Friday assorted links

Comments

2. Men have such fragile egos. Nothing new about that. They substitute artificial masculinity for the authentic variety. GWB's Texas swagger was more fake than the fake news. What's worse: Republican politicians' fake masculinity or Democratic politicians' fake femininity? But men are not alone: women are insecure about their appearance. All that makeup, the high heeled shoes, the tight dresses, the lipstick, none of it can cover the fact of an ugly woman.

Make-up? Seriously?

There is a whole literature on the immature and mature (integrated) masculine and feminine archetypes. 'KWML' will get you there.

Rather than being distracted by make-up, you might find it more useful to observe that fragile or immature femininity is a cheap sentimentality offered up as ersatz feeling/caring. Mock virtue, mock outrage, etc. The Democratic party today is a good example of it, you are correct.

Ich mag, waas euc sind in der Regel bis zu. Diese Art der Berichterstattung!
Halten Sie sich diee hervorragende erstaunliche funktioniert Jungs Ich habve enthalten euch zu Blogroll.

Hallo Hätten Sie etwas dazgegen Teilen die Blog-Plattform Siie Arbet mit?
Ich bin auf der Suche Planung, meine eigeene Blog
zu starten in naher Zukunft aber ich habe eine harte schwer Entschridung zwischen Blogengine / Wordprtess / B2evolution undd Drupal.
Derr Grund warum ich freage ist,weil Ihr Layout scheint anders als den meisten Blogs und icch interessiere mich für
etwas einzigartig. PS Entschuldigung für bekommen off-topic, aber ich hstte zu
fragen!

This is the rigfht website for anybody who wants to find out aboit this topic.

You understand so much its almost hard to argue
with yoou (not that I actually willl need to…HaHa).
You definitely put a brand new spin on a subject that has been discussed for years.

Excellent stuff, just excellent!

This "study", especially the interpretation of its results, reveals even more than the usual leftist bias. Even if one accepts the authors' measurement of "fragile masculinity", the authors find only that *areas* high in fragile masculinity tended to vote for Trump. They present no evidence whatsoever that the fragile-masculine *individuals* are the same people that actually voted for Trump!

What if the voting behavior actually represents backlash against progressives' political correctness campaign against so-called "toxic masculinity"? Maybe, these attacks have created lots of insecure males, and people that have witnessed the rise in male insecurity have responded by voting against political correctness. I don't actually believe this interpretation either, but it's an example of what a conservative biased person might say. Notably, though, the bar for publishing left-bias interpretations seem to be much lower than for conservative-bias interpretations.

The fragile masculinity is part of Western culture, in Japanese culture there is no such thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T394gxn02o

2. I don't think this tells us anything about Trump.

I do think it tells us how people living in regions with high obesity and poor health (look at the heatmap in the article and compare it to this: https://maxmasnick.com/2011/11/15/obesity_by_county/ ) will execute more Google searches about hair loss, sexual disfunction, and hormone problems.

+1

Just an excuse for the WaPo to "Fragile Masculinity" in its pages.

Yeah, pretty much the same map.

It is sad, and these areas do need more money and better jobs, but is probably not surprising that low pay and bad health would lead both to personal insecurities and extreme politics.

I think the point was that the correlations between low ses white rural areas and Trump support, and the plausible casual relationship between low ses and their chosen markers of '''fragile masculinity''' might undercut the results they set out to prove

If ED searches dominate this data, it's nothing more than a proxy for age distribution, which says that the most conservative age demographic, the senior population, votes Republican. Dog bites man.

Mentioned this below. From the same article:

"We found that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as “erectile dysfunction.” Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as “breast augmentation” and “menopause.”

In contrast, fragile masculinity was not associated with support for Mitt Romney in 2012 or support for John McCain in 2008 — suggesting that the correlation of fragile masculinity and voting in presidential elections was distinctively stronger in 2016."

That's somewhat helpful, but is there any reason to believe that ED searches haven't risen over time, especially among conservative populations?

RatInPutinsMaze made a better point, that in 2016 it was a man vs a woman. So the fragile masculinity types would of course vote for the big tough guy they so wish to be.

https://www.ohio.com/news/20180915/agencies-shut-down-drug-pipeline-from-texas-to-akron

She’s not so tough. Sure she can beat the daylights out of a cell phone, but that’s it.

Meh, kind of hacky and obvious. But good job dissing some washed up pol who hasn't done anything in over 2 years. Got any good Ted Kennedy jokes?

So, what do we make of no 36 hours in Iraq, despite 36 being a keyword in NYT Iraq reporting? What can we infer from the Kellen Winslow Jr. and Thomas Houston absence? How about the fact that NYT hasn't posted its own photographers photos now for at least a couple days. Well, first, we should note that the headlines alone point out the ownership is fundamentally flawed. That my assertion that a Maureen Dowd Op-ed aligned with a headline and photograph around Judge Kavanaugh, where in a political attempt to villainize, what a newspaper should never do, they created an allusion to Adam Lanza. It would be hard, then, for the NYT to level any criticism against any organization or political party and to take them seriously. In-fact, we can infer since when the recent North Carolina hurricane struck, and the NYT portrayed what looked like "an intifada" had just broken out, that they are guilty of abusing Israel's "right of return law." A law that has no jurisdictional "place" in America. Moreover, if it is just a massive challenger-level disaster, the headlines I'm referring to, a total misunderstanding, as happens, we can understand it to be the result of unethical, celebrity chasing behavior that plagues America as an achilles heel.

But what of this kind of behavior around Racism, and around 9/11, and calling mass terror right-wing violence, while forgetting that gang-violence is not left-wing violence. How many op-eds has Charles Blow written about how the president is mentally unstable. "We have a person occupying the presidency who is impetuous, fragile, hostile, irrational, intentionally uninformed, information-averse and semiliterate." Well, what we have here is actual Less Than Zero.

If you want to understand motive, the common defense will be, these are oversights. Please don't fall for the most common trick in the book. If you want to motive, look at the photography. The Hegelian Christ-Child, here's a hint, he's the devil. The Heideggerian associations of natural selection, it's the reason we still have these "agent problem" problem. And if you think Charles Blow is trying to help the average black person in America, just ask yourself how its possible that Galileo was gay that there is not gay marriage. In the same article he says something that one would say in a debate against Bertrand Russell: "You can’t say that you love America and not take a stand to defend it from harm."

See, what you have to do, is you have to understand that Aristotle was pro-sitting, sometimes.

Or just, y'know, men in general would vote disproportionately more for the man. Assuming even a little "identity politics".

#1 He may be, but his genetics aren't. They should get that while they can. Cattle genetics are where the real money is anyway.

#2 Someone wrote a bit after the election that for women, Trump reminded them of their 1st husband, and for men, Hillary their 1st wife. I thought this was pretty good at describing that there's definitely a familiarity between men and women on the "boorishness" and "bitterness" of the other that resonates for those that have already been once around the horn. Now of course little variations of this anti-male 2 minute hate are so ubiquitous they can simply be written off. Written off at least until I see pieces being written on how female bitterness is at least as responsible for how many people vote as well....because it does.

#5 Yes. By removing your hair. Silly human.

So the "female bitterness" of midwestern women made midwestern men vote for Trump? That's a new one. The underreported political power of divorcees.

#4. "The crucial point is straightforward. Britain needed to seek a compromise that traded off degrees of access to Europe’s single market against degrees of effective sovereignty and democratic accountability."

The EU was Trump before Trump?

The EU is a valuable market for importers. Do you think we're just going to give that away?

"The EU was Trump before Trump?"

The EU was more protectionistic than the US was. Indeed, most countries are more protectionistic than the US. Trump is tilting us more towards an EU level of protectionism.

One problem we have in the United States is that we see only two poles, free trade and protectionism.

In fact the EU's border adjustment for VAT does attempt to *balance* with internal VAT faced by European companies.

There is a whole territory between free trade and protectionism.

The two poles are free trade and autarky. The whole conversation is happening way over by the free trade end of the spectrum.

" The whole conversation is happening way over by the free trade end of the spectrum."

Yes, I do agree with the sentiment behind this, but is it really true. Aren't large states (US, EU, China, India, etc) much closer to autarky than free trade? US imports are about 12% of GDP.

Wouldn't you want to compare imports to total wholesale goods?

But I'm not sure this hair splitting really matters. If you believe in balanced budgets (every year or over a business cycle), somebody pays the tax.

And a reasonable border adjustment just means that imports are not tax-favored relative to domestic production.

Go away troll, I wasn't talking to you.

Is a bad day to be a rat in Putin's maze, I know.

#2: "The researchers found exactly what they were looking for: in areas of the country that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and for Republicans in 2018, there was a higher volume of searches for, “erectile dysfunction,” “hair loss,” “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” “penis size,” “steroids,” “testosterone” and “Viagra."

Sounds a bit like madness to me, really, at least in their explanation rather than the frequency differences. The "problems" seem like they are more likely to be more prevalent due to age and sex structure in the vote (which we already know connect with Republican vote) than "fragile masculinity".

Particularly, it doesn't seem too likely that Dem males are less likely to want to use or buy viagra when they begin aging, or to cover up male pattern baldness, or that they would "suffer" from these "conditions" at any decreased rate. If anything, I'd expect aging Dem males to be more concerned with retaining the appearance of youth and sexuality, since that's the common response when asked about where a fulfilling life comes from (less than family milestones, etc.). That concern as distinct from being more attractive necessarily, since it looks like there's a marginal effect from the more attractive leaning Republican - https://www.newsweek.com/attractive-people-vote-democrat-republican-easier-lives-study-794966

+1. Aside from "how to get girls" and maybe "steroids" (although steroids are moving more and more toward older men), almost all of those terms are ones that older guys, the demographic most likely to vote Republican, would be much more likely to look for.

May just as well have written a piece showing that Dem voters were more likely to do Google searches for train or bus schedules, showing their desperation in having to rely on the vagaries of public transport.

I love when people read something they don't like they grasp for explanations that make them feel better, instead of checking if what they read already accounted for that. From the same article:

"We found that support for Trump in the 2016 election was higher in areas that had more searches for topics such as “erectile dysfunction.” Moreover, this relationship persisted after accounting for demographic attributes in media markets, such as education levels and racial composition, as well as searches for topics unrelated to fragile masculinity, such as “breast augmentation” and “menopause.”

In contrast, fragile masculinity was not associated with support for Mitt Romney in 2012 or support for John McCain in 2008 — suggesting that the correlation of fragile masculinity and voting in presidential elections was distinctively stronger in 2016."

He specifically pointed out the most obvious demographic difference, "age". But the research doesn't include "age" as something they adjusted for. And indeed, they didn't actually do any demographic adjustments for the group in question, because it was based upon Google queries. Instead they just adjusted for "demographic attributes in media markets,".

This looks a whole lot like low quality social science with little actual value.

Most social science isn't super valuable, including this, but I was amused seeing Trumpies bothered by it thinking 'it's just old people who have ED and they vote Rep' when the data didn't show any effect in 2012 for Romney or 2008 for McCain.

" when the data didn't show any effect in 2012 for Romney or 2008 for McCain."

Yes, I think that's a good point, and I stand corrected.

On the other hand, it also points out the fundamental difference in the two elections. Trump wasn't the likely cause of this. Obama was running in 2008 and 2012. Hillary was running in 2016.

Obviously the marginal machismo voter switched his support from a man (Obama) to another man (Trump). The takeaway from this is that machismo voters are more likely to vote for a man.

Good point, the fragile masculinity crowd would be less likely to vote for a woman. If Trump's opponent was a man maybe the effect wouldn't have been there.

If they were able to demonstrate that the overall rise in searches for ED topics could not account for the rise, this could be meaningful. I would be very surprised if ED searches hadn't increased substantially since 2008.

The study claims that it was specifically in Trump-voting districts. Not that ED searches were on the rise everywhere.

Plus it was much more than ED searches: "in areas of the country that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and for Republicans in 2018, there was a higher volume of searches for, “erectile dysfunction,” “hair loss,” “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” “penis size,” “steroids,” “testosterone” and “Viagra." "

I think it's a real result, but could just be because his opponent was female. I don't think it's a stretch to picture the fragile masculinity types to be Trump voters.

There are probably some slight age shifts going on between those sets of elections, slight sex shifts (men slightly higher ratio Trump than Romney), and slight differences come out if you're looking for them, together with shifts in search volumes, language.

You can get some slight of hand out of that. (Much of this is rather reminiscent of the traditions of stage magic to make things appear).

It'd be better to control for age and sex effects than just assume they don't have an effect, or there weren't any shifts. I think it's more likely a combination of older and more male than some specific set of old males who have some specific "fragile masculinity" which in any case I doubt any of the searches is a good signal for!

#2. Providing pop-psychological explanations is a fun and easy way to troll. Whee!

In this case, I think it was just plain mean. I expected more of TC.

TC is terrified of losing his job so he signals, constantly, to the left that he is on their side.

You poor dear. Come on out of your safe room, hun. It's sunny outside.

One of the many things I like about MR is that it even attracts a better quality of trolling.

#4; nice article by the standards of Remain opinion in Britain (that is, to say virtually all media opinion outside the tabloids).

The punchline doesn't match the set up though; He makes the case that self government questions are a respectable motivation to Leave, and that Leave won the vote. Both of which the median Remain opinion won't allow (they generally claim it's not meaningful for states to seek to be self governing and that Leave cheated and did not legitimately win). He then proceeds to offer Remain as the only option out of the "mess" of the current deal!

I also suspect that, "some economic status quo and lots more of migration control, less actual self government" might actually be more competitive that he believes to much of the British electorate when set aside "lots of self government, few economic benefits" and "lots of economic benefits, restricted self government" as alternative option. Unfortunately, I'd add, if you share a vision of Europe of lots of self governing, democratic, medium and small sized states and distrust of a federal Europe as motivation for supporting Brexit.

What do you mean "media opinion outside the tabloids"? Are we talking about the same Britain? In the Britain I know, there is no media opinion outside the tabloids.

Are you one of those left wing souls that believe stridently that there is no Guardian, no Economist, no Evening Standard (though to digress that's a tabloid), no BBC, no Channel 4 news and that Brits obtain no information from any other source than the Sun, Mail and Mirror? If so, you must wonder how non-tabloid readers manage to know to anything about the world at all, by what mysterious process this information leaks magically into their minds...

Is the main difficulty due to Northern Ireland? They don't want a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which effectively means no border between the UK (Northern Ireland) and the EU (Ireland). But, no border between the UK and EU would be Remain, not Brexit. Isn't this like trying to remove the border between Michigan and Ontario while somehow retaining a border between the US and Canada?

Yep, that's where the political cost that's too high to pay comes in.

"2. “We wanted to see whether fragile masculinity was associated with how Americans vote…” Wrong framing, but interesting nonetheless."

I agree with the framing issue. They chose to use the term "fragile masculinity". A more appropriate term might be "masculinity status" or even just "machismo".

1. and 2. Size matters.

2 is ridiculous.

3) speaking of clothing, this reminds me of https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-5-natural-dyes-create-contents-kitchen by the writer AG, which reminds me of a time I watched CNN on TV, with Johnny Mansell and four hosts about global warming, but on CPSAN there was the actually democratic process by a representative of, get this, ALASKA. 3) is a one helluva an article by the great steve kurtz of TAPAD legend. so what does tapad do? TAPAD connects data across platforms, so a person will receive messaging from the same advertiser one their ipad as on their television. Don't believe me? Just watch.

2. Sheesh a post tailor-made for that cuck troll and he’s awol

#4 Trump signed the agreement with Mexico and Canada today.

What's wrong with the UK? they went for Brexit, but after 2.5 years things look like the morning after vote. sometimes a bad decision is better than no decision at all.

May does not seem to have the option of Remaining in the EU in fact while Leaving in name only. The Leavers want more than to just rename the EU the UK-Germany-France-Others Agreement.

Trump's popularity among his base is personal rather than substantive. That's why he was able to satisfy free-traders by not changing NAFTA too much and still satisfy his base by just renaming NAFTA.

The UK has less relative power, and the EU is not really much like NAFTA, and even the EEA is well beyond NAFTA.

The main stumbling block is that politically what everyone who supports Brexit wants is a basically Canada+ Free Trade Agreement. But this is not possible under binding institutions around the Irish border, which depend on EU structures and norms, and which Ireland are worried about wrt IRA terrorism.

What needed to happen is that the political should have been there for a Canada+ FTA early on, and more willingness to work creatively with Ireland and the EU to propose alternatives to existing Irish border institutions, probably essentially a new kind of shared border territory and regime of customs checks. Instead the British government has made claims to offer the best of both worlds to placate business and proposed technological solutions that no one accepts, which has maneuvered it into this "backstop" and from there into the current bad deal.

3: Tyler's alternative title for the "Annals of Flannel" article is apt. The article is interesting enough but what's really strange about it is how it mixes several competing and often antagonistic ideologies and frameworks.

Here's a list of what I saw in the article:

As Tyler notes, it has similarities to "I, Pencil" in that it delves into the details of the many people and organizations involved in manufacturing a flannel shirt.

The two businessmen that the article focuses on are portrayed as almost Randian business super-heroes tilting against the mediocrity of society's "this is how we do things" mentality.

Except the mentality they're fighting against is globalism and outsourcing; they wanted to make a "made in the USA" flannel shirt.

While there are plenty of leftists who decry global outsourcing, this "made in the USA" heroism seems like something straight out of the Trump era.

But this article was published in the NY Times, not exactly a fan of Trump's policies and generally not a cheerleader for CEOs as super-heroes. And usually more pro-globalism than anti.

This article may indeed be the "I, Pencil" for an era of people scrambling to figure out where they stand on globalism, Trump, protectionism, and what capitalism should look like.

Classic partisan misunderstanding. One can recognize Trump's awfulness and yet still be happy if American companies are able to thrive making stuff. One can even be a globalist and feel the same. Shoot, one can even be a NY Times reader and think business and capitalism are good things.

No, he's onto something there. I'm pleased to read about Mr.Winthrop, but I don't doubt the Times' interest is purely J. Peterman-ish, channeling the same nostalgia they'd feel for Bass Weejuns and, I dunno, a pristine box of Dixon Ticonderoga pencils. Meanwhile, even though he's reported for them, I can find no evidence that the Times found space to review Brian Alexander's 2017 book "Glass House" (happy to be corrected by a more strategic googler) ... of course by 2017 the New York Times knew all it would never need to know about places like Lancaster, Pennsylvania, at least until the happy day they can wring an article out of "tensions with newcomers." They probably have an alert in their phones, for all the towns they haven't gotten to yet.

You're correct, Peri. The NYT did not see fit to notice Glass House. I'm pleased you did, though. (One correction: It's Lancaster, Ohio. Easy mistake to make.)

It's unfortunate that this story got by without mentioning Patagonia or Malden Mills.

I don't think it's that unique or strange for the NYTimes at all. They've always been on the side of old school Labor. Promoting a "Made in the USA" mentality mgiht seem incongruous in the Trump era, but that's only because people have forgotten that Trump is a lifelong Democrat and his supporters are drawn from working class labor, a traditional Democratic constituency.
It really just shows that the dial hasn't moved that much on trade for the Democratic party. They are still hewing to their old instincts.

I feel like the Times, they have a-changed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html

3. If this is what it costs to manufacture in America it implies some harsh realities. What would the consumer inflation rate be if we were all paying $110 for a hoodie and $140 for a pair of jeans?

And I guess it's not an outlier.

The true cost of “Made in the USA” Levi’s? $178

So sure, think about better trade deals, but you might be limited in what you can do.

Directly from the link:

"A pair of Gusset Jeans, made in Georgia, will cost you $55.95. A pair of Texas Jeans, made in North Carolina, goes for $29.99. "

You really hinder yourself when you provide an actual link, troll. It's just too easy to prove how misleading your posts when the reader can just click.

I wonder how much Texas Jeans would cost if they were made in, y'know, Texas.

lol I had to reread jwatts’ comment to get this.

That makes no sense, as anonymous has discovered that we are the same person.

I skimmed and I missed that, good catch.

Well that's the first time I've seen you back down in a case like that. And it makes me feel like an asshole for calling you a troll.

So my apologies. I'll try to not be a jerk .

The question is, are those jeans entirely made in America right down to the thread ? The story here is about traditional flannel which this guy wants to be made by dying the thread rather than by printing the pattern on the flannel. So the thread has to be produced and dyed in a US plant before being woven into a cloth and then made into shirts.

A pair of jeans made from imported denim probably will not cost as much as a pair of jeans made from domestically produced denim. The more elements of the supply chain are domestic, the higher the costs are going to be.

You know, when Trump people talk about "better" trade deals, what they don't mean is "How can we get less expensive Levis? "

What they mean is: "How can we keep inexpensive jeans out of the US market so that expensive Levis will be more competitive?"
And the reason they mean that is because Trump people are working class labor, and the reason those Levis are so damn expensive is because the labor unions have spent the last several decades demanding pay and benefits that make the products they make that much more expensive.

Trade protectionism has always, always, always, been the tool that labor unions have used to protect unionized US industries and by extension, the pay and benefits of unionized US workers. They go hand in hand.

Dollars to donuts what is killing the US textile industry is the fact that the industry is unionized and the deals management has had to make with the unions make them globally uncompetitive. Just like every other unionized industry in America which is slowly dying, like Sears, like GM. The pattern is repeated all over the US, and that's where Trump gets his crucial support in key states like Pennsylvanian and Ohio - from Union workers who are killing their own industries and want to prevent foreign competition so they can keep on killing their own indistries. And they keep on blaming everyone but themselves for the fact that the industries that they have been leeching off of like fucking parasites for 50 years are dying.

So in sum what I have to say is:
#3. Good luck with that man, and good luck staying profitable when the Teamsters show up to demand their cut.

Hazel you make some decent observations, but this point is just ridiculous:

"Dollars to donuts what is killing the US textile industry is the fact that the industry is unionized"

It's not a secret why the US textile industry is dying. It's because minimum wages in the US far exceed what the average textile worker is paid in another country.

https://shenglufashion.com/2018/03/04/wage-level-for-garment-workers-in-the-world-updated-in-2017/

The ambiguity of the term elohim is the result of such changes, cast in terms of "vertical translatability", i.e. the re-interpretation of the gods of the earliest recalled period as the national god of monolatrism as it emerged in the 7th to 6th century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah

Australian textiles are doing well at the moment with a minimum wage much higher than in the US. This is in part due to the lower Australian dollar. But the "hands on" work is either done overseas or is automated. When in comes to stitching, humans in developed countries can't complete with wages in Vietnam or the cost of using programmable machines.

6 - I'd have bet on Carlsen never smelling a world championship title ever again if he lost, and I'd not have bet on him winning in classic time controls: He's not won a single classic game in many months! Too much blitz and rapid, not enough calculation.

In the candidate's tournament, where every tie puts you further away from first place, Carlsen wouldn't go anywhere. If the world championship was decided by picking the 2 best players in a candidates format, and then pitting them against each other, it'd bet on Fabiano, Ding or Wesley ahead of Magnus qualifying.

#1. There is no "second photo" (attached to the article). Made my local news yesterday. yawn.

If Knickers were a conservative, the WaPo and CNN would have sources claiming all those other cows in his pics were special pygmies deliberately posed to create a false perspective

“Look! A huge cow! It must be Trump’s fault.”

Interlocutor: “But the cow story is good story, a human, I mean bovine, interest story.”

“Well then in retrospect it’s got nothing to do with Trump.”

1. "My name is Knickers. I come from the Australian Union. I love to chew cud and I never wear shoes. I will break moo."

#6 - chess - the champion makes $8M a year, so it's unlikely he would have completely dropped out of the sport IMO.

Comments for this post are closed