Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
From the article:
it's crazy to me that that was as late as 2018. i definitely felt that circulating in school in 2012.
This is only partially true. The key swing vote in the election, that handed Trump the win were; 40+year old white women without a college education. Until this election, that group was almost entirely in the Democrat camp, but went full MAGA.
The youth vote only has a small turnout, with voting patterns locked into geographic regions, there wasn't too much unexpected that happened with the youth vote.
Be skeptical of recent survey data, reflection on this past election, or any survey data for that matter, especially in a Medium article.
This quote comes from the graph's source article from the FT. They are talking about South Korea and not the US.
This makes no sense. Since when do countries other than the US exist?
The article is referring to South Korea, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, 4 countries. I'd argue that the youth vote never really mattered to turn these elections. You have to examine who actually voted, turned out to the ballot box.
The author is discussing several countries, including the U.S.A., saying that it is the same trend for each. So yest they are implying the US.
What they are explicitly saying, and not implying at all is, "Korea’s is an extreme situation, but it serves as a warning to other countries of what can happen when young men and women part ways. Its society is riven in two."
They are not implying the specifics of how the election unfolded in South Korea bears clear resemblance to the US like you stated.
This is a silly discussion because you did read the FT article, speculated wildly, and now are defending your bad take with a vague and baffling two sentence defense. Construct an actual argument.
It's a shitty article, that uses shitty polling data.
What it means to be lib vs. con in different time periods and different countries is a complex question. I guarantee you that in absolute terms, white boys from the Midwest are much less racist than they were 40 years ago.
It misses the biggest swing from lib to conservative that happened, that older white women, without a college education, flipped to conservative, from consistently voting Democrat.
The article implicitly is trying to cast blame on young white boys, turning conservative, and therefore pushing the country into being regressive. It misses that the biggest regressive block are still the elderly white folk, and that that block is also the biggest voting block.
Both the articles were written in January 2024, ten months before the election. They weren't analyzing the 2024 elections. There is no possibiliy of mentioning elderly white folks ev
They never mention whiteness anywhere in either article and the FT article is explicitly a global take mentioning Germany, UK, South Korea, Tunisia, and China.
There is nothing in the FT article implicitly or explicitly blaming "young white boys". It is saying that when there is an ideological gap between young men and women, it has sociological implications.
I agree that the larger media narrative blames young white men's regressive turn for the Trump presidential win and not elderly white folks or white Gen X women, but this is not that article.
So what the article is saying is, saying "sexual harrassment/assault is bad" radicalized all the men?