Not saying this isn't a real trend but whenever you see a year-on-year change that big your first question should be about the quality of the data. The GSS is notoriously noisy, especially when it comes to population subgroups.
It definitely *feels* like young men are becoming more conservative and it's something I'm really worried about, but if this is a real trend we should be able to find other quantitative indicators.
This is the same data set that got us years of "young men aren't having sex anymore!" takes based on surveys that showed sexlessness going from 10% to almost 30% in a single year, then back to 10% two years later.
Not saying this is dispositive either but real social trends show up in more than one data set.
The number of men identifying as conservative barely budges for 16 years (including through Trump, BLM and COVID) and then spikes by 5% in 2022? I dunno.
This piece notes that 77% of schools already ban phones in classrooms. As usual, it's unclear what Haidt wants other than to continue whipping up a moral panic about social media and mental health among kids.
"Kids shouldn't be on their phones during class" is such an obvious statement that you'd struggle to find anyone who disagrees with it. At various points Haidt implies that states should ban cellphones in schools by law, which seems like a wild overreach.
This is an absurd rebuttal to parental concerns about their kids being out of contact for the entire day: "Stop coddling them!"
I dunno, I'm fine with leaving this one up to schools and teachers, any attempt to codify a cellphone ban would create more problems than it solves.
This is a (very technical) opinion article from 2022 that simply says COVID spike proteins contain "prion-like regions." Maybe this will become relevant in the future but for now it's not cause for alarm.
I am so fascinated by this behavior because it appears to only exist on Twitter. In no other context do you hear a person say, "I like a thing" and the immediate response is "some people can't experience that!"
I feel like the core problem is that Twitter is used as a water cooler to goof off but also as a place to raise awareness and test out political messaging.
So when you say "I like donuts" people read it like you're proposing a Universal Basic Donuts policy
"Some people are allergic to gluten, they can't eat donuts!" would be a (relatively) reasonable response to a policy proposal but as a response to a dashed-off personal preference it's deranged. In person the type of statement you're making is clearer.
Thousands upon thousands of words dedicated to ... a happy hour.
Breaking: People with similar politics hang out sometimes! Why do reporters and editors find everything adjacent to this stupid moral panic worth publishing?!
This. Is. Not. Interesting.
Transphobes spend time with other transphobes and say transphobic things to each other. Wow! Finally, readers will be exposed to the least censored viewpoint imaginable.
The media has been making up for this alleged oversight for 8 fucking years now. When are we gonna get tired of looking at the "overlooked" Trump voters?
It's true that the media didn't adequately convey to non-Trump voters that Trump could win, but that's hardly a failure of empathy. It's a failure of prediction, which the media sucks at and shouldn't be doing anyway.
Exactly, the primary message that needs to be conveyed to voters is how utterly unprecedented a candidate like Trump is. Whether his supporters are downtrodden is irrelevant, they're supporting an openly authoritarian politician.
A subway rider choked a mentally ill homeless man to death last week but it's important that we remain focused on the real villains: Random people who were annoying about it on Twitter. nytimes.com/2023/05/09/opi…
There's been a baffling rush to assign responsibility for Neely's death on SJWs but one of the overwhelming priorities of the left is more funding for social housing, mental health care and welfare supports.
I actually agree that leftists can be a little flippant on here about how upsetting it is to encounter people in crisis on public transport. But *professional journalists* should be able to distinguish online discourse from policy prescriptions.