Of course, not Tomi Lahren though…
Add to this list:
- Andrew Tate
- Jordan Peterson
- TP USA
We see you guys and you make us drier than the Sahara. Please grow a personality that isn’t hating women
Fun Fact: Rot Brain Peterson has, on the record, unironically advocated that “society needs to work to make sure men are married” so they don’t become violent.
And he says feminists are the ones besmirching masculinity.
Incredible, he’s infantilized men into big dangerous toddlers that throw a violent fit when they don’t get what they want.
The best part is his incel base ate it up and assumed he meant government-issued sex slaves, so he clarified that he just meant society, aka the literal patriarchy, needs to shame the very idea of not being in a monogamous hetero couple so hard it is socially unacceptable to do anything else (you know, again)
Military aged men (usually aged late teens to mid 40s) have historically been the drivers of society. If a significant chunk of this demographic feels lost, hopeless, and close to the brink, then that’s when all hell breaks loose. From insane crime rates to extremism to war to riots to revolutions to you name it. I don’t think Peterson is suggesting that society should do mandatory marriages or anything like that. He’s just pointing out that the data shows that marriage improves the happiness and quality of life for men (and women), and it will be a net benefit to society to try and increase the marriage rates as opposed to doing nothing and keeping the current trends going.
Don’t you think that group also contains homosexuals, transgender, etc, who have a much harder standing in “our society”? Or what about people who just don’t work monogamous?
Shaming them into (hetero) marriages doesn’t make them happier.
With an intolerant society, there will always be unhappy people.
So IMO the only way to evolve would be to become fully tolerant and just let people be who they want to be without having to fear, that someone else condemns them for who they are.
More accurately, they are more vulnerable to emotional manipulation. They fall hard for the propaganda.
Headline should just read: “9/10 wamen say Joe Rogan and Trump bad”
What’s dumber than these surveys which are always filled with loaded questions and questionable sampling methods, is the fact people take them as fact without even looking into them. I spent so much time trying to track down where the original survey is, and it doesn’t exist. It’s not on the Change Research website, it’s not linked by any article that mentions it, and it’s not reported by any credible outlet. It’s reported on by 5 or so tabloids like The NY Post, The Daily Mail, and Teen Vogue and nothing more.
2 minutes of Googling led me to the poll: https://changeresearch.com/post/poll-young-voters-facing-tough-economic-reality/
The question asked was “Do you consider each of the following behaviors or traits a green, beige, or red flag in a partner?”.
Okay, mild progress… But where’s the data for it?
Also, this is from the methodology pdf:
We used the following sources to recruit respondents: ● targeted advertisements using the Meta advertising >platform ● SMS text messages
Regardless of which of these sources a respondent came from, they were directed to a survey hosted on SurveyMonkey’s website.
Ads placed on social media targeted likely voters nationwide. Those who indicated that they were not registered to vote were terminated. Those who indicated they were over the age of 34 were terminated. As the survey fielded, Change Research used dynamic online sampling: adjusting ad budgets, lowering budgets for ads targeting groups that were overrepresented, raising budgets for ads targeting groups that were underrepresented. The survey was conducted in English.
So this is a self reported online poll with 84 oddly phrased questions that was advertised primarily on Instagram and Facebook and conducted on a redirected website. The methodology seems dodgy, and even the people conducting it agree:
We adopt The Pew Research Center’s convention for the term “modeled margin of error”(1) (mMOE) to indicate that our surveys are not simple random samples in the pure sense, similar to any survey that has either non-response bias or for which the general population was not invited at random. A common, if imperfect, convention for reporting survey results is to use a single, survey-level mMOE based on a normal approximation. This is a poor approximation for proportion estimates close to 0 or 1. However, it is a useful communication tool in many settings and is reasonable in places where the proportion of interest is close to 50%. We report this normal approximation for our surveys assuming a proportion estimate of 50%
Thanks for the link regardless
They will just bang them in secret while you buy them dinner.
