Men who run into burning buildings, walk into warzones, and keep the worst of society locked away typically don't vote left. Does this matter?

[Dante]

I guess you don't understand how statistics works.

We all know it's really you doesn't understand how statistics works.

 

[Anomalism]

We all know it's really you doesn't understand how statistics works.

Okay Dante. Have a nice day.

 

[sartre play]

I think you answered your own question. Masculinity is a right leaning thing, at least in the Western context.

The left focuses on things like feminism, for example.

James Brown once said it's a man's world, and it definitely is, when looking beyond the feminist nonsense of the West. Also, in that song, he did express the importance of women, but in practical terms, this importance is based on biological imperatives and raising children.

Have no numbers on how brave people vote.
THERE ARE BRAVE PEOPLE IN EVERY FACET OF LIFE.
Fight wars or fight fires, But do remember that Woman where Not allowed
to do much of anything, not even vote! for Many years.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

To be clear, you are attacking him for not wanting to fight in a war.


I have to say, that is not... sounding very convincing to me.

They Wouldn't Have Stabbed Us in the Back If They Hadn't Already Crushed Our Backbone

Nobody would have volunteered or let themselves get drafted if we had known that the purpose of the Vietnam War was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the White working class. Mission Accomplished.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is easy to hold in contempt those who have some advantages or a leg up that other's don't. But who among us, if we had worked and built the power and influence to keep our son out of what we saw as an immoral and unnecessary war, would not do that? Who among us if we did not want to be part of what we believed was an immoral and unnecessary war would not take whatever means was offered us to not go?

Yellow Yalies Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

It is rhetorically convenient for cowards and traitors, on both the Left and the Right, to call Vietnam "an immoral war."

 

[Foxfyre]

Yellow Yalies Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

It is rhetorically convenient for cowards and traitors, on both the Left and the Right, to call Vietnam "an immoral war."

The clueless tend to spew platitudes instead of actually stating a point I suppose in an attempt to make themselves look more intelligent.

(Somebody should tell them it doesn't.)

Now back to the thread topic. . .

 

[Correll]

They Wouldn't Have Stabbed Us in the Back If They Hadn't Already Crushed Our Backbone

Nobody would have volunteered or let themselves get drafted if we had known that the purpose of the Vietnam War was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the White working class. Mission Accomplished.

1. That makes no sense.

2. So, why you attacking Trump for not fighting then?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, why you attacking Trump for not fighting then?

War Is Good Business. Invest Your Workers' Sons.

How can the narrow-minded Netrix believe I was attacking Trump? I pointed out that, associating with the pro-war but draftdodging sons of powerful pro-war fathers, he saw the hypocrisy of the war when the excluded classes were kept from that revelation. They went, and they died in what was really a class war against them.

 

[Correll]

War Is Good Business. Invest Your Workers' Sons.

How can the narrow-minded Netrix believe I was attacking Trump? I pointed out that, associating with the pro-war but draftdodging sons of powerful pro-war fathers, he saw the hypocrisy of the war when the excluded classes were kept from that revelation. They went, and they died in what was really a class war against them.

1. Trump's fathers policies are irrelevant.

2. You are the first I have heard claim that Trump was pro-war at the time. Would you like to support that claim?

3. Draft dodging? How do you know that his medical waiver was false?

4. Your... odd, class warfare rhetoric is barely coherent. You need to make your points, more clearly and less dramatically.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Now back to the thread topic. . .

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

 

[Foxfyre]

A Thread Is Not a Tightrope

Or even a topic for some people it seems.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

4. Your... odd, class warfare rhetoric is barely coherent. You need to make your points, more clearly and less dramatically.

Go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong. Do your peasant groveling before your HeirHead masters over there. Choke on the dust from the guillotined skulls of the American plutocracy's role models.

 

[Midnight FM]

There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in general right now.

Right wing men disproportionately fill the roles, cultures, and mindsets that involve physical risk, sacrifice, duty-based identity, warrior ethos, and a willingness to die for what they believe in. Those aren’t just job categories; they’re dispositions, and culturally, the right is more aligned with that stoic, confrontational, protector archetype. That’s just reality. Most men willing to fight and die for what they believe in are on the political right. Most of the military, law enforcement, first responders, and tradesmen, jobs that demand discipline, sacrifice, and risk, are overwhelmingly right leaning. The right still embraces traditional masculine virtues such as courage, duty, honor, protection, and the stoic acceptance of pain or death if necessary.

Is there anything to be gleaned from this reality?

The reality is that military, law enforcement, and fire departments are typically publicly-funded, or socialized institutions.

 

[Midnight FM]

There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in general right now.

Right wing men disproportionately fill the roles, cultures, and mindsets that involve physical risk, sacrifice, duty-based identity, warrior ethos, and a willingness to die for what they believe in. Those aren’t just job categories; they’re dispositions, and culturally, the right is more aligned with that stoic, confrontational, protector archetype. That’s just reality. Most men willing to fight and die for what they believe in are on the political right. Most of the military, law enforcement, first responders, and tradesmen, jobs that demand discipline, sacrifice, and risk, are overwhelmingly right leaning. The right still embraces traditional masculine virtues such as courage, duty, honor, protection, and the stoic acceptance of pain or death if necessary.

Is there anything to be gleaned from this reality?

To elaborate more, "right" is a term which can mean a lot of different things.

As I already stated, military, law enforcement, and fire departments are typically publicly-funded or socialized institutions. Many on the "right" claim they are in favor of defunding taxpayer-funded institutions, so there is some irony here. People have described both fascism and libertarianism as "right-wing", despite them being polar opposites.

You also mention a lot of "virtues", some of which are potentially conflicting, and lump them into one broad category of "right". For example, "duty and honor" are likely more emphasizes in other parts of the world, such as China, than they are in America or the West, which are more individualistic, and many on the "right" champion individualism moreso than they do "duty or honor" to someone or something else. So some of these things seem to depend more on the various cultural forces at play than they do on a label such as "left" or "right-wing".

I would also argue that socio-economic factors may play more of a role in whether or not people ascribe to these virtues, or at least how these virtues are interpreted. America's framers, for example, were wealthy and well-educated, and drafted intellectual treatises which lead to the revolutionary war, and founding of America's notions of rights and freedoms. They weren't the men dying on the front lines, who typically came from less-wealthy and less well-educated backgrounds.

The reality is that there are simply fewer threats to our survival in day-to-day life, and while I believe in self-defense and setting personal boundaries, there is less need for the average man (or woman) to engage in physical confrontations in day-to-day life than there would have been in more primitive times. And even among those who serve in institutions such as the US military or police forces, those who are in a position where they have to fight for their or others' lives are a minority.

There are also examples of prominent males who don't completely fit the archetype you are describing, but arguably have superior qualities. Jesus Christ, for example, may not have fit a stereotypical "macho" archetype, as he was an advocate of non-violence, but he arguably had many superior beliefs and qualities than the average man of the time did, and certainly became much more popular and successful.

And don't get me started on the "internet tough guys" pretending to be "macho" on the internet, or thinking that voting for a particular party makes them "macho".

 

[Old Rocks]

There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in general right now.

Right wing men disproportionately fill the roles, cultures, and mindsets that involve physical risk, sacrifice, duty-based identity, warrior ethos, and a willingness to die for what they believe in. Those aren’t just job categories; they’re dispositions, and culturally, the right is more aligned with that stoic, confrontational, protector archetype. That’s just reality. Most men willing to fight and die for what they believe in are on the political right. Most of the military, law enforcement, first responders, and tradesmen, jobs that demand discipline, sacrifice, and risk, are overwhelmingly right leaning. The right still embraces traditional masculine virtues such as courage, duty, honor, protection, and the stoic acceptance of pain or death if necessary.

Is there anything to be gleaned from this reality?

Yes, the fact that you wouldn't recognize reality if it bit your ass.

 

[Anomalism]

Yes, the fact that you wouldn't recognize reality if it bit your ass.

Everything I said is backed up by statistics linked earlier in the thread.

Only 5% of cops identity as Democrats.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

You couldn’t fail harder at stereotyping if you tried. The civil war was won by the left, using men who fought for it. Suck it traitor.

Those slavers were some mean SOBs.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Paddlefoot is twisting the facts yet again.

Austin’s city government is considering a significant property tax increase, but not by $1,000 per account—and not solely to fund services for people experiencing homelessness or substance use issues.

Here’s what’s actually happening:

Proposed Tax Increase

• The maximum rate under consideration is 60 cents per $100 of property valuation, up from the current 47.76 cents—a 25% increase.
• For a median-valued home (~$500,000), this would mean an annual increase of about $87 to $243, depending on the final rate adopted.
• The increase would require voter approval due to state law limits on year-over-year tax hikes.

Where the Money Would Go

The proposed budget outlines funding for a wide range of city services:

• $46 million for homelessness services, including shelter and housing
• • programs
  • $7.7 million for emergency medical services
  • $6 million for parkland maintenance
  • Increased funding for police and fire departments, including raises under new labor contracts
  • So while homelessness services are part of the plan, they’re not the sole focus—and the tax increase is nowhere near $1,000 per account.
• • programs
  • $7.7 million for emergency medical services
  • $6 million for parkland maintenance
  • Increased funding for police and fire departments, including raises under new labor contracts
  So while homelessness services are part of the plan, they’re not the sole focus—and the tax increase is nowhere near $1,000 per account.

You left out how much goes to the DNC election fund.

 

[Anomalism]

To elaborate more, "right" is a term which can mean a lot of different things.

As I already stated, military, law enforcement, and fire departments are typically publicly-funded or socialized institutions. Many on the "right" claim they are in favor of defunding taxpayer-funded institutions, so there is some irony here. People have described both fascism and libertarianism as "right-wing", despite them being polar opposites.

You also mention a lot of "virtues", some of which are potentially conflicting, and lump them into one broad category of "right". For example, "duty and honor" are likely more emphasizes in other parts of the world, such as China, than they are in America or the West, which are more individualistic, and many on the "right" champion individualism moreso than they do "duty or honor" to someone or something else. So some of these things seem to depend more on the various cultural forces at play than they do on a label such as "left" or "right-wing".

I would also argue that socio-economic factors may play more of a role in whether or not people ascribe to these virtues, or at least how these virtues are interpreted. America's framers, for example, were wealthy and well-educated, and drafted intellectual treatises which lead to the revolutionary war, and founding of America's notions of rights and freedoms. They weren't the men dying on the front lines, who typically came from less-wealthy and less well-educated backgrounds.

The reality is that there are simply fewer threats to our survival in day-to-day life, and while I believe in self-defense and setting personal boundaries, there is less need for the average man (or woman) to engage in physical confrontations in day-to-day life than there would have been in more primitive times. And even among those who serve in institutions such as the US military or police forces, those who are in a position where they have to fight for their or others' lives are a minority.

There are also examples of prominent males who don't completely fit the archetype you are describing, but arguably have superior qualities. Jesus Christ, for example, may not have fit a stereotypical "macho" archetype, as he was an advocate of non-violence, but he arguably had many superior beliefs and qualities than the average man of the time did, and certainly became much more popular and successful.

And don't get me started on the "internet tough guys" pretending to be "macho" on the internet, or thinking that voting for a particular party makes them "macho".

You're raising points about global ideological trends, historical class dynamics, and online identity performance, none of which directly challenge the central claim.

In the United States, risk intensive, physically demanding, and protection oriented professions, including the military, law enforcement, construction, and various trades, are disproportionately staffed by men who align with conservative values.

This is not a broad claim about governance models, philosophical virtue ethics, or how masculinity is expressed online. It’s a sociological observation about labor demographics, regional culture, and ideological self-identification.

There’s extensive evidence for this. Surveys from Pew, Gallup, and military internal research consistently show that service members and police officers are more likely to identify as politically conservative or vote Republican. Similarly, the skilled trades tend to be male dominated and culturally aligned with traditionalist, pro self reliance worldviews.

The reasons are layered but traceable. These professions emphasize order, discipline, and tangible utility, values often associated with conservatism.

To argue that these men are merely cosplaying warriors, or that they don’t deserve identification with sacrifice, risk, or service ignores the lived realities of millions of Americans, many of whom do put their lives and bodies on the line. It may be tempting to critique certain ideological postures, but that shouldn't erase the material commitments and risks involved in these careers.

It’s a cultural and statistical reality that can't be sidestepped by abstract critiques.

 

[Midnight FM]

You're raising points about global ideological trends, historical class dynamics, and online identity performance, none of which directly challenge the central claim.

In the United States, risk intensive, physically demanding, and protection oriented professions, including the military, law enforcement, construction, and various trades, are disproportionately staffed by men who align with conservative values.

What are the "conservative values"?

This is not a broad claim about governance models, philosophical virtue ethics, or how masculinity is expressed online. It’s a sociological observation about labor demographics, regional culture, and ideological self-identification.

There’s extensive evidence for this. Surveys from Pew, Gallup, and military internal research consistently show that service members and police officers are more likely to identify as politically conservative or vote Republican. Similarly, the skilled trades tend to be male dominated and culturally aligned with traditionalist, pro self reliance worldviews.

The reasons are layered but traceable. These professions emphasize order, discipline, and tangible utility, values often associated with conservatism.

To argue that these men are merely cosplaying warriors, or that they don’t deserve identification with sacrifice, risk, or service ignores the lived realities of millions of Americans, many of whom do put their lives and bodies on the line. It may be tempting to critique certain ideological postures, but that shouldn't erase the material commitments and risks involved in these careers.

It’s a cultural and statistical reality that can't be sidestepped by abstract critiques.

Not all of those values necessarily correlate with one another. Just because you broadly label them as "conservative" doesn't mean that they're the same. "Self-reliance", for example, is somewhat at odds with "unity".

Like what do you mean by "traditional"? The reality is that culture today isn't what it was during ancient Greece.