MSC

True, let me rephrase, swing state voters will be ready to vote for a women before voting for a guy with eyeliner; by that I mean superficial voters who care more about perceived masculinity would rather vote for a strong woman than a feminine seeming man. This isn't to say that I myself see these traits as masculine or feminine or care about who is or isn't masculine; just an observation that a lot of voters have certain biases, conscious and subconscious, which impacts how they perceive candidates. For example Harris unlike Clinton is very good at immasculating Trump and making him seem even more like the whiny child he is as opposed to a grown man. Seriously only a black woman could be like "oh yeah go to his little rallies, see for yourself how quickly people get bored and leave!"

Like I said, shrewd, to put it mildly. Unethically sophisticated. That being said, I think America will sooner vote for a woman than a guy wearing eyeliner, who's side piece moonlights as an IKEA display piece. Honestly though, I don't think I'll ever quite understand why Vance was pegged for VP in the first place. He used to be anti-trump, pretty openly. I'd have thought Trump would have wanted someone that supported him from day one of his first campaign announcement.

Okay I'm just going to say it; that debate, was pretty fucking weird! Strangely polite and pleasant, almost seemed like JD was trying not to see Wallz as a father figure half the time and that Wallz was seeing JD as a lost kid in need of guidance. That said, I personally believe Vance has strapped himself to the rogue comet that is the trump campaign, not because he expects Trump to win, but because he's planning his own 2028/32 run. If Trump does win, I can potentially foresee and attempt by Vance to use the 25th amendment and I honestly don't know which is worse, Trump or Vance as president. If Vance continues with Trumpism and doesn't try to bring the party more to the center, his intelligence and age could make him a very different kind of threat than Trump. I definitely would not underestimate him after this. One thing I think is pretty clear though, 3 of the people in this race are far more intelligent and in Vances case, shrewder, than the 4th. Trump is the odd one out. The tones of the debates couldn't be more different.

I think part of what makes some men so hyper vigilant towards misandry is in large part due to the paranoia that comes with being in the advantaged situation unfairly. I mean sure you have real misandrists, but there is a distinct difference between a misandrist saying "all men are pigs" vs a woman saying "men are disgusting when they behave like this." Now as to ambiguity in wage differences, as I can name a few career paths where women can make more than men; there is far less ambiguity when it comes to a wealth gap. As it stands, on average, for every dollar of wealth that a man owns, women own substantially less and we can't ignore how a long history of male dominated capitalism has exacerbated and solidified wealth inequalities. From healthcare, clothing, hygiene etc, women pay more to live, are less likely to own property or receive capital funding for their business ventures. Due to ingrained biases surrounding how we identify job roles with either masculine or feminine (even though those jobs themselves have nothing to do with gender), women are more likely to be passed over for leadership roles. As someone who has been a caregiver, as a man, I've definitely come across an assumption that I must be a less effective caregiver than a women, while simultaneously acknowledging myself that there are many women far better suited to leadership roles than myself. Although it's interesting when you look at traditional gender roles and leadership roles in their full context. Take a general, identify what the ins and outs of his job are, then tell me if his role is more paternal or maternal. I personally notice more of similarity between the maternal role and leadership than I do with the paternal role. I mean think about it. "Go out and win us some bread, here are your clothes and equipment, here is some lunch, be careful out there." "At once... Sweetie"

I did find the timing of the letter kind of strange and the phrasing. It would make more sense if there were two letters, one meant to be shared if successful and one for failure?

Tech advancement in the entertainment industry isn't like tech advancement in other industries, because you have to cater to an audience. What this means for AI in film and tv, is that there will always be movies and tv shows that use real actors and actresses because there will always be an audience for it. How things are marketed may change slightly, you may see studios that development purely AI portrayed narratives and some that never use it, then you'll have studios that combine elements of both, saving money on extras while keeping real actors in for the crowds they draw. Each of these studio types are going to be mindful of their audience types. There will also be times where AI will potentially be able to save the planned narrative of a show. Exhibit A: Helen Mcrory, playing Aunt Polly in Peaky Blinders, died before the 6th season and death caused the trajectory of the shows narrative to change out of necessity. There will come a time when it may be possible for AI to continue an actors path after death or other instances that may warrant an AI replacement. There will also probably be many different forms of AI and ways it can go about being involved in a movie or tv show. You'll have AIs able to either generate complete cinematography and all the characters and you'll have AIs who are avatars of individual characters in mixed cast sets. There will be an audience who loves AI movies and others who prefer real actors and some who don't mind either way so long as what they are waching is entertaining. You're absolutely going to have studios that overuse AI just to cut costs and not have to pay actors, but what you'll probablu find is that the creators of these AI are going to demand a piece of the pie the actors would normally get and since it's the entertainment industry they are going to want pay levels near what actors themselves expect. When actors themselves go up in arms over AI stealing their jobs, that will be around the time where a savy studio will realise it can make it's mark as the studio of traditional acting and cater to the audience that demands that.

Yeah I saw that about teamsters. Can't believe so many of it's members are Trump supporters, talk about kissing the hand that will beat you... The latest quinnipac(probably spelled incorrectly) poll shows Harris quite a bit ahead in Pennsylvania, and narrowly ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan. I wonder what the betting odds are for The fat man having a heart attack or something before the election are? Honestly that would feel like a dream!

Yeah I had heard about this. Was hoping George W Bush himself was going to give his endorsement but I guess for an ex Republican president, not endorsing the GOP candidate says a lot on it's own. There is also a data scientist who has accurately predicted not just presidential races but Senate ones too, using betting data instead of survey polls, odd setters phrasing questions like "who do you believe will win?" Instead of "who do you want to win?" And the reliability of constantly updated odds data 24/7 through this guys methods, predicts a landslide for Harris coming.

If someone throws a rock at your head, you don't typically blame the rock.

At first I thought this was going to be about how there is no scientific evidence of a conspiracy in things like flat earth beliefs so they aren't theories but hypotheses. If the post had been about that, I'd have said "yeah, completely overused." But now I'm not really sure how OP is defining these terms.

Great summary! Thanks for sharing! It should be noted also that it is thought that rated choice voting would also have the benefit of encouraging civil campaigns and it avoids pivotal voter issues in RCV, rooted in mathematics, that can potentially still lead to minority rule or unfavourable candidates still winning elections without having a majority first choice position. Unfortunately though, public awareness of the choices is about 70 years behind the academic literature on this, as reflected in that RCV has not got many real world examples and SV has even less. There is also the massive hurdle of maintaining trust in elections while switching to a new style of voting. Particularly voting types that are more complex than first past the post. Lay people gravitate toward simplicity and in trying to convince others to switch, you also have to convince them they've been doing it wrong for a long time. In a 2 party dominated system this difficulty is increased as at any one time close to half of the electorate will have gotten their way in the last election anyway and so will see less need for change. Something that could at least blunt the effects of the electoral college though, sooner rather than later, is the national popular vote interstate compact (NPVIC). A number of states have currently already signed on to this, but if enough of them did, the EC would become completely toothless. This is a pact between states to award all of their electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote in all 50 states.

Ranked choice voting and rated choice voting aren't the same thing. Ranked choice is better than fptp but rated choice is allegedly better than ranked choice, if I understand the theory correctly as it avoids specific problems that can arise in rated choice and fptp. This video explains the differences, just have some coffee beforehand as it gets complicated when it starts to explain the pitfalls of the different voting systems!

A little birdie told me they didn't even have an eagle eye view of the perimeter... The least he could have done (TFG) is have more than one type of stroke that day...

Now that distinction between success and attempts is very much not picked up on enough it seems, because this is the first time I've seen that claim. Thanks for the explanation, I was quite unaware.

Oh wow really? Not even on the public schedule? Yup, just makes it sound more and more like the local Florida guy was just out for a wee walk. Elon Musk and others decided to react by encouraging attempts on Biden and Harris. Honestly at this point I don't know who society should be more worried about. Trump or Musk? My money is on Musk. Dude literally has plans resembling evil Daniel Jackson from that one "it was all a dream" episode of Stargate. Satellites in orbit, chips in peoples heads, his dirty hands in so many different infrastructure pies I mean the dude clearly has a snake in his head.... And so does Mr Burns.

I'd argue that it is too soon to be talking about some new form of government when we haven't even figured out how to create equitable voting systems. Looking at you first past the post voting and the electoral college! Rated choice voting is my preference.

Didn't science figure out how procreation even happens? Making it easier for people to procreate due to the knowledge of how it actually works? What is IVF?

Likewise, however the jury is out on the second guy since he never got the chance to fire a shot. Could have been a great marksman for all we know. That said 500 yards with an Ak-47 isn't an easy shot to make. Guy went about it all wrong, without talking about the morality of the action at all, it's implementation practically was so flawed. Shoulda just set a hidden stake pit out on the green of the 7th hole during the night. Honestly I think the only way for it to happen that would leave people more in awe than anger would be for a black star college quarterback to take him out with a football thrown from a ridiculous range. Can't get more American than that! Dear NSA, I'm joking, calm down! Honestly though, it's Florida. Guy could have just been out on a stroll with his pet gun!

Not done reading through everything yet, but this stuck out to me as a bit false. Men are far more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to be the victims of physical violence. In general I don't feel like people are being charitable enough in their interpretation of the OP. It may be that posting in the politics channel has some in an unsuitable mindset to interact with the post. (Although I've now seen things got a little heated in the 2nd page) What I will say to the OP however, is that human health can be broken down into a set of different problems to solve, men and women's health sharing similarities and differences that connect with each other through interaction. Now in terms of researchers and experts, as a species we need them in the fields of mens health, women's health and we still need experts in human health issues that affect both. We have all of that. So I'm assuming the problem OP is trying to address is the frequency at which uninformed and ignorant discussions/debates happen in these areas by laypeople, discussions which do more harm than good because they are expressly for the purposes of acquiring likes, followers, post interaction etc. I don't think OP comes across as an all lives matter advocate or someone who is asking for any sort of priority of one groups issues over another, to me this reads more like the sort of thing you'd read in intersectional feminism literature. @iNow is correct though, equality is very much not present in our society and poopooing the attempts of those who are mainly focused on those who are most trodden upon, by way of having the most issues of inequality, is like trying to repair the smallest hull breaches in a sinking ship as opposed to the ones that are actually huge. I mean you can choose as an individual where you want to focus more and if OP wants to put his time into different areas of discussion as opposed to any kind of men vs women and who is more important type of thing, he can. But that shouldn't have to disrupt a woman advocating for her right to choose or a man advocating for his right to mental healthcare or whatever other issues you can think of that requires it's own advocates. The fight for equality across the board is a war. But each issue is a battle that must be had. Although the ideal is us fixing all of these issues at once, that just isn't really possible. It's a massive problem that really does need to be broken down into smaller parts.

It's funny because before the debate, Trump-friendly pundits were literally saying that the victor always is the first to ask for another debate with a mind to ride the momentum to another win while confidence is high. They must be eating those words now!

I wonder; if a poll was conducted just of men, would we see a divide in support for Trump and Harris based on parental differences? Will men who are fathers to girls be more likely to vote for Harris vs men who are either childless or only fathers to boys? As for what you said about the GOP being better at branding themselves pro economy, I wonder what it would actually take to debunk this myth for people. Great responses btw, I really appreciate you guys. I think it may have more to do with the Internet giving teeth to most points of historical contention, controversy and disagreement. While also inviting more people into the discussion than were able to in pre-internet days. The Internet is a double edged sword in that it can drastically expand the reach of any thought, message, idea, truth or falsehood. As well as the speed which it does this. A lot of people don't even realize that fax wasn't just replaced by email, it was completely and totally outperformed by email. The number of documents that started to be sent by email over fax was increased by over 1000% as the time it took to send 1 document and the time it took to send 200 were virtually the same. In summary, the Internet made every view, debate and argument much louder in our lives. Pre-internet if you wanted to hear someone discuss the differences between men and women, you had to attend a lecture, read a book, watch the right TV show or listen to the right radio show, or maybe you just discussed this stuff with friends at the pub, but you really had to go out of your way. Now you have 100s of options of where to go to discuss these things at the push of a button. The Internet has in some way become a magnifying glass or a microscope to what Jung called the collective consciousness. Everything from good and bad, best and worst, exciting and mundane, true and false, about humanity and how we think, feel and interact is now much louder.

This is something I just don't understand but then maybe I've just read too much Beauvoir. Seriously why do men find Trump more attractive as a presidential candidate? Why do so many people seem to be under the impression that Trump was better for the economy too? Also why do so many people seem to be under the impression that tariffs are paid by the exporters of goods when it's always been the importers that pay the tariffs? Why is that very basic fact not even talked about in the news that much?

Apparently they are coming from everywhere! All I can say is to trust me that if the majority of the prison and insane asylum populations of Scotland, were in the USA... You'd all fuckin know about it, 100%! As Mark Renton puts it; He's no wrang! Yet half the population of the USA want to vote for someone with half that in their veins?! Mental, pure mental. Anyway guys, I cooked too much dog for myself and I can't eat another bite. Who wants a piece? On a more serious note; Was oh so satisfying to watch Trump get his ass handed to him by Harris last night. So predictable though that the Republican side was going to call foul on the ref because Donald Dump can't get it up anymore.. I keep seeing the same criticism that Trump had harder questions than Harris, then they'd cite which questions and J6 would get brought up and I was just thinking to myself "Well how can you ask her a question of the same difficulty when she hasn't herself ever engaged in an insurrection against the USA? You literally cannot turn around and ask Harris about her past criminal convictions, because she doesn't have any!" I mean it just seems obvious to me that the person with more to answer for would end up with "more difficult" questions. The lesson couldn't be clearer. Don't do messed up shit, don't get asked about messed up shit.

I can kind of understand the strategy a bit though, while morally disagreeing with it. I agree it's out of complete political self interest, but I'm wondering if in her head she believes Trump will lose to a woman of colour and so in 2028 she believes she may be seen as a potential Republican foil to Harris. She is definitely not done trying to run for president and will probably take another shot at the next Republican ticket in 28. By not alienating herself completely from Trump's base of supporters she is hoping she may have a chance with them if Trump is incapable of running again in 2028. As for GWB, not voting for the Republican candidate is a rebuke in and of itself and I think to some extent he is still playing politics out of a desire to survive in an uncertain future. Attacks on politicians are up and even those with secret service security details have good reason to be nervous considering the violent inclinations of Trump supporters and fringe Republican weirdos. If Trump wins, GWB can claim neutrality to stave off the inevitable accusations of betrayal from Trump and his brood. If Trump loses, not endorsing Harris might be what saves GWB and others from attack in a civil war in the style of the Irish "troubles" which is what I think it would likely morph into, but supersize me Americanized troubles that will make the IRA look like kittens.

Hey, at least me crying "freeedom!" will still make sense!