immediate family is not counted. Read that again.

And you know what one of the most common consequences of persistent loneliness is? Distrust of outsiders — which is everyone when you're lonely. That distrust can quickly and easily shade into anger.

A lot of people talk about Trump's white working-class base (it's so nice that the American intelligentsia finally noticed their existence), and analyze either their immiseration or their alleged prejudice, both of which are important issues. But it should also be noted that it's among this cohort that the trend toward loneliness is most profound, as an important article in The Atlantic recounts.

Whites are less likely to be union members than African Americans, and they are less churched. Of course, loneliness is linked to depression, suicide, and substance abuse — problems particularly acute among working-class whites. (None of which should be interpreted, of course, to mean that we should also ignore the specific and also very serious challenges faced by so many African Americans.)

But the upshot is this: The loneliest Americans also seem to be the most ardent Trump supporters.

This works both ways. Who was the most Trump-resistant group? And who are the least lonely Americans? As anti-Trump conservative David Frum noted, it's Mormons. Mormon life emphasizes social interaction within the church, and Mormon social networks are unbelievably tightly linked. No wonder that they have a cultural emphasis on propriety that made them recoil with disgust at Trump's most distasteful comments, and that they are less susceptible to a message of grievance, anger, and fear of the other.

They're the lucky ones.

Because most Americans are lonely, they nurture their political grievances — pro-Trump, anti-Trump — which only heightens the chaos that enables Trump to be Trump. America is a country with weakened institutional resources to box in a would-be destroyer of constitutional and political norms. Doing something commonsense — like getting an independent investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, or his business conflicts of interest — requires actual political organizing, i.e. people getting together and hashing things out and working toward a common goal. With Republican majorities in both Houses, it requires organizing across party lines. Right now, our ability to do that as a society is basically nonexistent.

The problem of loneliness is something that's much harder to fix than an immigration executive order. If I had an easy fix (other than urging you to go to church this Sunday), I would tell you. But whatever happens with Trump (unless that "whatever" ends up being thermonuclear war), these underlying issues will not go away, and they will keep turning American society into a giant shouting match where no one listens, and everyone is alone.

#Liberalism
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
But the upshot is this: The loneliest Americans also seem to be the most ardent Trump supporters.

This works both ways. Who was the most Trump-resistant group? And who are the least lonely Americans? As anti-Trump conservative David Frum noted, it's Mormons. Mormon life emphasizes social interaction within the church, and Mormon social networks are unbelievably tightly linked. No wonder that they have a cultural emphasis on propriety that made them recoil with disgust at Trump's most distasteful comments, and that they are less susceptible to a message of grievance, anger, and fear of the other.
Wut? I haven't seen data on Mormons per se but Trump won Utah 2-to-1. I'll buy the premise of "loneliness is a problem in America" but linking it to Trump is a cognitive step too far.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Wut? I haven't seen data on Mormons per se but Trump won Utah 2-to-1. I'll buy the premise of "loneliness is a problem in America" but linking it to Trump is a cognitive step too far.

Look at you and your misleading facts... Trump won 45% of the vote in Utah. 21.3% of the state voted for Independent Evan McMullin. Trump didn't win Utah, one of the most conservative states in the country, by a 2-1 margin.... he just beat Clinton by that much. More than half of Utah would have voted for a dead raccoon on the side of Tabernacle Drive if it meant keeping Trump out of office. That 45% was the lowest support ever recorded by a winning presidential candidate in Utah history.
 

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,011
Reaction score
5,049
The Week's Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry just published an article titled "America is afflicted with a deleterious disease: loneliness":



#Liberalism

Thank you for sharing the article, Whiskey. I'd like to say that the NSF's statistic is surprising, but I cannot. I know people (including me) that are struggling to find community and are reaching out everywhere. Heck, I've seen people looking into churches, and explain that they are not searching for meaning or God, but community. Technology is eroding our ability to effect real communication with other people, because it's easy to look at an avatar on a screen and see an object, not another person.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
2,492
Thank you for sharing the article, Whiskey. I'd like to say that the NSF's statistic is surprising, but I cannot. I know people (including me) that are struggling to find community and are reaching out everywhere. Heck, I've seen people looking into churches, and explain that they are not searching for meaning or God, but community. Technology is eroding our ability to effect real communication with other people, because it's easy to look at an avatar on a screen and see an object, not another person.

Panda shouldn't have such hot avatars with big bewbs then.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Wut? I haven't seen data on Mormons per se but Trump won Utah 2-to-1. I'll buy the premise of "loneliness is a problem in America" but linking it to Trump is a cognitive step too far.

There's plenty of data out there to support it. As a denomination, Mormons were the least likely to support Trump of all those usually find on the American right. That doesn't mean they supported Hillary, though.
 
Top