Danny Deck

I would describe it as a drive for physical dominance that presents itself in fighting and especially sexual violence. A rigid enforcement of strict gender roles and repression of emotions. I think the case against violence is already pretty clear. As for the other two, as I've said above, strict gender roles in the home just don't work as well when both partners are working 40+ hours a week. Leaving all domestic duties up to the wife isn't really fair and leads to strife in relationships. To the extent the male partner thinks they are owed June Cleaver who brings home a healthy paycheck too, it is toxic. Repressing emotions, to me, is what leads to the violence. If you can't express what you're feeling then those emotions come out in other ways, and lots of times those ways are bad. Encouraging men to keep things bottled up is a toxic suggestion

As of this article in March he was? https://www.essentiallysports.com/ufc-mma-news-ex-ufc-octagon-girl-amber-nichole-miller-tito-ortiz-relationship-modelling-career-and-more/

I think there is lots of room for reframing some things into masculine language that would be helpful. What I see from my women friends and co-workers are complaints about their husbands/partners not doing enough work around the house, helping with child rearing, etc. I think this is one area where things have changed a lot recently and old paradigms about the divison of labor at home doesn't make sense. Lots of couples have equally demanding jobs now, and yet there is still often the expectation that the woman will do the bulk of the household chores. Even if someone wants to frame themself in the traditional masculine terms as leader and provider in a household, well, a leader and a provider steps up and helps where it is needed to make sure all tasks are completed. Even if those tasks are "women's work." I think there is a move from younger men to be better at this, but there is so much learned helplessness. I listen to the Split Zone Duo podcast and on mailbag episodes at the end they'll often answer general life questions, and they frequently get questions about how to help their wives when they have a newborn. The host always says it isn't that hard, you should know what all chores always need to be done. There is almost certainly a load of clothes you can do, or dishes you can clean. Even in traditional masculine terms, you should take the initiative and get things done without being told to by your partner. So I agree this is changing in younger age groups, but I think it could change more quickly, and for the better with language that did more to meet people where they are and in terms they're more comfortable with.

I don't know, that seems bad.

https://thedispatch.com/article/masculinity-in-an-age-of-individualism/

Thursday at 8 Central.

This is really more about the policies of West and Stein. Which you can find here: https://www.jillstein2024.com/platform https://www.cornelwest2024.com/platform Even with Harris seemingly making a pivot to the right, a Democratic administration is going to be far closer to these policies for the most part. It looks like there would be some overlap with Trump in foreign policy, but on the domestic front there is no overlap. If you're generally aligned with one of these platforms and hope to have policy move in this direction on the domestic front, even if you don't know Harris's platform, it seems fairly obvious the Democrats are going to go more in this direction than the Republicans. So if you're voting with actually seeing policy enacted in mind, you would vote for the Democrats, if you only want to vote symbolically, you can vote for one of these two.

Strategically in that if you were otherwise a Stein or West voter, Harris is much closer to your desired policy outcomes than Trump, and she could win. Idealistically would be voting for the candidate that you feel most accurately matches your policy preferences, in this case Stein or West even though they will not win.

A philosophical question, can something be impressive but also cringe? I say yes, especially if you're bragging about it.

Meanwhile, RFK Jr has been unable to remove himself from swing state ballots. Could be pretty awkward around Trump HQ if a member of his transition team causes him to lose. Democrats should just trust that enough people learned their lesson in 2016 and that sometimes you have to vote strategically and not idealistically.

This reminds me of two things. In an Ask Reddit post asking, "Older people what would you do different?" The top answer was take better care of their teeth. A few years ago after a story about the world's longest lived dog dying, I was talking to my vet about it, and he said animals are the same as humans, keep them at a healthy weight and take care of their teeth. It seems like here we have a clear example of policy trade offs, improving the oral health of billions of people (the study was in non-US countries including China and India) at a possible reduction in IQ. It seems to me that especially in the countries studied it's a worthwhile tradeoff. I'm not sure about its application to the US. This was based on exposure to double the recommended amount in US water. I don't know that people in the US are actually taking that much in, or what level below that there is cause for concern. Definitely doubling the recommended amount of most anything can be bad.

Value Added Tax. A tax on consumption rather than income.

The whole thing is largely symbolic, as I understand the original tax on unrealized gains, it applied to those with 100 million+ in assets. A lot of this is both sides jockeying to have populist rage on their side. You don't have to have effective policy to do that. Saying the very wealthy will have to pay taxes when they use debt to live their lavish lifestyles feels good even if probably wouldn't really do much for the bottom line. A VAT seems like what we need in lieu of what we have, but we'll never get it. The rich would have a harder time avoiding it so they'll say we have to protect the poor from a regressive tax.

How does taxing Jeff Bezos personally affect Amazon's investments?

This seems like a smart solution, and much more workable than the vague proposal from the Harris administration. https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1826361874654658880

I think you can make light of stereotypes about groups you are in, but that's received much differently when you make jokes based on stereotypes of groups you aren't in. I don't think there would be much outrage if Trump said he didn't like spicy food. I do remember outrage that Hillary said she brings hot sauce with her everywhere because it was assumed she was pandering to a black audience. https://theweek.com/speedreads/619127/clinton-stirs-anger-by-claiming-carries-hot-sauce-bag-like-beyonc

Are there examples of Trump poking fun at himself? White people, particularly Midwesterners, is a pretty long standing joke. There is even this retort from 3 years ago that I still see regularly.

I think you could also look at this as a reaction to the Left for a long time only talking about "toxic masculinity." Since we're so polarized (at least online), the Right embraced everything about masculinity especially the stuff branded as "toxic." So you get voices like Andrew Tate with a following despite that fact that when I've unfortunately seen his stuff, nothing about it presents a positive view of masculinity at all. But the Left didn't really have a vision for what masculinity in the 21st century seemingly beyond embrace your feminine side. There are books like Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves that discuss the issues that are facing men, so I think how men succeed in the modern world is a real question. I don't think the man-o-sphere stuff is correct, but it's the loudest voice out there. I wish all sides would consider the question more constructively.

https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/elon-musks-twitter-buyout-is-the-worst-deal-for-banks-since-gfc--wsj-3578988

Elon says deadnaming is good, so I'm just following his lead.

What liberal sources do you follow on Twitter?

This is one thing that is difficult in the digitalization of media. In a real deal newspaper, it feels a lot more clear what's opinion vs (supposed to be) hard news. And then once you get on Twitter or FB or whatever, it's even more difficult because you're further divorced from the source likely reading someone's interpretation of someone else's opinion article. This happens on TV as well. Where no one gets that upset usually with the actual news programs but instead all of the opinion ones, but the difference between the goals of Special Report with Bret Baier and The Ingraham Angle aren't that clear. (I'll say looking things up Fox News does a much better job of blurbing their shows than MSNBC to get at what's news vs opinion.)

Did you just learn what a stump speech is?

This means the previously scheduled 9/10 debate on ABC is for sure on. Hopefully she agrees to the other two.

https://adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/