In the aftermath of the electoral fiasco that was the 2024 election, Leftists have been trying to figure out why they lost so many male voters to the Evil Orange Man. And after some soul-searching and thoughtful consideration, they’ve devised a plan to win them back.
Just kidding! They’re spending $20 million on a program called SAM, which stands for Speaking with American Men. This is a departure from their usual approach, which is BAM: Browbeating All Men. While we see how the Left will fuck this up, let’s take a look at it.
Speaking with American Men
What the Left thinks it means – an effort to attract more male voters to Democrat politicians and movements
What it really means – an Astro Turf movement to try to correct a problem the Left caused
The genesis of this idea came from the same place all great political movements start: luxury hotels. So far, the big brain ideas the Left has come up with are:
– using the online space to appeal to younger men
– study the phrasing used to attract young men in these spaces
– buy advertisements in video games
Wow. It’s a wonder Leftists even have to campaign with brilliant ideas like these, amirite? But at least they’ve figured out what men are, so there’s that.
As anyone who has seen the cratering user numbers of Mastodon can tell you, the online world is incredibly fickle. One day you’re getting millions of interactions with each and every post, and the next you’re lucky to show up in the algorithm. (For the uninitiated, algorithm is what the former Vice President thinks he has when he’s dancing.)
Trying to get people to pay attention to something in this space is tricky. Yes, it’s incredibly easy to get people to act like jackasses on TikTok, but that’s because it’s fucking TikTok. But for every overnight dance craze that loses its popularity before you’re done chewing a stick of Fruit Stripe gum, there are many more that fail to do anything more than make the subject being filmed look like a jackass.
Like Leftists using TikTok to make political commentary.
Being able to get users to pay attention to anything on social media takes more than a strategy and a pretty or handsome face speaking words. It takes a message worth spreading that goes beyond a particular audience. It’s 0ne thing to go viral on BlueSky, which is a highly-moderated Leftist echo chamber to rival the Grand Canyon, and to go viral on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter, which used to be a Leftist echo chamber until Elon Musk bought it and…well, we’re still trying to figure out what he did with it, but whatever it was it stopped being a Leftist echo chamber.
And it’s not a matter of the size of the platform, either. Naturally, you’re going to get a longer reach on a platform that has become a daily habit for most people. Leftist social media “influencer” Harry Sisson is on X, TikTok, and Instagram and his posts garner a lot of attention, but it’s all to parrot Leftist squawking points without any intellectual depth. So, naturally, he’s on the right social media platforms for his intellectual prowess. But is Sisson the right person to attract young male voters? Not unless they identify as teenage girls.
In fact, the Left has been trying to find the “white guy whisperer” for a few months now, and they’ve assembled quite the motley crew (and not the musical kind). Here are some of the people who have stepped up or have been pushed into the role.
– Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota and former Vice Presidential candidate under Queen Kamala the Appointed
– Doug Emhoff, the Second Gentleman under Queen Kamala the Appointed
– David Hogg, gun control activist and possibly former vice DNC chair
– Olivia Julianna, female Democrat social media “influencer”
Wow. With a line-up like that, the only missing piece is Naomi Wolf, who was hired to help Al Gore with his masculinity.
And for any Leftists reading this, I was joking.
The issues the Left have communicating with men have one thing in common: they’re all self-inflicted. The most obvious one is their attitude towards men in general: they fucking suck! Thanks in part to third wave feminism and a healthy disdain for the founding of this country, Leftists have found nothing good in the male of the species. And, speaking as a male, they may have a point. The stereotypical man in Leftist circles is a frat bro, one stage above Cro Magnon but with better cars. They’re uncultured, uneducated, probably drunk, and definitely backwards, but they’re the ones who hold all the power.
Which pretty much describes my opinion of most Congresscritters, but I’m sure that’s purely coincidental.
And when Leftists find someone who doesn’t align with them, they move into harangue-you-into-submission mode. They will shrilly preach about what you’re doing wrong in their eyes, why that makes you worse than literally Hitler, and call you all sorts of names. So, it’s really a mystery why Democrats keep losing the male vote…
Again, Leftists, I’m kidding.
What isn’t a joking matter is the culmination of all of that browbeating and general bitching about men. With male support of Democrats going further south than the border wall, it’s clear the current Leftist model doesn’t work anymore. Men are tired of being told we suck, especially when the majority of us don’t. Even Leftist men are often into causes to get pussy.
Spoiler Alert, guys: It never works. They’ll never fuck you, but they’ll float the idea just enough to keep you from leaving. And there’s nothing you can say or do that will be enough to remove that Rock of Gibraltar-sized block from their shoulders.
Check that. There is one thing: going full Dylan Mulvaney.
And you never want to go full Dylan Mulvaney.
And here’s the funny thing (because it’s about time there’s something funny in this piece). Men really aren’t that complicated. We like simple things, like meat, grilling, and grilling meat. Oh, there’s also booze and women. And maybe fast cars or motorcycles. Oh, and there’s sports.
Come to think of it, men might be more complicated than I think.
Seriously, though, at the heart of every man is four chambers. But aside from that, there’s a need to feel competent at the basics of life. Back in prehistoric times, men were the hunters and gatherers, thus they were the providers. Even though we’ve come a long way since then, the need to provide is hard-wired into men’s psyches. The American Dream was built on that same idea, only with two car garages and white picket fences instead of trying not to be devoured by giant lizards and avoiding tar pits.
In other words, when I was a wee lad.
Leftists overcomplicate this concept (as they often do because to them being confusing is a sign of super-duper intelligence), so they completely miss the answer to their male voting problem. Instead of nagging us to vote for Democrats because reasons, give us a reasoned argument. Or at the very least don’t sound like a harpy when you talk to us. You should have learned that lesson in 2016 after watching Hillary Clinton lose, but apparently you haven’t.
And here’s a fun fact! Many men didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris because they’re sexist and racist. It’s because they didn’t like them. And you know why we like someone like Tulsi Gabbard? Because she’s fucking hot!
No, wait, that’s not it. It’s because she doesn’t come at men like we’re the enemy. Her tone and demeanor are much more inviting and she’s more open to having a conversation even if we don’t see eye to eye. You could have a beer with her while grilling steaks and have a great time.
Try imagining Hillary or Kamala in that scenario. Even if you put it in the best AI out there, it would come back and say, “Seriously, what the fuck, Dave?”
While Leftists continue to try to attract men to their causes, they’re going to be met with more failure than Walter Mondale in 1984 until they come to terms with their misandry. Swearing more and studying how men speak will only take you so far, but to me they come off like the “How Do You Do Fellow Kids” meme. If you want to get men back in your political corner, be real.
And from what I’ve seen and heard so far, Speaking with American Men is about as real as William Shatner’s hair.
Tag: david hogg
Extremist Makeover – Harvard Edition
To say Harvard’s reputation as an elite academic institution has taken a hit is like saying “The View” is a TV show where ignorant harpies spew Leftist talking points and generally make asses of themselves: technically accurate, but wholly insufficient. Whether it’s the university’s tone-deaf response to anti-Israel threats and violence on campus to Claudine “Xerox” Gay’s ever-mounting plagiarism scandal or just having David “I Dohn’t Uze Spel Chek” Hogg as a graduate, Harvard is in need of some serious rehabilitation.
And I, being the solutions-oriented guy I am, am here to help.
With any type of rehabilitation, actual or metaphorical, the first step is setting challenging, yet attainable goals that keep any current shortcomings in mind. If you’re three days out of having knee replacement surgery, you’re not ready to compete in a decathlon. And to be fair and honest, Harvard isn’t ready to be respected institution of higher learning just yet. We have to start with baby steps.
And the first baby step I suggest for Harvard is to scale back its reputation as a premiere university. In fact, I think we should scale it back significantly until such time as Harvard’s reputation has gotten strong enough to reenter the pantheon of Ivy League schools.
That’s right. I’m talking Harvard becoming a community college.
But not just any community college, mind you. The only model that Harvard can possibly excel in right now is that of Greendale Community College from the TV show “Community.” For those of you unfamiliar with the show, Greendale is quite possibly one of the most poorly-run community colleges ever, with classes that even David Hogg could pass (albeit barely). Only the dregs of the dregs of academia attend Greendale.
Which means it’s perfect for Harvard.
And don’t worry. Harvard’s extension college will translate well into our Greendale-ized Harvard University. In fact, I’m thinking maybe the extension should be considered the real Harvard until such time as the Greendale-ized Harvard can be whipped into shape!
There are many other steps towards rehabilitating Harvard’s image, but this is as good a start as they deserve. Plus, you get to have an annual campus-wide paint ball game at the end of the spring semester to look forward to! Now, the Harvard Crimson won’t just be the color of the faces of those who go to school there!
Oh, and by the way…#sixseasonsandamovie
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Normally, I wouldn’t go to gun-grabber and utter dumbass David Hogg for information on what time it was, let alone anything else, but this week he gave me a topic I wanted to research in greater detail. In the aftermath of a shooting at Club Q, a gay bar in Colorado Springs, Hogg took to Twitter to complain about stochastic terrorism.
Although the Left has been using this phrase for a few months, they haven’t really defined, except to say it’s violence inspired by those evil right wingers. You know, the ones who said it was okay to loot, burn down buildings, and build oddly-named autonomous zones on city streets…oh, wait…
Since the Left isn’t going to give us an in-depth definition, I guess it’s up to me. Otherwise, you’d just be stuck with the Mastodon piece
I did this week.
stochastic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – politically-motivated violence designed to harass and hurt Democrats and left-leaning individuals and inspired by conservative leaders and media figures
What it really means – a combination of two words designed to make Leftists sound smart without them actually being smart
Since I’m a word guy, I want to split the term into its component parts as a means to try to understand the totality. Let’s not forget the Left loves to play with language and combine words that don’t go together that well, like climate justice, democratic socialism, and Leftist intellectual.
The word stochastic is a 25 cent word that adds an intellectual heft to the phrase by virtue of sounding impressive. Thanks to our good friends at Dictionary.com, we have the following definition:
of or relating to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
After a bit more research (and a bit of common sense), it occurred to me the heart of the word involves probability or random variables. Keep this in mind for a little later because it’s going to become important.
Once again, our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a solid definition of terrorism, but I want to focus on the primary definition:
the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives
The key word here is “unlawful.” Of course, I’m curious to find an example of a lawful use of violence or threats for coercive purposes, but that’s research for another time. The point here is terrorism is, by definition, illegal, as is inciting violent or criminal actions. Just ask Charlie Manson. Oh, wait, he’s dead.
So, when we put the parts of stochastic terrorism together, we get…a confusing mess. At best, we might be able to simplify the term to mean violence or threats involving probability. And that’s reaaaaaaaaallllllllly being generous to the Left here.
Then, I see how the Left applies the term, and that generosity goes the way of Keith Olbermann’s broadcast career. The way they use it is grossly inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. In other words, the way they usually use language. Relating to the Club Q shooting, Leftists blamed Republicans, Tucker Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Walsh, MAGA Republicans, LibsofTikTok, and I’m sure anybody to the right of Joseph Stalin by now. They’ve also started laying the groundwork for the idea the past year or so of “anti-trans rhetoric” is responsible for the Club Q shooting.
First, a bit of backstory the Left keeps “forgetting” to include in their rush to damnation…I mean judgment. What the Left is calling “anti-trans rhetoric” is a response to what LibsofTikTok has been posting showing…what pro-trans teachers, medical facilities, and events have been posting themselves. Now, I’m not talking posts about trans adults, mind you. I’m talking about pro-trans rhetoric and events aimed at children.
When the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives responded to what these pro-trans PR reps with power willingly posted on their own social media, these reactions got spun from “we have no problems with trans adults, but leave the kids out of this” to “ARGLEBARGLEREPUBLICANSWANTTOKILLALLTRANSPEOPLE!” And that’s just Cenk Uygur!
And it’s through this spin that the Left’s stochastic terrorism’s hat gets hung. Unfortunately for them, it’s also where the hat falls down, lands in a pile of shit, gets puked on by pledges trying to get into a fraternity, lit on fire, thrown into a toxic waste dump (no, not Twitter), and allowed to evolve into the new Senator-Elect of Pennsylvania. Or shipped to New Jersey.
Remember what I said about what stochastic meant? Well…it doesn’t exactly apply here, using the Left’s own logic and the actual definition of the word. What the Left is doing is drawing direct lines between the Right’s rhetoric and the Club Q shooting. Now, if something is based on probability, that would require at least some level of uncertainty, a chance the final result might not happen in spite of the calculations. By targeting the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives directly, that takes away the uncertainty, which undercuts the stochasticity of the situation.
See? Told you it would be important.
Then, there’s the terrorism angle to consider. Remember, terrorism is an unlawful act. If trans people truly feel threatened by what right wing pundits and online accounts are saying, where are the reports to authorities? To my knowledge, none of the people who claim Republicans/conservatives are engaged in stochastic terrorism have filed charges, sought legal counsel, or taken any of the necessary steps to protect themselves within the law.
Now, why would that be? I’m just some old white guy in Iowa, but something tells me the trans people and their supporters know they can’t meet the legal requirements to get an investigation started. At least, without the police or federal agents laughing hysterically for 10 straight minutes over what amounts to hurt fee-fees over social media self-owns.
And to be honest, the lack of legal action is the smart play here, especially considering filing a false police report is pretty much a big no-no. Plus, it opens up a lot of problems for Leftists like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty more whose rhetoric comes a lot closer to stochastic terrorism than anything Tucker Carlson has said. But if Froggy wants to jump, I say jump. Fuck all of the around and find all of the out.
Before, I close this out, I feel I need to make something crystal clear. Not all trans people and their allies are in favor of what some members of their community are doing in the name of trans visibility. In our efforts to root out the bad actors, we need to ensure we’re not catching the good ones in the “OK Groomer” net. If we don’t, we’re going to wind up doing more damage in the long run and play into the Left’s narrative about us.
In the meantime, call out the Left’s bullshit by asking for receipts. Demand they show us what Tucker Carlson or LibsofTikTok said or did that rose to the level of terrorism. Or if you really want to embarrass them, ask them to define stochastic. Make sure to have your phone or web browser handy to show them the actual definition.
And tell them David Hogg sent ya.