this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
221 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4807 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican politicians like Ron DeSantis may rail against “woke” corporations. The reality is that when companies like Nike and Disney—no progressive angels themselves—seem to align with the left by promoting anti-racism and LGBTQ causes, they are catering to the tolerant demographic that matters most to the bottom line. It’s understandable why older conservatives would feel business has left them behind, ranting about supposed lefty strongholds like Blackrock and Disney. But there’s no top-down conspiracy of woke corporations as defined by Tucker Carlson. It’s just capitalism.

This is especially true given the Republican Party’s increasing reliance on far-right religious voters, whose cultural power is also waning rapidly despite recent judicial and legislative wins. Americans are becoming rapidly less affiliated with organized religion. Younger people are markedly less religious than their elders. In 2021, membership in religious organizations fell below majority levels for the first time, and “nones”—those who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, or nothing specific—now account for around 30 percent of Americans, up from just 9 percent thirty years ago. White evangelical politics is the province of mostly older voters disconnected from the broader culture and economy.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 77 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I feel that this really sums up the sentiment that I notice in my area.

"Most crucially, major corporations crave younger consumers and lifelong brand loyalists. Outside of cable news, older consumers are less attractive to most advertisers. And younger people (meaning anyone under 45!) lean decidedly to the left. The most coveted 18-29-year-old demographic leans farther left than any other. Long gone are the days of the Reagan youth, when 18-24-year-olds backed the Republican over Walter Mondale by over 30 points in the 1984 presidential election, and corporate America catered to them accordingly."

The 55+ demographic has had the cultural and political focus on them their whole lives. Now that it's not catering to their opinions they are throwing a tantrum.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

To be clear, Reagan youth were on the generational cusp between Boomer and X. The "quintessential" Boomer youth experience was the Vietnam war, ~15 years prior to the cited 1984 election.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also at the time somehow Hollywood was really on board with pushing this young up and coming corporate business guy image as being sexy and cool. I don’t think that image plays well with young people today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Wolf of Wallstreet thats sure what women crave

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

18 or 29 whats the difference?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 10 months ago (4 children)

They also lost the science war.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Did they win the war on drugs? That seemed to go well.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

No, they lost to people on drugs.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

They might not have "won" the war on drugs, but it definitely turned out the way it was intended.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As a scientist, I am not sure this is the case. They have paralyzed science-informed policymaking and are currently tearing apart the university systems in several states. They have kept NSF funding flat for years, eroding American leadership in science. So I am very worried for American science right now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Indeed. Anyone looking at what's going on in North Carolina would tell you that they're busy dismantling the administrative state at a rate that's flatly unprecedented, and in a way that'll take many generations to correct. And most of what they're doing from here on out will be shrouded in impenetrable legislative secrecy.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

He’s a different kind of pirate 🏴‍☠️. Can I join your crew?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Good damn it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lost the sex game too

[–] [email protected] 52 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I feel like statistics on religion are largely useless, especially in Western, mostly Christian nations. So many people follow the "I said a prayer when I was 10 so now I won't go to hell" version of Christianity that a huge chunk of those yes responses are actually functionally atheists and have been for a long time.

I don't mean to imply anything negative about atheists here. I just think the only thing really changing is that younger people don't see the point in pretending to be religious anymore. They're at least casually familiar with the tenets of Christianity and are pretty aware that what their parents are doing is not religion but some sort of weird social and political club with little resemblance to the religion it's supposedly based on. In fact, I'd argue that the percentage of people who take religion seriously on a personal level has always been much lower than official numbers like this would indicate.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Church attendance has been down, and that has probably been a better metric. Congregations are a great way in getting people to comply with the church even if they don't believe. That you don't even have to pretend to go to church is a big sign of religion's lack of control over society.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Memes is all it takes now to sway people's beliefs.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think the reverse is much more likely true. People are more likely to have deeply held religious beliefs and just not belong to an institution or identify with organized religion. See: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/

Atheism is certainly on the rise, particularly "soft" atheism or apathetic agnosticism among younger people, but it's much harder to distinguish between people who have a deep conviction that there is nothing supernatural in reality and those who believe that, for example, there is a loving god or gods, but that god or gods cannot be explained scientifically. Members of both of those groups would nevertheless draw a hard, firm line between them, and that line would be easy to miss if the only thing you're counting is how many people claim membership in an institution.

I agree that consequently, while data about religious affiliation might essentially be accurate, it probably paints a misleading picture about religious and spiritual belief. I just think the number of folks who believe in something immaterial is more likely to be higher than numbers portray--not lower.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

There is also the "New to Q Pipeline". Spiritual people are being sucked into Q Anon and other far-right beliefs.

The Wellness to QAnon Pipeline

Conspirituality Podcast

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 10 months ago (1 children)

since when has losing stopped them

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As the article points out, they're determined to bull through anyway. But the effort is doomed to failure. Even if they achieve victory conditions (effectively ending democracy) it won't last. It'll just make the next revolution that much more painful. But their sense of entitlement won't allow them to stop.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

I call it Prison Warden Mentality,

They just cannot imagine any course of action except that which keeps their "prisoners" in line

Whenever you hear about the decay of family values, this is what they're actually saying, that it's getting too easy for the prisoners to choose not to be prisoners

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think we have very different definitions of "lost".

Because last I check, they still have a microphone and are getting away with book burnings, still attend large rallies, and even have jobs.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Just because there are a few thousand people who still worship Norse gods doesn't mean the religion is thriving.

Yes, they're still making noise. If anything, they're making more noise than ever. But public sentiment is against them by a wide majority. Even a majority of Republican voters favor gay rights along with female reproductive rights. What we're seeing is the impact of a minority imposing its will on the majority, and it cannot last.

They're the dog that caught the car, but they can't keep it.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Winning the culture war doesn't matter one whit if we let a fascist in power. Too many of those young less religious people don't vote and any culture they have will be deleted.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Which we will constantly be in danger of because you don't need to win the popular vote to win the presidency

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

They've rejected reality and created their own. They didn’t lose, they seceded. Their reality is almost quite literally made up to suit whatever they want whenever they want to.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

BlackRock is leftist? It's a nightmare built from unrestrained neoliberalism!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Anything that is not openly fascist is leftist to these people.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

On the day Johnson was voted in, several major right-wing social media accounts on X, formerly known as Twitter, began circulating clips of an interview Johnson gave to PBS in 2020, in which he told journalist Walter Isaacson that the police killing of George Floyd was “an act of murder” and called for “systemic change.” Notably, Johnson said in the interview that he had learned about racism in America through the experience of raising a Black son, Michael.

Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh described Johnson’s comments as a “full-fledged endorsement of the Left’s racial narrative,” while far-right anti-Muslim activist Laura Loomer accused the new Speaker of being an “undercover Democrat.” Pro-DeSantis conservative influencer Pedro Gonzalez wrote that Johnson had “completely internalized left-wing racial libel about white supremacy and privilege.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson Responds to New Round of Scrutiny About Black Son

That's right the Christo-Nationalist was deemed far left because they recognized that Black people have it harder than White people.

On a side note, Vanity Fair calling Michael, the Black son is extremely tone-deaf and cringe.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

They don't really lose. They just stop talking about things and start talking about something else crazy. Their followers do not care.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

I hate the use of the word "tolerant"; I don't tolerate people of different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc., because there is nothing to tolerate. I just accept them.

The people I tolerate are people who try to impose their religion by force, people who profit from hurting others, Nazis, terrorists, etc. I don't tolerate them because I'm tolerant; I tolerate them because I have no choice in the matter. They exist no matter what I think of them. If I could banish them all to Siberia, I would.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

But there's no top-down conspiracy of woke corporations as defined by Tucker Carlson.

Anyone remember Bill O'Reilly ranting about the "War on Christmas" years ago?

Same shit, different day.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll consider them as having lost when they're out of political power and no longer a serious threat.

Abortion rights aren't going to reinstate themselves.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I feel like their tantrums are death throes of a dying ideology. You're right, they remain dangerous for the moment, hopefully for the last time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, I suspect human tendencies for tribalism and prejudice will not completely vanish anytime soon. Which means reactionary assholes will always be around and we should never let down our guard.

For countries that are currently more progressive, beware. Education and entertainment are the first things they attack. By the time they've gotten enough power to rig the courts and control the reality of their followers, they've become an enormous danger.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

It's the christofascism that's on the way out. Tribalism and prejudice and conservatism will likely remain and will take different forms.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

The most woke thing any corporation cares about it its own bottom line. And actually Nike and Disney are smart enough to know which demographic matters most so of course they're going to be as inclusive and anti-racism as possible (or at least put on the face of being such). And I really think today's upcoming generations are smarter in that regard - they see the values of inclusivity, not the drawbacks. I hope people today will really help turn the tide in the coming election and show the old guard that the status quo and this catering to religious over-zealotry has no place anymore, and isn't something most people in the world want to be around.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is the case I try to make to people on the left who complain about corporate white washing, or whatever they want to call it. Mainstream corporations feel like it's advantageous to have their symbols out there in pride parades, environmentalist goals, anti-racism, and anti-sexism. Corporations are obligated at a certain level to follow the money, and they have read the signs and chosen to align themselves with these progressive causes. If nothing else, this is a good sign of where the country is headed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Or being Co opted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I tend to complain about "corporate white washing".

My reason is that companies tend to put themselves out there on issues that are popular on "the left", but specifically on the ones that are edgy but don't affect their bottom line. They might all go "black lives matter", but do any of them go "end prison slave labour"? Or "actually do something effective against climate change so Saharan people don't boil to death"?

The point is not that people don't like corps backing issues. The problem is that corps like to present a happy progressive brand while funnelling money to boil the earth and genocide poor people so that their line continues to go up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I agree - the change of generations isn't a new process and our political parties have survived it before. Certain ideas that were controversial for past generations won't be controversial for future ones, but conservatism and the general phenomenon of the culture war will persist. (I think the Trump phenomenon is in fact conservatism adapting itself to modern conditions.)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

It's not like new culture wars won't be started and fought just the same. But there was a time when slavery was the topic of a fierce culture war in the US, and it wasn't resolved until it broke out into a literal war. Now, nearly two hundred years later, it's still unacceptable to suggest that people who look different are better off as property rather than people. Even Florida's attempts to whitewash Southern slavery doesn't go so far as to blame the slaves weren't people.

They've lost this culture war, just as they lost the fight for slavery and later to keep the population segregated. They'll try again in time, but for the moment, the question of abortion and homosexual rights is largely settled at a cultural level. The conservatives lost, and that's why they've largely moved on to nitpicking the definition of gender and trying (unsuccessfully) to defend their legal victories on women's reproductive rights.

load more comments
view more: next ›