Categories
dating tips sexual inequality the wayward press volcels

No one wants to date Trump supporters, and boy is the National Review mad

Just not interested

Conservatives have been complaining for a while about one of the most pressing civil rights crises of our time: the fact that no one wants to bone them.

Some conservatives are so, so troubled by this injustice that they’re willing to throw away their libertarian principles and advocate for some kind of governmental intervention to — I guess — somehow force people to like them.

At least that seems to be the main argument of a very long and very very confusing essay in the National Review with the somewhat unnerving title “Political Discrimination as Civil-Rights Struggle.”

Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at the University of London and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, starts out his screed by citing a poll revealing that most Ivy League women have about as much interest in dating Trump supporters as they do in sticking their head in a bucket of bees.

When a sample of nearly 1,500 female Ivy League students was asked whether they would date a Trump supporter, only 6 percent said yes (after excluding the small minority of the sample who support him).

While Kaufmann notes in passing that “people are free to discriminate however they wish in dating” — how thoughtful of him! — he’s worried that such “discrimination” against Trumpists will lead to various other kinds of social “intolerance.” In his eyes, the survey results reveal what he calls “the predilection among many young elite Americans for progressive authoritarianism.”

And it’s basically a new kind of racism, without that whole racial aspect. He seconds another writer in arguing that “those who politically discriminate are acting in precisely the same manner as those who justify prejudice against Muslims or Jews.”

To fight back against this terrible threat, Kaufmann argues,

conservatives will have to overcome their squeamishness about government to have any chance of holding back the woke domination of American institutions.

Apparently, “woke domination” can only be fought by embracing a new form of governmental “civil rights” activism.

To counteract the rising threat that progressive authoritarianism poses to freedom of expression and conscience, conservative policy-makers will need to lose their 1980s libertarian blinders and embrace government-led, civil-liberties-focused intervention in the elite institutions of society.

While Kaufmann discusses several other supposed social injustices against conservatives, he seems obsessed with the ways in which “Trump supporters get the short end of the dating stick,” citing several other surveys that reveal how much students hate the idea of “making America great again” in bed. Or even in the campus dining halls.

Bobby Duffy shows that those who are liberal on culture-war issues find it much harder to befriend those on the other side than vice versa. Cultural progressivism is increasingly emerging as a status marker, which is one reason why, as Bari Weiss reports, elite private schools are hotbeds of left-modernist (“woke”) intolerance, as are elite universities and liberal-arts colleges such as Smith. …

Wherever the culture of campus, dominated by the young and educated, predominates, progressive intolerance and political discrimination against conservatives are in the ascendant.

Apparently it’s gotten so bad that some conservatives have started keeping their opinions to themselves. (If only.)

As progressive authoritarians become a larger share of the elite workforce, institutions are likely to grow more intolerant … As in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification.

The only solution? A new “crusade for political civil rights” designed to protect Trumpists’ and other conservatives’ right to offend everyone with their nonsense and still get laid.

The solution is similar to that imposed on segregated universities of the South that were compelled by the federal government to desegregate … It’s not that progressive illiberalism is as bad as segregation, but rather that the underlying principle of institutions violating individual rights, and of the government overruling them to protect such rights, is the same.

So our current situation isn’t as awful as Jim Crow but it kind of is.

To wage this battle, those on the right, along with freedom-minded allies on the left … will need to ditch the deregulatory libertarianism that is paralyzing political action and permitting woke takeover. Unless this battle is joined, the power centers of the country will increasingly move toward campus-style intolerance, further entrenching the system of progressive conformity.

Sorry, National-Review-reading dudes, but none of this is going to make women want to fuck you.

H/T — Wonkette

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
An Impish Pepper
An Impish Pepper
11 months ago

If I am doing my job as intended and am no risk to my fellow colleagues, then how I voted should be my own affair. […] I am just saying I think discussing whether diversity in the workplace or centres of learning should also include diversity of thought is a very valid argument.

I don’t get your point in saying this. Should we just not hold people responsible at all for who/what they vote for? Most of the types of people who are written about on WHTM do not pose an obvious risk to others; they’re not the ones storming the Capitol, or going on killing sprees, etc. All the same, much has been said here about how these people should be kept away from marginalized folks (usually women), or even put on some kind of watchlist.

Left-wingers and marginalized people are silenced on a regular basis, in a variety of ways. Marginalized people regularly get fired, if they’re hired at all, for much less than making it known that they voted for a fascist party. People get punished by social media sites just for discussing racism and transphobia. And certain political parties are explicitly targeted with restrictions when it comes to running for office or even leaving the country. So unless you’re excluding certain people from your idealized “diversity of thought” scenario, it is just that, an idealized scenario.

The quote remind that all the people that support a fascist governement *are* bad people and aren’t somehow absolved of their sins because they didn’t kill jews themselves. […] The National Review basicaly talk of the active, frothing at the mouth fanatics that the rep’ party need to do a coup, while Steph and a number of other talk of all Trump supporters, which include a lot of people whose sin is just being stupid and not caring.

So let’s see if I have this right: “Non-fanatic” fascists aren’t absolved of their actions just because they didn’t kill anyone themselves, but if you suggest consequences for them, you are the REAL fascist.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
11 months ago

I don’t think it’s particularly prudent to abet those who at the best, are perfectly okay with supporting a person whose policies directly negatively impact the lives of trans people up to and including their deaths.

@jon

@Ohlmann
But we are not at this point Post World War 2 Germany after the explicit fascist takeover that resulted in World War 2. I believe at best a Trump Supporter would be given suspicion by other minorities due to well, his explicit actions endangering other humans for vile reasons of fascist and racist populism.

Last edited 11 months ago by Ooglyboggles
Alan Robertshaw
11 months ago

The denazification programme is a complex topic. Well worth reading up on though; especially from a legal perspective.

But to grossly over simplify…

The original Allied intention for Germany was the Morgenthau Plan. That entailed using a bill of attainder to execute all top nazis; then destroying German industry. The idea being that a totally agrarian country would not have the capacity to wage war in the future.

For all sorts of reasons, not least the coming Cold War, that was replaced in the Western occupation zones by the Marshall plan. To whit, build up a strong economy and hope to instil democratic values. The much maligned European Convention on Human Rights stemmed from that.

People were put into different categories, with different consequences.

  • V. Persons Exonerated (German: Entlastete). No sanctions.
  • IV. Followers (German: Mitläufer). Possible restrictions on travel, employment, political rights, plus fines.
  • III. Lesser Offenders (German: Minderbelastete). Placed on probation for 2–3 years with a list of restrictions. No internment.
  • II. Offenders: Activists, Militants, and Profiteers, or Incriminated Persons (German: Belastete). Subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment up to ten years performing reparation or reconstruction work plus a list of other restrictions.
  • I. Major Offenders (German: Hauptschuldige). Subject to immediate arrest, death, imprisonment with or without hard labor, plus a list of lesser sanctions.

Originally denazification was carried out by the occupying powers. They soon however outsourced the process to the the German authorities. A lot of the time it was the local Gauleiters who made the adjudications. One can see how they might not have been the most rigorous judges.

Add in things like Operation Paperclip; the ratlines, and the recruitment of ex Gestapo by both CIA and KGB; and it’s perhaps not surprising a lot of former nazis may have evaded their just deserts.

epitome of incomrepehensibility

It might be worth pointing out that no one’s suggesting penalizing voters *just* because they voted for Trump. If you know they’re a Trump supporter, that’s because they’ve talked about it. And, let’s be real, they probably didn’t say “hey, I voted for Trump” and left it at that.

E.g. someone I know from real life, also a Facebook friend, keeps posting pro-Trump links* saying how the election was supposedly stolen. I never respond to the posts. I’m sure I’m not the most active activist that ever activated, but it’s valid not to want to spend the time and energy to argue. I would argue back if he said those things to me directly (online or in person).

But that’s me. I wouldn’t blame anyone for arguing with or completely blocking someone who did that. Since I do know him from before, I wouldn’t cut off all contact because he has bad political views, but it does make me feel silly having a crush on him in years past.

*We both live in Canada, so what’s the deal about stanning U.S. politicians anyway??

mouse sparrow
mouse sparrow
11 months ago

1. Stop dogpiling Dalillama.
2. Steph; Dalillama IS a woman, so what even are you on about with that trying to appeal because of your gender?
3. Non; Dalillama IS a regular. I’ve not seen Steph much at all, and Jon and Ohlmann as far as I’ve seen are fairly new.
4. Again, just stop.

Steph
Steph
11 months ago

@ImpishPepper

“I don’t get your point in saying that”

I dunno: I think it would maybe have been easier if you read the bit you extracted and replaced with “…”

The full comment I made:

“ But I was making the broader point that I disagree that just because a belief is a choice that it is fine to discriminate against it. I think it is a completely valid argument to make that where beliefs cannot be proven to interfere with somebody’s work then employer’s should not be able to remove people just because they dislike their politics. If I am doing my job as intended and am no risk to my fellow colleagues, then how I voted should be my own affair.”

As an example I am an atheist which is a belief system. I don’t think the fact that that is a belief as opposed to an immutable trait means I should be able to be fired by an employer who does not like the fact I’m an atheist.

I should add that I am from the UK and now live in Oz both of which have fairly robust employment laws. So the “first at will hire at will” culture of some US states is not something I am familiar with / am naturally comfortable with.

Last edited 11 months ago by Steph
Steph
Steph
11 months ago

@mouse sparrow

I have not been involved in any “dog piling” – I respond to posts directed at me.

“ Dalillama IS a woman, so what even are you on about with that trying to appeal because of your gender?”

?? I am not sure their gender is relevant. I was calling out the condescension involved in dictating to somebody what is actually going on in their own mind.

An Impish Pepper
An Impish Pepper
11 months ago

@Steph
I don’t see what that full comment you quoted accomplishes. Stuff like being an atheist, or being pregnant and unmarried, is absolutely not comparable to supporting politicians who view atheists and unmarried pregnant people as evil. I don’t get how this is supposed to be a controversial take, here of all places.

Jon
Jon
11 months ago

It might be worth pointing out that no one’s suggesting penalizing voters *just* because they voted for Trump.

This is not worth pointing out, because this is simply untrue. There have been multiple people in this comment section who’ve so far they think it’s prudent for businesses to fire any Trump supporter no matter their level of political engagement or how outspoken they are.

mouse sparrow
mouse sparrow
11 months ago

Steph:

Yes, you have.
Dalillama has obviously stopped responding yet you continue to attack her.
You are actually using YOUR gender as an excuse to attack Dalillama.
Don’t pretend you didn’t know what I was on about.

Jon:
Yes, because surprise surprise, Trump supporters are generally garbage people.
I wouldn’t want to work next to someone who sees me as less than human.

P.S. please do not reply to me anymore.
It’s obvious you are both people I would not wish on my worst enemy.
I have my mental health to take care of.

Last edited 11 months ago by mouse sparrow
Jon
Jon
11 months ago

@epitome of incomrepehensibility

The comment above me perfectly illustrates my point on the black and white thinking some people have in terms of how to deal Trump supporters.

Steph
Steph
11 months ago

@mouse sparrow

Yes, you have.
Dalillama has obviously stopped responding yet you continue to attack her.

FYI this is categorically false. I have only directly responded to posts that @ me. I have not made any further posts to Dalililama since she replied to me and I responded. That’s just an interaction. It’s also certainly not attack. I think you maybe confusing my posts with other people’s.

If replying directly to somebody’s post to you is “dogpiling” well then I am being dog piled too, including by you.

I literally have no idea what you mean by “using your gender to attack people” but I will leave it there as discussing straw men does not interest me.

Last edited 11 months ago by Steph
Steph
Steph
11 months ago

@impish pepper.

I don’t see what that full comment you quoted accomplishes. Stuff like being an atheist, or being pregnant and unmarried, is absolutely not comparable to supporting politicians who view atheists and unmarried pregnant people as evil.

That was dealt with in the full comment.

I am talking about the broader concept of beliefs not being immutable traits and therefore people being sacked for their beliefs being fine.

Again here – I am not narrowly talking about actual fascists, who create problems in the workforce losing their jobs (such as racists who get filmed and are fired.)

I am talking about the general idea that as a belief is a choice then it is fine to discriminate against it.

I think it is a valid argument to state that where beliefs cannot be proven to interfere with somebody’s work / do not create problems within the workforce then employer’s should not be able to remove people just because they dislike their politics. That’s all I was talking about.

On the specific topic of Trump supporters I would assume there is a fair amount of diversity among people who voted for him? The UK equivalent is voting conservative and I think any employer firing people for voting Tory would find themselves facing an employment tribunal.

Last edited 11 months ago by Steph
epitome of incomrepehensibility

@Jon – Sorry, but I’m not sure why you’re addressing me here. What I added was maybe more on their side than yours, but I wasn’t intending to argue with you specifically.

There can be black-and-white thinking, but there are also many reasons why a person wouldn’t want to be around someone who openly proclaims support for Trump.

Anyway, I don’t feel qualified to comment on the employment issue. I was just speaking from my own experience.

Elena Carlena
Elena Carlena
11 months ago

Gee, women don’t like the idea of being grabbed by the pussy by rich a-holes. Whoda thunk it.

90
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: