That is the million dollar question, and honestly I don't really know, but would love insightful discussion on this topic.

I thought the Sam Harris podcast really hit the nail on the head. The messaging from the left for the past 10-15 years has really had very little to offer straight, white men at a psychological level. The rhetoric is pretty constant around wanting more diversity as a first, primary goal (meaning fewer straight white men), constant talk of privilege (you should be ashamed not just for trying to take pride in your own accomplishments, but you're guilty of your parents' and grandparents' sins as well), hyper-vigilance against language that has even the slightest resemblance to a color or culture (no more master branch for you), doing things once seen as "manly" is now filtered through the lens of "toxic masculinity".

And to be clear, I don't even disagree with many of these ideas. But in a democracy why should we be shocked when people vote in their own selfish interest?

But like, Harris is not exactly eager to care about my psychological needs - I am woman. Instead, he would mock my wish to not be looked down or not be reminded that i an lesser half the time.

The toxic masculinity thing is milder then everything i listened about feminity and anything feminine growing up. And plus it is tempered by boys are actually better thing that definitely still exist.

> Instead, he would mock my wish to not be looked down or not be reminded that i an lesser half the time.

I'm taking this as clear evidence you have never listened to a Sam Harris podcast.

You can support people of color without actively denigrating straight white men.

Or, you know, we could stop focusing on race, gender and sexuality so fucking much.

The most important thing about a person in 2020 is their race it seems. Followed closely by their gender and sexual orientation. That is what needs to change.

Does this mean giving up on attempting to prosecute police officers who murder citizens?

> The most important thing about a person in 2020 is their race it seems. Followed closely by their gender and sexual orientation

All US presidents (until Obama!) have been straight white guys. Was that a coincidence, or was it in fact vitally important in their election?

> Does this mean giving up on attempting to prosecute police officers who murder citizens?

I'm not sure how your response there follows at all from the GP's comment of "You can support people of color without actively denigrating straight white men", and indeed I feel like this is a clear example of what I'm thinking about.

It follows because "supporting people of color" is an empty statement if it isn't backed by policies, some of which are quite different from the status quo.

The truth is you can't support people of color without having straight white men feel denigrated. Because as soon as you support people of color the straight white men show up with tiki torches shouting about how they won't be replaced. Equality is not acceptable for these people.

Or you could just support people instead.

Not "Black Lives Matter" but "stop Police Violence". Not "Believe All Women" but "Believe Victims". Not "Affirmative action for non-white non-Asians" but "Affirmative action for the poor" (hint: every discrimination is positive for someone and negative for someone else).

I'm a straight white man (of a certain age) and support for people of colour doesn't make me feel denigrated... Two points we are not all the same... and really we aren't a we at all!

I mean so am I. Obviously I'm talking about the ones that feel denigrated, which is enough to get Trump elected.

> All US presidents have been straight white guys

Obama is not white

.. I can't believe I made that mistake, and the first reply didn't notice.

Sometimes simplifying 98% to "all" is valid.

Joe Biden won the primary because he was the least divisive. White men have no "cards" to play. They can't play the LGBT card, the race card or the gender card - so they by default have the biggest tent. Until we stop with identity politics it will always be this way.

If you hang out in LGBT and general non-conforming circles, you will realize that the white male position is the societal default, and it is nowhere near neutral - it is assumed to be only by those who have never realized that there are other possible default positions.

Some white men are beginning to see that their bubble is breaking.

What is the 'white male position'?

If this argument was moved to, say, Nigeria, would there be a problematic 'black male position' there?

Expectations about what constitutes being qualified for leadership positions. The automatic deferring to old men as authority figures over other people (trans people have direct experience). The way most many carry out competition. The idea of stoic sternness as being the ideal. Tone and voice.

Trans people who express themselves as male have a ton of interesting anecdotes about how they were suddenly seen as more competent just for being men.

Is this exclusive to white society?

If anything the whole macho leadership thing is even more apparent in less developed places.

Yes absolutely. Mugabe of Zimbabwe is well known for illegitimately taking land from white farmers and forcefully redistributing it, and has been repeatedly called out for this. We shouldn't be surprised that when a President has more to do with Mugabe than Reagan that he will be called out on it.

Biggest tent that contains only straight white guys? Are you suer that's the biggest possible tent rather than one which contains everyone?

I don't think that's a "debating in good faith" interpretation of the parent comment, which was clearly talking about moving beyond identity politics. That is, if you demand on identity politics, the "identity" that is going to be the biggest is the US for the near future is straight white people. If you really do want the biggest possible tent, as you suggest, we'll likely need to move beyond identity politics.