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 Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Gee. Why won’t any of these wokesters date anyone who… *reads list of everything the right wants to do and the things they say about about everyone from right-leaning centrists on to the far left*
*gestures at list*
…That?
So, basically “Government Get Girlfriends” dressed up in a suit and tie.
Conservatives are shit in bed. I don’t know what to tell you dude. Learn where the clit is and don’t shame kinks.
So educated young women in elite universities are generally uninterested in the relatively small minority of young men who support policies opposed to their autonomy and wellbeing? Is that the surprising thing the National Review seems to be so worried and surprised about? You know, it’s hard to be loved by people you don’t love because clearly the author of this piece doesn’t love educated young women in elite universities that aren’t Trump supporters. If he doesn’t love them, why does he care about being loved by them? Does he think he is some sort of Old Testament God who must be loved and adored even if He is a complete asshole all the time?
The insidious part of this is how they try to disseminate the idea that the USA institutions are going more progressive, when it’s the opposite.
Yesterday I learned the ban on electric therapy for children was lifted in the USA. The fact the country even *needed* one make me puke.
A lot of US Conservatives have been whining about this since at least 2018. It’s been gradually trending all along, the Orange-One-Who-Should-No-Longer-Be-Named merely accelerated it.
They want the right to treat other people like garbage but without the consequence of being treated the same in return. And to be fair, it used to be that with the right targets there usually were no consequences, and in some cases open displays of discrimination and abuse could even serve as “status markers”.
Of course, that doesn’t work anything like how it used to. Within their own shrinking social circles, yes, but outside of that, women and minorities and anyone else who they might target generally have the option to not have to put up with their abuse. This is something of a baffling situation for them. “But if I can’t openly show my superiority over others, how would anyone know that I am a good person?” It’s easier for some of them to try to frame this trend from the perspective that liberals think exactly the way status-seeking conservatives do, they just have different ideas of status marking… which are, incidentally, oppressive to “good people” (them) and is therefore an evil which they need to deal with, somehow.
It doesn’t occur to them that most other people either aren’t status-seekers to nearly the same extent as they are, and have other motivations – and sometimes those motivations lead them to try to dismantle status privilege systems, because they find those systems largely meaningless and often abhorrent and also in the way of their other goals.
Isn’t a natural consequence of this argument that it’s just as bad to discriminate against Nazis as it is to discriminate against Jews?
@Nequam
I keep laughing every time I see your gif, thanks for that! ?
@Snowberry
Isn’t it great!
What happened to just importing girlfriends from Eastern Europe? Did somebody not think through all the implications of the anti-globalist “economic nationalism” thing, or do they have their trust funds all tied up in crypto?
> Elaine The Witch
Well, they tried to find the clit-au-riz on the menu of a french restaurant, but they did not find it…
The short version:
“Stop being intolerant of my intolerance!!!1eleventy”
The strangest thing about that article was the whine was based on the choices of university students. I am sure if they polled the wider population then the results would be different but then that conservative entitlement….who cares if women / men throughout the country would date Trumpers – they only want Ivy League / university grads. The humanity!
The funny thing was I thought part of that article was ok and worthy of discussion (I.e people losing their jobs for their politics / views even when it has no relevance to their employment). If the article focused on that it may have made a point but the rant about dating choices showed what it was about.
I wonder if the author would be this up in arms over men who refuse to date women who are feminists…
Also he misread the poll. It was actually about 21% who would date a Trump supporter (of the Ivy Leaguers.) Not quite the 6% he highlighted when he was trying to play the victim.
Is it weird that I find that more depressing?
I think the basic level of dishonesty, bigotry, gullibility, aggressive discrimination, abusive entitlement, rank hypocrisy, and bottomless amorality necessary to be a Trumpstain pretty much disqualifies you for any position that doesn’t involve selling “Own the Libs” t-shirts at a Trump rally.
Firing or not hiring Trumpstains isn’t discrimination so much as it’s just good business sense.
That would be a predictable result of the inherent dishonesty of Trumpstains. Seems like a good reason not to employ them for any job, really….
@Gaelboga – yeah I disagree. That leads us down the path of people like Dave Ramsey firing staffers for being pregnant and unmarried.
Either way I was saying the Article conflates one valid debate (firing people for personal politics or even promoting diversity of debate in institutions of learning) with a very invalid debate (whining that people won’t sleep with you / make friends with you because of your politics.
This makes an interesting contrast with the previous post, where fat American single moms are unattractive, valueless throwaways who don’t deserve dates or even sympathy. I don’t see the National Review publishing any pearl-clutching pieces on the jackbooted intolerance of the men who refuse to date them.
So, a landmark Supreme Court case (PepeMAGA1488 v. BLMClimateAction), followed by the National Guard escorting the incel version of Ruby Bridges into a restaurant for a forced date with someone he hates?
If you went to Mississippi and Alabama, you’d find legions of women willing and eager to date Trump supporters. What’s stuck in their craw is the fact that it’s Ivy League women rejecting them. Which means it’s about status and proximity to the elite layer of society, not finding dates. Again, there are no hand-wringing essays on behalf of Trump supporting women about all the Ivy League men who don’t want to date them.
Essentially, the National Review is saying that only conservative white men are entitled to status boosts and access to power, and that women shouldn’t have any preferences or agency in who they date, which sounds rather…what’s the word?…oh yeah, authoritarian.
Love it when statisticians throw out all the data that doesn’t agree with their hypothesis. So scientitious.
@Buttercup – yes! I made the same point. Their whole focus is on university students in general and the Ivy League in particular. Despite there being undoubtedly loads of non Ivy League women who would happily date Trumpers.
@Steph
The choices a woman made that led to her becoming pregnant and unmarried don’t necessarily involve dishonesty, cruelty, bigotry, and (if I may generalize a number of traits into a catch-all) basic evil. Being a Trumpstain requires those traits.
So unless you’re talking about an industry that needs those traits (torturer, mass murderer, Grand Dragon of the Klan, for example), the fact that someone freely chose to be a Trumpstain disqualifies them for employment. No one is born a Trumpstain, and no one who saw the 4 years of his presidency and thought “yeah, that guy’s just great!” has the intellectual, emotional, or moral qualities required to flip a burger, much less do anything more complicated.
Just as we’re not required to accept white supremacists’ views as credible, we’re not required to accept that Trumpstains should be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They’re not good people, they’re fucking traitors. No one should be required to employ a traitor, nor should they want to, really. Traitors can’t be trusted to uphold basic social norms, so why the hell should any business trust them to successfully perform any task at all?
@Steph
Employing a fascist creates a hostile environment for every non-fascist employee and customer, particularly those who are members of marginalized groups. This is called the paradox of tolerance.
@Gaebolga : I would say, if during the interview process you immediatly pick up that he is a trumpstain, then yes he will be a bad hire. I mean, we recognize them by theses “qualities” that make them unemployable.
The somewhat difficult question is more, you have on your payroll a decent worker, who don’t cause problem, isn’t dishonest, and isn’t scamming you, and you discover that on his free time he do trump political activism. Do you fire him on the spot ?
I would not, based on the fact he didn’t actually put trouble in the workplace yet. Even if that would probably put him on some kind of mental watchlist for me.
And, yes, there are Trump supporters who are functional adults that can go the whole day without saying insanities about women nor doing ridiculously obvious scams. I know of some.
lets see see, here´s a list of women these dumbass conservatives have claimed as undatable
Being over 30
Be fat
Have short hair, tattoos or not being hyperfeminime or conformist
Women with college education and careers
Women with any kinda of independence
Be a Feminist or care about any type of social justice
Be a Trans woman
Be POC
Be a western woman
Not a virgin (be with more than one man)
Not caring about her appearance enough or Caring too much about her appearance like wearing makeup
Having a hobby
Having male friends
Doesn´t clean after him
Hold men accountable to a certain standard (aka not be a manchild)
Be a single mother
Has a pet cat
Doesn´t want kids
Wasn´t raised by a loving father
Doesn´t worship the floor men have stepped on
Well, well, would you look at that, that is a lot of women these dudes will never bother with dating and yet, they´re mad when these women reject them in return?
This is basically the conservative equivalent of you can´t fire me! I quit!
“As in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA this clown should try being a lefty in the middle of Trump Country.
And anyway, I thought rightists were supposed to be all about freedom of association? I guess that only applies in certain situations, like Rand Paul arguing for someone’s hypothetical right to open a segregated lunch counter. What a bunch of disingenuous turds.
And yet, if you suggest that people ought to consider dating trans people, they completely lose it.