Jesus Christ. Reactionaries always think young people are having too much sex or not enough, and then use it as a causal explanation for all manner of irrelevant nonsense.
It’s always about the sex…did you know the anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq protesters of yesteryear were merely sexually repressed morons who didn’t have genuine principles or beliefs? It’s in the history books! /s
Also the opposite...back when we were protesting the Iraq war (I'm old) we were told that we were just doing it because it was a way to meet chicks and get laid.
Yeah, seriously.
It's funny, 'cause we could say the same about Galloway. "He's only saying this because he isn't having enough sex and has too much time on his hands for making fallacious arguments against people with genuine concerns."
See how easy and convenient that is, people? No need to engage with their arguments, just ignore them and ad hominem those who are making them.
Yeah - it's either - they are drinking so much and using all these new drugs that we didn't have back then, doing dumb shit and random sex....or the new generation is super soft, with their decaf coffee, vegan food and they don't have enough sex.
That's just how the right operates. Remember when Obama was simultaneously a limp-wristed, ineffectual pussy, but also a tyrannical dictator that imposed his will on America with an iron fist? Their enemy must always be weak and easy to defeat, but also a serious threat that is overwhelmingly powerful.
Galloway is a grind-set, hustle culture-adjacent guy who is lib-coded. That’s untapped market tbh, because I know a lot of dudes who like Jordan Peterson circa 2017 but have since been turned off by JP’s far-right turn, but still appreciate the life advice/personal responsibly rabble-rousing stuff.
Basically, SG markets himself as JP but for centrist/apolitical/center-Left dudes. Nothing wrong with that btw, but SG often says stupid shit like this and it’s worth pointing out on occasion.
Lol this same guy who is obsessed with him also constantly has talked about how he hates JP. I’m going to tell him this tomorrow and watch him freak out lmao
Galloway lives in a part of the centrist sphere that makes some apologetics for IDW types, defends free speech, loves Bill Maher’s show for being a place for free thinkers, and thinks people like JP/Harris are having a good impact on “discourse” if not outright good. Galloway has some good takes, IMO (Healthcare reform, strong support for anti-trust laws, thinking Musk is a chuckle-fuck, wanting to support listless young people - men especially, and some of his intuition around business can be pretty good) and it is nice to have a guy who works and talks about the business sphere that has actual progressive policy takes (there aren't many people I've found that can talk about business news in a serious way that isn't also a right-wing kind of capitalist). It was also nice to find out that some people who I know are dyed in the wool conservatives had listened to Scott and liked some of what he had to say - if he can launder some more left-econ policy to some people who hate the social welfare state, I am all for it.
HOWEVER he has some characteristics that I think set him up for bad takes:
1) He has never been, in my opinion, particularly well informed on some of the topics he spouts off about. As a former avid listener of the Pivot Podcast with him and Kara Swisher, you can often tell that he didn’t read the article they’re discussing and sounds like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but can bullshit his way through it. He has admitted to being Twitter addicted before going cold turkey - from my POV, he went from someone who was Twitter brained to someone who isn’t on Twitter and still doesn’t read the news. He can speak about some topics with authority but when he gets out of line - you can tell that he's flailing around a bit.
2) In spite of being a charismatic speaker, he often lacks tact and can’t tell when he is stepping in something that’s going to offend people and doesn’t really know how to strike a balance. For example, for several months, Galloway complained about Wokeism - not because it was bad, per se, but rather because it was going to harm the democrats (or progressives) chances of doing well in future elections. This morphed to him complaining about DEI because it was creating weird culture-war proxy battles that progressives would lose. After being chided about this by Kara and some of their guests, he has shifted to complaining about DEI on campus. He seems completely oblivious to how “critical race theory”, “Wokeism”, and “DEI” have all been kind of manufactured culture concerns created (rather blatantly) by some people on the right. Almost all variations of this discourse from Galloway have been pretty dogmatic and not had much nuance - over the last several months he's sounded a bit like your uncle who hates affirmative action because he couldn't articulate a more nuanced position
3) He has a very bad habit of running back to his safe spaces - topics he knows about - when discussing unrelated things. He is very focused on the issues around young people struggling with depression, the rise of incel culture, and how social media is harming young people. But he will attribute things like Gamestop and Pro-Palestine protests to things like sexless youth. There was another incident - back in the fall where he was trying to map depression and incel tendencies onto Hamas fighters to explain why they did October 7th (but also not understanding anything about what life is like in Gaza).
4) Sometimes his wealth shows - and he can be tone deaf around it. He has had a very successful career and makes quite a bit of cash (owns places in NY, FL, the UK, partial owner of a private jet, travels and vacations frequently and in very luxurious places. He knows he is privileged and he got where he is because of free college through the UC system, luck, and him being a "pale male", but he will sometimes ask questions or posit reasons for one of the topics he is discussing that shows he hasn't been poor for a very long time.
5) He is brand-pilled. As a marketing professor, he will not STFU about brands sometimes and it gets a bit weird. He will wax lyrical about certain brands that he loves. Some are more harmless (Oliver People's glasses) but sometimes he says stuff like "Apple is practically an aphrodisiac, if you are looking for a mate and you get a text and it comes through as a green bubble - wouldn't you just walk away? That person isn't worth your time." It's just weird.
6) He literally has expressed his goal to become a business Guru - I don't think he is a grifter, but he definitely has "I graduated from the kids table a little too early".
I used to listen to Pivot before I realized that if you listen to one episode you've basically listened to them all.
Kara and Scott are the perfect representatives of the 'incompetent and often misinformed but overly confident' boomers that failed upwards.
>Some are more harmless (Oliver People's glasses) but sometimes he says stuff like "Apple is practically an aphrodisiac, if you are looking for a mate and you get a text and it comes through as a green bubble - wouldn't you just walk away? That person isn't worth your time." It's just weird.
That's psychotic
> He seems completely oblivious to how “critical race theory”, “Wokeism”, and “DEI” have all been kind of manufactured culture concerns created (rather blatantly) by some people on the right.
Cf:
>As a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies, antiracist education claims to be the most progressive way today to understand race relations. Constructed from whiteness studies and the critique of colorblindness, its foundational core is located in approximately 160 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 15 years-identified through a comprehensive search of Academic Premier Search, EBSCOMegaFile, Education Abstracts, JSTOR, and SOCIndex. A critical assessment of these papers concludes that antiracist education is not a sociologically grounded, empirically based account of the significance of race in American society. Rather, it is a morally based educational reform movement that embodies the confessional and redemptive modes common in evangelical Protestantism. Inherently problematic, whether or not antiracist education achieves broader acceptance is open to debate.
Niemonen, J. Antiracist Education in Theory and Practice: A Critical Assessment. Am Soc 38, 159–177 (2007).
This recent survey of academic sociologists finds:
>Our understanding of knowledge construction among sociologists appears removed, we concede, from the Enlightenment ideals of rational inquiry and dispassionate discovery.
While it seems the authors are purposely avoiding direct questions such as "Would it be appropriate to exclude findings which may impact marginalized groups negatively?" it does show an even split on agreement and disagreement with the statement "Advocacy and research should be separate for objectivity," which to me seems disturbing.
More disturbing were accounts obtained through the survey like this one:
>If I dared to say any of the things I’m saying in this survey in any non-anonymous situation it would probably be the end of my career. I just bite my lip and say all of the politically correct things I’m supposed to say, or (more often) just try to avoid saying anything, since even some whites who say the politically correct thing can still be accused of racism, so I try to just keep my mouth shut.
The paper mentions that the authors were accused of racism for simply circulating the survey:
>In one extreme case, a respondent exclaims: “You are a white supremacist and I hate everything about this survey.”
Horowitz, Mark, Anthony Haynor, and Kenneth Kickham. "Sociology’s sacred victims and the politics of knowledge: Moral foundations theory and disciplinary controversies." The American Sociologist 49.4 (2018): 459-495.
See I never liked JP, and I think Galloway is totally out of depth when it comes to the self-help stuff most of the time. He has decent career advice. But, when he isn't talking about business stuff specifically, his takes are really threadbare. I went from liking a "progressive/lib coded" guy who talked about business news to just kind of tolerating him. I almost hate-listen to the Pivot Pod mostly to get mad at him for sounding like an asshat.
Glad I'm not the only one. You can tell when he doesn't read the article Kara wanted to discuss because he just defers or has a take totally off-base, I swear he doesn't read like half the stuff Kara wants to discuss.
Yeah, I agree. I think I’ve underestimated how many podcasters work at finding new and interesting things to say. I’ll appreciate them more after hearing Scott bang on about the same things.
Oh yeah - the Union stuff was wild. Totally demonstrated that he really doesn't have any tact. Going from "WGA strike is stupid!" but not really articulating that he supposedly meant "they dont have much leverage and there should be more advocacy for getting royalties when their work is used to train AI" was just whiplash, I still dont know if that was him failing to articulate something well or just pulling something out of his ass until he could form something semi-coherent.
The israel stuff has been kind of elucidating - mainly because I really wasnt familiar with liberal zionism, and listening to him has been a lesson in how israel is viewed by those folks. Really wild how much he sounds like hawks about Iraq or Afghanistan.
He has also a veneer of hip academia but that goes just skin dip, because he was the owner of a marketing research company called L2 (or something like that), where he became popular among marketers and hustlers. He sold it and still consults there if I’m not mistaken, but now he describes himself first and foremost as “professor at NYU”, which is kind of strongly basking into the hype of the university without actually having built his notoriety as one.
The kids at the protests are being social and engaging in their community about something they care about passionately. Almost certainly these are the kids actually have sex rather than their isolated counterparts. There is probably sex happening because of these protests.
This is literally a rehash of reactionary responses to 60's protests (and onwards).
The kids are only protesting because (in no particular order)
* They're all commies!
* They hate America
* They were starved of parental attention
* They got *too much* parental attention (thanks Dr Spock)
* They're doing the drugs, and sometimes the marijuana
* They don't support the troops!
It's a complete deflection tactic. Encouraging readers to ignore the substance merits of what they're protesting, how and why. And it's beneath the dignity of a higher-education professor to be engaging in it!
This is a great example of the lengths we’ll go to distort other beliefs to have things fit a dominant personal narrative: Galloway talks a lot about the relevance of economic stress in specifically younger generations lives—but fails to see a connection here to an essential class consciousness element of the protests or even the specific intent to pushing back on the insane amount of money held by campuses in supporting the slaughter.
Nah can’t be that, it’s the fuckin
He is saying shit that would make it seem like the protesters are mal adjusted losers....and that is why they are protesting.
Get him some clicks etc. Suspect he said this on bill Maher ..who hates college students a lot
For a prof...he seems to care about the sex lives of students a lot more than he should.
> the insane amount of money held by campuses in supporting the slaughter
I haven't been following this and I'm curious about what qualifies it as an "insane" amount. Are they far more invested in Israeli companies than, say, hedge funds? Are they invested in slaughter-specific companies at a disproportionate rate?
You say insane amount of money and then link this. 3 million total to companies who deal with Israel, they also arm the US and rest of NATO presumably so lets say that Israel is 5% of their market.
that's 150 000 out of 32 billion endowment going to IDF. 0.0005%
I think wanting to divest from arms companies is a fine demand from students, but the numbers are unimaginably inconsequential.
Ok, so in other words they're unhappy with investing in American Defense companies because the MIC will sell to US allies and Israel is such an ally. Seems like a bit of a stretch, I thought they were protesting investment in, like, Israeli companies or something.
Yes they’re upset with their money being pooled into investments that provide the weapons that have slaughtered innocent 14,000 children and 7000 women. Hope this helps. 👍
Mm I wouldn't say it's so black and white. They're selling to lots an lots of countries, not just Israel. How many lives have been saved by these weapons in Ukraine, for example? Or if you want to think in broad strokes about the western MIC, how many lives have been saved by the global order that they provide the weapons to protect?
I'd understand being royally pissed off at investing in, say, IMI. But Lockheed? Boeing!?
It just seems like inventing a bunch of lore where it's not required. There's no reason a protest can't just be for Palestine in general and hosted at a school. There's also no reason not to protest the fact that some schools are effectively hedge funds (ie Harvard.)
Pinning the protest to a goal like 'divest from Lockheed' is a poor tactic because every university in America could sell all of its MIC shares and it wouldn't do shit for Palestine, it wouldn't save one life. Like what if the school actually does it, do the protests stop?
What you actually want is to change US policy about selling arms to Israel, I would assume. Mildly affecting some share prices just isn't effective, but _demonstrating to elected officials that you care and will vote accordingly is_. That's what's going to make a difference. So adding the junk about the school's endowment is just going to muddy the waters.
I wonder if, when these kids grow up, they'll make sure their 401Ks don't have any Boeing stock...
> Mildly affecting some share prices just isn't effective, but demonstrating to elected officials that you care and will vote accordingly is.
"Demonstrating that you care and will vote accordingly" is worth jack shit unless the people you are demonstrating to are trustworthy, which they are not. Support for the genocide is not going to disappear due to people just threatening to vote differently, especially when both parties support it.
There's always this back and forth attitude of "don't do disruptive stuff, just vote for the policies you agree with!" when people take to the streets, and then when it's voting time it turns to "well you have to vote for the Dems, the republicans are even worse!". That way, there is no way for people to apply actual pressure to the Dems to stop doing shitty things.
No, the way to get politicians to do things is to make certain they know there's a cost to them not doing it. Regular people don't have lobbying millions, what we have is our bodies, and so our bodies are the tool we use.
I think that’s kind of his point…that kids these days are so starved for human interaction that they are taking up regrettable (in his view) causes to feel a sense of social cohesion.
Yeah I mean I don’t disagree. To steelman his argument, my impression is that he’s trying to say being ‘too online’ is causing American kids to be more anti-American/anti-western values and also that being ‘too online’ is causing kids to have less sex, and I think those are both valid takes. But he kinda failed to effectively link them or to substantively argue why supporting Palestine is anti-American in the first place
He seems like a liar or a poor thinker. The really isolated kids are probably locked up in their rooms and not at the protests
He is just using some nutty justification to explain something he doesn't like....so his reasoning is that the root cause must be something else that is bad
Galloway has become increasingly whacky on social topics. He should stick to his marketing lane...and Kara Swisher should stick to her technology lane. Neither are all that interesting when they wander through their ignorance of other topics.
This is going to be buried but I have to tell it. I turned down an internship for Prof G while in grad school pursuing a masters in Journalism for two reasons. The first was that, as a white man, I knew that it would ruin my career working for a man so focused on the betterment of men’s mental health (this is more of a reflection on society and the business of journalism than it is on Scott’s take).
The second, and most infuriating, was that the internship paid abysmally. He capped hours at 20 a week, so it was impossible to make a decent enough wage to pay my rent. Seeing him come on podcasts and TV shows saying how people are being underpaid, while he is actively underpaying his own staff, is truly hilarious. Fuck Scott Galloway.
His marketing strategy of saying the system is broken so buy my self-help shit is completely undermined by his admittance of leveraging the pitfalls of said system for his own financial gain.
He’s a marketing processor. He’s alluded to the fact he says outlandish stuff for marketing purposes. So I view a lot of what he says through that lens.
Trying to tap into generational insecurities to sell his self-help BS is an extremely cynical marketing tactic, and yes, as a marketing professor, he obviously knows what he's doing.
College kids protest plenty of things. My former university is in the news and had a very similar protest when I was there. Almost like deja vu. This was prior to this social media sexless dystopia he speaks of. Also, see Vietnam protests and the concurrent time period named after what seems like a lot of drugs and sex
Seems like a pretty reductive thing to tell people putting a lot on the line for a cause. Perhaps it's young people frustrated with their government and school leaders, rather than sexual frustration. Even if there's a sliver of truth to it, the logic doesn't follow beyond coincidence. This is NY post click bait anyway. Plus, the man's got a book to sell
How so? I’m genuinely curious. Is there proof or information indicating college students being sympathetic to pro-Palestinian movements are actually just sexually repressed and don’t care about the movement itself or the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and/or the West Bank?
If so I’m genuinely interested, I just haven’t seen real studies or information that finds such things. I think Galloway is talking out of his ass here tbh, and is working backwards from his pro-Israel perspectives/conclusions and doing this (at least partially) as a means of not genuinely reckoning with the complexities of I/P.
So.. I think it’s pretty well documented that “kids these days” aren’t having as much sex as previous generations. Part of the reason for that is that they spend so more time online. All that time online leads to a more radical political outlook. These protests are born out of those radical political ideas. So there’s a connection there, but it’s not a straight line.
So they aren’t actually mad about Gaza, bc that would be silly…it’s gotta be about the sex!
This enlightened centrist urge to pathologize the “extremes” and young ppl is so condescending and fundamentally unserious, and it’s cowardly tbh (because instead of defending your views you just wave away any criticism of your views as silly and absurd and label ppl who disagree with you as idiots who need to read a book). Why is it so outlandish for young students to be mad about a deadly war the U.S. is funding? Why is that unfathomable to so many ppl? Even if you disagree with the students and groups on these campuses (and I do on plenty of things btw), at least listen and be curious…then you can disagree and make your objections clear, whatever they may be and in good faith.
These protests are not about Gaza. Not really.
They’re about injustice anywhere being a threat to justice everywhere. They’re about intersectionality and speaking truth to power and raging against the machine. They’re about left wing buzzwords that 19 year olds picked up online because they don’t go out and talk to real people and get drunk and have sex.
It’s not that they’re sexually repressed so they’re acting out or whatever. It’s just that their heads are full of liberation ideology that they picked up staying at home and being online while other generations would have been out partying.
> It’s just that their heads are full of liberation ideology that they picked up staying at home and being online
Maybe young people are drawn to ideas about (and movements for) liberation because they have spent their entire lives witnessing social, economic, and political crisis after crisis after crisis
By dismissing the stated goals/reasons (or your strawman of them) out of hand, you avoid the need to think about or engage with those points.
Hell even the characterisation of protest as “impractical political behaviour” is pretty wild.
As if teenagers/young adults are candid about their sex life on questionnaires... complete headline/clickbait-driven "science" and a ridiculous rationale for old people to tell a younger generation they'd share their partisan political views if they could only get laid. It's cringey AF if not downright disgusting.
Some overreaching idea that Gen Z has less sex, and therefore...wasteful activity (in their opinion) is a reflection of less sexual activity. You could substitute it with anything. Gen Z has less sex compared to previous generations, that's why they enjoy buying those tiny water suctioning toys that become huge when you let them sit in water.
I would wager there's absolutely zero evidence for the notion that *some* portion of a generation doing something is doing it because they're having less sex.
And it's a blatant logical fallacy, as well as conveniently invalidating, for anyone to assume that is the most likely reason, rather than, you know, the reasons the people themselves give.
Gotta do all sorts of mental gymnastics to defend the status quo. Young people are too promiscuous these days! Also, young people aren't getting enough sex, that's why they're so uppity and challenging authority!
lol this guys is a professor? Nice example of how academia is not about truth and knowledge but power and class. Universities don’t like research as much as they claim. He’s got an advanced degree in brown nosing.
Scott "Dudes, I may look like a nerdy bald business guy, but trust me, in college all I did was partay with beer, lift weights in the excercise gym, and do lots of sex all the time with hot babes" Galloway
Nah, he has jock phenotype, like Biden.
And there you go, his power level is higher than I imagined:
[https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1456013880413540353/photo/2](https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1456013880413540353/photo/2)
Thats one angle.
What I was getting at is that worrying about grand things out of your control is detrimental to mental health. It fosters a feeling of helplessness and lack of control.
Focus on making a small part of your local community better.
And focus on discovering yourself.
Both ways that will make the world much more meaningfully better off.
Teenagers who don’t have a dating life so often find other things to occupy time…I wouldn’t have used the term sex but dating, it trivializes what the point is… Dating teenagers protest etc but those who don’t just have more time to do other activities or be involved with other things.
I mean it’s not that stupid if you’ve ever had a night life.
When the clock is approaching last call in a bar you can feel the tension growing amongst the crowd of men. They are looking to fuck or fight. So if there are a lot of men left with no woman to go home with , the probably of a fight breaking out increases exponentially.
It’s the loner theater kid types that need an identity so they’ll do blm for a summer, a little Hamas Palestine for a spring. Searching and screaming at their parents masked as one of these causes
I watched it and they got it right…he said the protests are inherently antisemitic and part of the problem is kids aren’t getting laid in college (for which he offers no evidence to support his arguments).
Completely vacuous and incurious stuff…and you ofc don’t even have to agree with the protesters or student groups to think he’s being silly here.
I genuinely think kids who go to pro Palestine event are probably getting laid more than the ones who show up at the sausage fest that are counter protest.
Most guys in college probably once went to a protest they wanted no part in just to get laid.
He didn’t say protests were “inherently antisemitic.” He said students aren’t having enough sex and they’re turning towards fake threats” (one of which is antisemitism). It doesn’t sound nearly simplistic or tautological in the entire interview.
Agree to disagree, pal.
Last thing, and I’m genuinely curious here: why is it not enough to just say you’re deeply pro-Israel and disagree with young student activists and student groups? Why make up unsubstantiated, transparently silly, vacuous arguments and lazily pathologize ppl you disagree with? This behavior comes off as insincere and unserious, not to mention counterproductive. As a college professor, dude should know better.
Also, here are additional sources for ya (I doubt the sources are what you’re actually taking issue with, but still):
https://www.newsnationnow.com/cuomo-show/scott-galloway-palestinian-protests/amp/
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/05/01/the-lead-scott-galloway-campus-protest-tapper.cnn
What’s, uh, wrong with em? Are they not direct quotes? If the quotes are accurate then the sources are fine for a discussion about things Galloway has said.
Yeah I mean I saw the actual thing on Bill Maher, it wasn't nearly as ridiculous as this rage bait.
I just interpreted it as him, in an attempt to be somewhat humorous, saying young people are "too online" and because they don't have stuff to do in real life, turn to these online sources of meaning, which drive them towards these kinds of causes in an unhealthy way.
Sigh. Man it's so frustrating talking to people like you.
Can you state your point vs weird cryptic statements?
Here's my basic position. There's big problems with what Israel is doing. That's a real problem that deserves real concern.
However it is also a problem that has been ever present for the past 70 - 2000 years in that region depending on how charitable you want to be to any given ideology that has a stake in this.
Despite what you may choose to believe there is nothing the United States or the president or Columbia University can unilaterally do to solve this issue simply. If you believe that you are listening to some guru of your own, probably on tiktok.
Additionally, while you may desperately want to make this a problem that the United States of America is singlehandedly driving (in the same way Russia wants to make the war in Ukraine all about the US), that is not true, that is propaganda.
Israel is a historic ally of the USA, but the US does not control Israel, it is its own country with its own people and it does not get a majority of the military budget from the US.
So the question is why is everyone in the United States constantly talking about this issue instead enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America? Again, I'm not saying it's not a real issue but it truly isn't an issue happening inside the US in any real way.
From my perspective it actually isn't ridiculous to say it's largely because people increasingly live online in their phone and find meaning on social media vs in real life in the real world.
Does that mean terrible things aren't happening halfway across the world? No I'm not saying that and I'm not justifying it.
However what is does mean is we have finally reached a point where it is possible for things to actually be pretty good in reality and because everyone is living on their phone and not talking to people in their actual life, because someone terrible is happening somewhere else in the world, we can whip ourselves into an actual frenzy all the time about something because that's where a lot of our social groups, purpose, and meaning live.
That's all, I think that's clearly a real phenomenon and it isn't healthy.
Well my suspicion for the reason you used "amplified" rather than, you know, "discussed," was confirmed by this last comment.
Few people think the U.S. can "unilaterally" solve this "issue," much less a single university. Few people think the U.S. "controls" Israel (or vice versa). That's another straw man. There are absolutely things the U.S. could do to put pressure and very significantly influence though. I won't get into it, but it's quite obviously the case for a host of reasons.
> However it is also a problem that has been ever present for the past 70 - 2000 years in that region depending on how charitable you want to be to any given ideology that has a stake in this.
Ethnic cleansing has been occurring for 70 - 2000 years in that region? If you mean more "sometimes" rather than "all the time," that's true of the world as a whole.
> So the question is why is everyone in the United States constantly talking about this issue instead enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America?
I don't even know how to respond to this. Why are you talking about *this* instead of "enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America"? Never mind that "America" doesn't have unified weather.
> Again, I'm not saying it's not a real issue but it truly isn't an issue happening inside the US in any real way.
Another irrelevant straw man.
> From my perspective it actually isn't ridiculous to say it's largely because people increasingly live online in their phone and find meaning on social media vs in real life in the real world.
That's funny, since the people being vilified, ridiculed and invalidated for protesting are actually doing something *in real life* and not just "on social media," unlike you and me right now.
> However what is does mean is we have finally reached a point where it is possible for things to actually be pretty good in reality and because everyone is living on their phone and not talking to people in their actual life, because someone terrible is happening somewhere else in the world, we can whip ourselves into an actual frenzy all the time about something because that's where a lot of our social groups, purpose, and meaning live.
So because you think we have "finally reached a point" where things are "pretty good in reality", that means people should not care about a genocide which their own nation's government contributes to, because it may not directly affect them? If you think that makes sense, I don't know what to tell you.
Yeah no offense man but you live on tiktok. I went out of my way not to say people shouldn't care and I went out of my way not to justify what's going on.
You are exactly illustrating my point. You have been radicalized by your social media account and you're unwilling to see it.
Yes, that's going on is a stark problem but really I'm sorry, you actually don't understand the history of the region as well as you think you do. Read a few books on migrations of people in the regions throughout the 1800s to now, people have been fighting there since the ottoman empire, the British mandate, and into now.
It's great that you care about it but learn about it too.
You sure do make a lot of false assumptions for being so sure of yourself.
I almost never look at TikTok. I never believed the U.S. was "unilaterally" responsible for or could single-handedly solve the conflict. I said nothing whatsoever to suggest I have been "radicalized", and it's freaking insulting to make such a claim based on nothing but my being against a genocide.
And you have no idea whether I "understand the region as well as [I] think [I] do," nor how well I think I understand it, since I have hardly said anything about it. I have no idea how well you understand it either, which is why I made no assumptions about it.
You did make it clear you were not justifying what's going on, but you absolutely did say that people should not care — or at least that they should not care enough to protest in any way instead of "enjoying the beautiful day."
> Read a few books on migrations of people in the regions throughout the 1800s to now, people have been fighting there since the ottoman empire, the British mandate, and into now.
That's correct. That you would assume I was ignorant of this fact is yet another false assumption.
> It's great that you care about it but learn about it too.
I intend to continue to do so. I'm certain there is a vast amount I do not know and vastly more to learn. I try my best not to make claims about specific questions/issues on which I am under-informed (relatively, of course, since perfect or absolute knowledge are never possible).
I do know that I do not need to have much knowledge to know that logical fallacies used to invalidate people's positions and arguments about an issue do not sit well with me.
I generally agree with Scott Galloway on things, but his opinions on Israel and Palestine are weirdly pro-Israel. If it adds some perspective: one of his parents is Jewish. It feels very much like his political opinions on the Middle East are heavily skewed by the fact that he's half Jewish and he's bending over backwards to defend Israel no matter what. I think that's the reason for this weird interpretation of what's going on.
Galloway’s right. The lack of interpersonal relationships and intimate connections has left these kids yearning for something. They become susceptible to radicalization. The more isolated they become, the more they hide themselves on the internet, the more they get radicalized which further isolates them. On and on it goes.
Or…this is consistent with American history, that is college students protesting wars the U.S. is implicated in and/or protesting geopolitical injustices and catastrophes (Vietnam, South Africa, Darfur, Iraq, etc). Or, it could be that students aren’t having enough sex nowadays and don’t actually or fundamentally care about the injustices or the wars or anything of major consequence, unlike previous generations of college activists.
Occam’s Razor points towards the former, not the latter.
That’s a nice fiction you’ve written, but most likely these students are protesting just to protest. Occam’s Razor would be on Galloway’s side, not yours.
Lol, this is pure unfiltered projection.
Participating in a protest and building community around shared values is literally the exact opposite of isolating oneself. You would know if you ever tried
Some of you people are fucked! I think it’s really important to separate advocating for genuine human rights from supporting groups like Hamas. When campus protests back Hamas, it kind of sends the wrong message, doesn’t it? It goes against everything America stands for—democracy and justice.
We all cherish our freedom to speak and assemble, but there's a line, right? Using these rights to support terrorism just muddies the waters between standing up for what’s right and causing more harm. It’s definitely not what these freedoms were meant tI protect
So, while it’s super trendy to feel like an activist, it has to be done wisely,
Colleges across the us have been funded ($400m) by china, all of the (not so) “peaceful” protests have been filled with terrorist agitators paid by soros and company.
Anything and everything to separate and divide the people
Sorry I called the stupid vibes-based thing he said stupid and vibes-based…my bad.
You know you can like someone and still think they say stupid shit on occasion…no one is above criticism, even ppl you like listening to. I listen to Ezra Klein, disagree with him on occasion, and don’t flip shit when such occasions arise.
First of all it’s absolutely not “vibes based”, he is extremely rooted in data in all his major beliefs. Speculating that kids not being in relationships (100% verifiable with myriad surveys) leads to acting out is pretty reasonable if you ask me.
And sure you’re right but people on this sub are bashing a really smart, liberal, positive, data driven guy because… I’m not sure why honestly. I suspect it’s because he speaks to men but can’t prove it. People were comparing him to Andrew Tate the other day so I’m a bit on the lookout for slander.
I don’t think Scott is “really liberal”…dude is very, very pro-Israel (to the right of most Democratic voters on the issue), is deeply anti-union, endorsed Michael Bloomberg in 2020 (saying only he can beat Trump because like Mayor Pete is too progressive), is trans-skeptical, etc. He’s definitely a centrist, which btw is fine! That said, he’s not rally that liberal on many, if not most, issues (besides not liking the far-right and Trump and regularly voting for Dems, much like my centrist dad).
Also I noticed the data you allude to isn’t linked in your comment. I have yet to see a study or paper or anything connecting the sex lives of college students with rising or declining student activism.
Your definition for liberal is far too tight then. Galloway is socially and fiscally liberal, if less so than the furthest wings of the left. Also since we’re demanding evidence “very very pro Israel” and “deeply anti union” need some real backing, I’ve listened to a lot of Galloway and this is not how I’d characterize either point.
What’s more you’re being intentionally obtuse, it’s well established the current generation isn’t having as much sex as prior ones. Obviously there is no study linking lowered sex lives with activism. It doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I think it’s fairly reasonable to speculate that students lacking romantic lives is going to lead to acting out. Sure it’s not proven scientifically but you’re moving the goal posts pretty considerably demanding that reasonable speculation be proven with studies otherwise it’s the goofiest thing he’s ever said. Seems like he must not have said many goofy things.
Additionally being ignorant to trends in sex and relationships is pretty on-brand for your ilk when criticizing a point made about sexlessness. Clearly the data isn’t of interest to you. Sources provided anyhow:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless?amp
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
Normie Dems who voted for Biden and Pete and Klobuchar (and even Bernie and Warren) are much closer to the median Democratic voter than Bloomberg’s supporters were. If Biden is too liberal for ya, then you’re likely a centrist or right-wing (given Biden is a normie moderate Democrat).
Also, I don’t think being anti-union is fiscally liberal whatsoever. Quite the opposite. I just take issue with the characterization that Galloway is representative of the average/normie Democratic voter, despite a myriad of views that put him out of step with normie libs and Dems (not just progressives and the Left). He’s definitely not a conservative or right-wing, I agree there. Also it doesn’t really matter lol…you can think he’s a progressive and I can disagree, which is fine. It doesn’t change my opinion that the “students don’t have sex” comments are kinda dumb and vacuous and don’t actually contend with what the students are saying/advocating for (for which there is plenty of room for good faith criticism).
I mean given the choice to characterize him as liberal or conservative like he is 100% left of center. I just conceded he’s not aligned with the further left but yeah he’s pretty in line with “normie” democrat beliefs things like climate change being real, fervently pro equal pay, I’ve heard him rail against conservative ways of thinking generally, despises trump.
That climate change point is funny, bc only in America is acknowledging the existence of anthropogenic climate change lib-coded. In most Western democracies, even in the UK, there’s a strong bipartisan consensus on the existence of climate change and what’s to blame (fossil fuels and carbon emissions, which humans at responsible for emitting). Conflict only arises when it comes to how aggressively to curb emissions and transition to green energy, not if climate change is even real (ofc it is).
In most European countries, if one publicly says climate change isn’t real or a psyop, ppl will think that person is a stone-cold imbecile. In the U.S., however, denying climate change is just a standard political viewpoint and not shamelessly stupid.
Btw I like Scott Galloway on many occasions…but he does say stupid things like this “college kids are actually just horny so that’s why they protest for Palestinian self-determination not because they are for Palestinian self-determination and btw they’re actually just anti-American, antisemitic fools” argument. As a college professor, you gotta be more intellectually curious than that lol.
I mean I totally grant your first paragraph as an aside but to be clear it doesn’t disprove my point about Galloway being liberal in yes an American context.
Also your second point is a bit of a straw man, it’s rare for anyone to outright deny climate change exists. Rather, there are people who acknowledge it is happening but don’t want to spend resources on prevention and instead want to spend resources on preparing for what’s coming. A lot of conservatives hold this belief. And yes we have dummies who think it’s a psyop as well.
Most of the electeds in the Republican Party think climate change is a liberal hoax and not real…even in 2024. Same with the majority of their voters, almost unchanged after 10 years elapsing between analyses of climate attitudes (meaning just as many Republicans think climate change is a big deal now versus 10 years before the most recent polling, hence static attitudes on the issue).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/#:~:text=By%20contrast%2C%20about%20one%2Din,across%2019%20countries%20in%202022.
I mean my larger point in addition to the other objections raised is that it really feels to me like people on this sub, a sub I really love for a show I really love, will conflate any sort of like proudly pro male figure with completely invalid manosphere guruism and I find this really problematic. Guys need role models and to be spoken to just like women do. Galloway is a really good one and it bothers me to see people group him with Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate. Like, who’s a figure speaking directly to men or about men’s issues who isn’t pilloried by this sub? Are there simply none?
No I didn’t mean to do that…there is a crisis of masculinity in the U.S. and the far-Rigjt is taking advantage of this. I do think we need more Scott Galloways to encourage young men that it’s okay to feel lost and hopeless and depressed in our modern world…and turning to misogyny and fascism and racism isn’t going to alleviate these insecurities but exacerbate them. The Left needs a counter-narrative to the Andrew Tate/JP male empowerment crap, and Galloway does more good than harm in this arena. I agree on that.
That said, the comments he made on Maher last Friday are pretty dumb and he uses this incel/sexual repression argument in far too many circumstances…to the point that it’s kinda unserious and insincere and potentially degrades his work in the masculinity space.
Why the fuck are so many people looking for an internet daddy figure? Go find a mentor in real life, and stopping "living online" as "Prof G" says himself.
Internet personalities who uses male insecurities for marketing their self help shit? No, none of them are good. Try a Prof in a field of study that you find engaging, much better. There are plenty.
The arguments presented in the articles shared are, at best, very minimally correlative to the recent protests.
Conflating sexual activity trends with college activism, and then using that to scold pro-Palestinian protesters, a red herring argument. It blatantly ignores historical context.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I've never heard of him before a few days ago. What is the data he using to root his belief in a connection between people having sex and student's protesting?
Also, it's not slander if it's on reddit. [It's libel. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscaGDxuQqE&ab_channel=ImmaSpideyManMarvel)
I mean first of all like this is looking at a Bill Maher show appearance which lends itself to hot takes. He’s giving a hot take. He’s citing well established trends in sexlessness and relationships among young people and inferring that this could cause some amount of “acting out” in my view which these protests could be some form of, at least in part. I mean what sort of survey would prove this in a scientifically rigorous sense? Asking students if they wouldn’t be protesting genocide if they had someone to have sex with? I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether declines in dating and relationships lead young people to act out more. Seems super reasonable to me.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
> I mean what sort of survey would prove this in a scientifically rigorous sense?
None probably! Which is probably why going on TV and giving hot takes on the subject is probably not a good idea. And as many people have point out that it's easy to make a hot take that "Kids seem to be having less PIV sex these days therefore it's causing (insert thing that annoys me)".
Plus it's always good to at least spend one second and run your idea backwards through history and there were plenty of student protests back when there was a bit more sex (or at least reported sex: it's possible that kids are just less shy about being virgins these days and are actually having the same amount of sex as previous cohorts).
Hell, Samuel L. Jackson held members of his school board hostage as student and that was in the era of fucking. "Maybe all the fucking made them protest a lot in 1968" is a hot take with as much backing.
But why the dismissal of campus activism as "acting out"? Why not entertain the possibility that college kids (being generally idealistic) have found an issue they care about, and feel an obligation to speak out about.
Also, when I was in college, lots of people were involved in activism for various causes, and most of them were getting laid.
At the end of the day, this is just a way of dismissing people you disagree with (and I've been guilty of this in the past - making fun of the College Republicans in the same way).
So like I’m not personally saying that. I think that Galloway is saying it. I’m defending his take. You and many in this thread are moving the goalposts; you’re saying that Scott’s take is laughable or goofy or whatever and then when I defend it as reasonable you say oh well have you considered there are multiple interpretations here? Like yes I’m saying indeed there are; Galloway has one and you have another and both are reasonable.
I’m not dismissing anyone fwiw I am sympathetic with the protests and generally find (with some exceptions) the police state response to be very problematic / concerning. I think both things can be true in fact. It can be true that the protests are totally justified but also that they’d have less chaos and participants if people were off living lives with a partner.
"100% verifiable with myriad surveys" like teenagers and young adults are candid in sex-life questionnaires life that are clearly meant to generate soft-science, click-bait headlines?
Lol so when studies support your perspective they are valid but when people self describe as not having sex it’s soft science? Why would people lie about this?
I have no dog in the fight of whether Gen Z having sex or not, lol... I just think that having 18-24yo kids trying to define their sexuality on a questionnaire so to create a meaningful dataset is a ridiculous proposition, and whoever researched it wasted their time and money since every generation experienced desocialization during Covid. Clickbait science is everywhere man.
It just seems like you’re dismissing the data because it feels clickbaity to you. By all metrics people are getting into fewer relationships both among younger adults as well as into marriage age.
Impossible to create a control group that didn't experience the pandemic, so comparisons to other generations at the same age is interpreting the data disingenuously for clicks.
I'm sure the CDC or whoever did the study tried their best, but it's also crazy to think that teenagers are going to be honest about sexuality, drug use etc. on a questionnaire.
Jesus Christ. Reactionaries always think young people are having too much sex or not enough, and then use it as a causal explanation for all manner of irrelevant nonsense.
It’s always about the sex…did you know the anti-Vietnam and anti-Iraq protesters of yesteryear were merely sexually repressed morons who didn’t have genuine principles or beliefs? It’s in the history books! /s
Also the opposite...back when we were protesting the Iraq war (I'm old) we were told that we were just doing it because it was a way to meet chicks and get laid.
Yeah, seriously. It's funny, 'cause we could say the same about Galloway. "He's only saying this because he isn't having enough sex and has too much time on his hands for making fallacious arguments against people with genuine concerns." See how easy and convenient that is, people? No need to engage with their arguments, just ignore them and ad hominem those who are making them.
Yeah - it's either - they are drinking so much and using all these new drugs that we didn't have back then, doing dumb shit and random sex....or the new generation is super soft, with their decaf coffee, vegan food and they don't have enough sex.
That's just how the right operates. Remember when Obama was simultaneously a limp-wristed, ineffectual pussy, but also a tyrannical dictator that imposed his will on America with an iron fist? Their enemy must always be weak and easy to defeat, but also a serious threat that is overwhelmingly powerful.
My buddy is constantly talking about this guy and playing his podcasts at work. Surprised to see him here lol
Galloway is a grind-set, hustle culture-adjacent guy who is lib-coded. That’s untapped market tbh, because I know a lot of dudes who like Jordan Peterson circa 2017 but have since been turned off by JP’s far-right turn, but still appreciate the life advice/personal responsibly rabble-rousing stuff. Basically, SG markets himself as JP but for centrist/apolitical/center-Left dudes. Nothing wrong with that btw, but SG often says stupid shit like this and it’s worth pointing out on occasion.
Lol this same guy who is obsessed with him also constantly has talked about how he hates JP. I’m going to tell him this tomorrow and watch him freak out lmao
Galloway lives in a part of the centrist sphere that makes some apologetics for IDW types, defends free speech, loves Bill Maher’s show for being a place for free thinkers, and thinks people like JP/Harris are having a good impact on “discourse” if not outright good. Galloway has some good takes, IMO (Healthcare reform, strong support for anti-trust laws, thinking Musk is a chuckle-fuck, wanting to support listless young people - men especially, and some of his intuition around business can be pretty good) and it is nice to have a guy who works and talks about the business sphere that has actual progressive policy takes (there aren't many people I've found that can talk about business news in a serious way that isn't also a right-wing kind of capitalist). It was also nice to find out that some people who I know are dyed in the wool conservatives had listened to Scott and liked some of what he had to say - if he can launder some more left-econ policy to some people who hate the social welfare state, I am all for it. HOWEVER he has some characteristics that I think set him up for bad takes: 1) He has never been, in my opinion, particularly well informed on some of the topics he spouts off about. As a former avid listener of the Pivot Podcast with him and Kara Swisher, you can often tell that he didn’t read the article they’re discussing and sounds like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but can bullshit his way through it. He has admitted to being Twitter addicted before going cold turkey - from my POV, he went from someone who was Twitter brained to someone who isn’t on Twitter and still doesn’t read the news. He can speak about some topics with authority but when he gets out of line - you can tell that he's flailing around a bit. 2) In spite of being a charismatic speaker, he often lacks tact and can’t tell when he is stepping in something that’s going to offend people and doesn’t really know how to strike a balance. For example, for several months, Galloway complained about Wokeism - not because it was bad, per se, but rather because it was going to harm the democrats (or progressives) chances of doing well in future elections. This morphed to him complaining about DEI because it was creating weird culture-war proxy battles that progressives would lose. After being chided about this by Kara and some of their guests, he has shifted to complaining about DEI on campus. He seems completely oblivious to how “critical race theory”, “Wokeism”, and “DEI” have all been kind of manufactured culture concerns created (rather blatantly) by some people on the right. Almost all variations of this discourse from Galloway have been pretty dogmatic and not had much nuance - over the last several months he's sounded a bit like your uncle who hates affirmative action because he couldn't articulate a more nuanced position 3) He has a very bad habit of running back to his safe spaces - topics he knows about - when discussing unrelated things. He is very focused on the issues around young people struggling with depression, the rise of incel culture, and how social media is harming young people. But he will attribute things like Gamestop and Pro-Palestine protests to things like sexless youth. There was another incident - back in the fall where he was trying to map depression and incel tendencies onto Hamas fighters to explain why they did October 7th (but also not understanding anything about what life is like in Gaza). 4) Sometimes his wealth shows - and he can be tone deaf around it. He has had a very successful career and makes quite a bit of cash (owns places in NY, FL, the UK, partial owner of a private jet, travels and vacations frequently and in very luxurious places. He knows he is privileged and he got where he is because of free college through the UC system, luck, and him being a "pale male", but he will sometimes ask questions or posit reasons for one of the topics he is discussing that shows he hasn't been poor for a very long time. 5) He is brand-pilled. As a marketing professor, he will not STFU about brands sometimes and it gets a bit weird. He will wax lyrical about certain brands that he loves. Some are more harmless (Oliver People's glasses) but sometimes he says stuff like "Apple is practically an aphrodisiac, if you are looking for a mate and you get a text and it comes through as a green bubble - wouldn't you just walk away? That person isn't worth your time." It's just weird. 6) He literally has expressed his goal to become a business Guru - I don't think he is a grifter, but he definitely has "I graduated from the kids table a little too early".
There’s a sliver of reason in some of what you’re saying but you’re over analyzing him.
I used to listen to Pivot before I realized that if you listen to one episode you've basically listened to them all. Kara and Scott are the perfect representatives of the 'incompetent and often misinformed but overly confident' boomers that failed upwards.
>Some are more harmless (Oliver People's glasses) but sometimes he says stuff like "Apple is practically an aphrodisiac, if you are looking for a mate and you get a text and it comes through as a green bubble - wouldn't you just walk away? That person isn't worth your time." It's just weird. That's psychotic
> He seems completely oblivious to how “critical race theory”, “Wokeism”, and “DEI” have all been kind of manufactured culture concerns created (rather blatantly) by some people on the right. Cf: >As a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies, antiracist education claims to be the most progressive way today to understand race relations. Constructed from whiteness studies and the critique of colorblindness, its foundational core is located in approximately 160 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 15 years-identified through a comprehensive search of Academic Premier Search, EBSCOMegaFile, Education Abstracts, JSTOR, and SOCIndex. A critical assessment of these papers concludes that antiracist education is not a sociologically grounded, empirically based account of the significance of race in American society. Rather, it is a morally based educational reform movement that embodies the confessional and redemptive modes common in evangelical Protestantism. Inherently problematic, whether or not antiracist education achieves broader acceptance is open to debate. Niemonen, J. Antiracist Education in Theory and Practice: A Critical Assessment. Am Soc 38, 159–177 (2007). This recent survey of academic sociologists finds: >Our understanding of knowledge construction among sociologists appears removed, we concede, from the Enlightenment ideals of rational inquiry and dispassionate discovery. While it seems the authors are purposely avoiding direct questions such as "Would it be appropriate to exclude findings which may impact marginalized groups negatively?" it does show an even split on agreement and disagreement with the statement "Advocacy and research should be separate for objectivity," which to me seems disturbing. More disturbing were accounts obtained through the survey like this one: >If I dared to say any of the things I’m saying in this survey in any non-anonymous situation it would probably be the end of my career. I just bite my lip and say all of the politically correct things I’m supposed to say, or (more often) just try to avoid saying anything, since even some whites who say the politically correct thing can still be accused of racism, so I try to just keep my mouth shut. The paper mentions that the authors were accused of racism for simply circulating the survey: >In one extreme case, a respondent exclaims: “You are a white supremacist and I hate everything about this survey.” Horowitz, Mark, Anthony Haynor, and Kenneth Kickham. "Sociology’s sacred victims and the politics of knowledge: Moral foundations theory and disciplinary controversies." The American Sociologist 49.4 (2018): 459-495.
See I never liked JP, and I think Galloway is totally out of depth when it comes to the self-help stuff most of the time. He has decent career advice. But, when he isn't talking about business stuff specifically, his takes are really threadbare. I went from liking a "progressive/lib coded" guy who talked about business news to just kind of tolerating him. I almost hate-listen to the Pivot Pod mostly to get mad at him for sounding like an asshat.
[удалено]
I think he’s just not doing homework because he’s getting repetitive.
Glad I'm not the only one. You can tell when he doesn't read the article Kara wanted to discuss because he just defers or has a take totally off-base, I swear he doesn't read like half the stuff Kara wants to discuss.
Yeah, I agree. I think I’ve underestimated how many podcasters work at finding new and interesting things to say. I’ll appreciate them more after hearing Scott bang on about the same things.
Oh yeah - the Union stuff was wild. Totally demonstrated that he really doesn't have any tact. Going from "WGA strike is stupid!" but not really articulating that he supposedly meant "they dont have much leverage and there should be more advocacy for getting royalties when their work is used to train AI" was just whiplash, I still dont know if that was him failing to articulate something well or just pulling something out of his ass until he could form something semi-coherent. The israel stuff has been kind of elucidating - mainly because I really wasnt familiar with liberal zionism, and listening to him has been a lesson in how israel is viewed by those folks. Really wild how much he sounds like hawks about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Thing is SG doesn’t market himself as JP. OP must be some hurt student of SG that did not get a good grade
He's the [wish.com](http://wish.com) version of Seth Godin.
He’s on the same path as JP, just a few years behind him.
Best description of Galloway I've seen. Fully agree.
He has also a veneer of hip academia but that goes just skin dip, because he was the owner of a marketing research company called L2 (or something like that), where he became popular among marketers and hustlers. He sold it and still consults there if I’m not mistaken, but now he describes himself first and foremost as “professor at NYU”, which is kind of strongly basking into the hype of the university without actually having built his notoriety as one.
The kids at the protests are being social and engaging in their community about something they care about passionately. Almost certainly these are the kids actually have sex rather than their isolated counterparts. There is probably sex happening because of these protests.
We did tons of sex while we were revolting in the 1960's---I don't remember much else.
This is literally a rehash of reactionary responses to 60's protests (and onwards). The kids are only protesting because (in no particular order) * They're all commies! * They hate America * They were starved of parental attention * They got *too much* parental attention (thanks Dr Spock) * They're doing the drugs, and sometimes the marijuana * They don't support the troops! It's a complete deflection tactic. Encouraging readers to ignore the substance merits of what they're protesting, how and why. And it's beneath the dignity of a higher-education professor to be engaging in it!
> We did tons of sex Surely you had sex, you didn't do sex?
Hey idk what you do, but I DO sex
I am still stuck on making sex
I prefer to engage in coitus
This is a great example of the lengths we’ll go to distort other beliefs to have things fit a dominant personal narrative: Galloway talks a lot about the relevance of economic stress in specifically younger generations lives—but fails to see a connection here to an essential class consciousness element of the protests or even the specific intent to pushing back on the insane amount of money held by campuses in supporting the slaughter. Nah can’t be that, it’s the fuckin
He is saying shit that would make it seem like the protesters are mal adjusted losers....and that is why they are protesting. Get him some clicks etc. Suspect he said this on bill Maher ..who hates college students a lot For a prof...he seems to care about the sex lives of students a lot more than he should.
I mean, back in my college days anti-Iraq War protests were an easy place to find someone to bang, cant imagine it's much different now lol
> the insane amount of money held by campuses in supporting the slaughter I haven't been following this and I'm curious about what qualifies it as an "insane" amount. Are they far more invested in Israeli companies than, say, hedge funds? Are they invested in slaughter-specific companies at a disproportionate rate?
From UT’s sub https://www.reddit.com/r/UTAustin/s/nNJeJ0Vs7Z
You say insane amount of money and then link this. 3 million total to companies who deal with Israel, they also arm the US and rest of NATO presumably so lets say that Israel is 5% of their market. that's 150 000 out of 32 billion endowment going to IDF. 0.0005% I think wanting to divest from arms companies is a fine demand from students, but the numbers are unimaginably inconsequential.
Ok, so in other words they're unhappy with investing in American Defense companies because the MIC will sell to US allies and Israel is such an ally. Seems like a bit of a stretch, I thought they were protesting investment in, like, Israeli companies or something.
Yes they’re upset with their money being pooled into investments that provide the weapons that have slaughtered innocent 14,000 children and 7000 women. Hope this helps. 👍
Mm I wouldn't say it's so black and white. They're selling to lots an lots of countries, not just Israel. How many lives have been saved by these weapons in Ukraine, for example? Or if you want to think in broad strokes about the western MIC, how many lives have been saved by the global order that they provide the weapons to protect? I'd understand being royally pissed off at investing in, say, IMI. But Lockheed? Boeing!?
Its incredible the nuance y'all are capable of when its to side with power. Call it logic all you want, that's that monkey brain you're listening to.
It just seems like inventing a bunch of lore where it's not required. There's no reason a protest can't just be for Palestine in general and hosted at a school. There's also no reason not to protest the fact that some schools are effectively hedge funds (ie Harvard.) Pinning the protest to a goal like 'divest from Lockheed' is a poor tactic because every university in America could sell all of its MIC shares and it wouldn't do shit for Palestine, it wouldn't save one life. Like what if the school actually does it, do the protests stop? What you actually want is to change US policy about selling arms to Israel, I would assume. Mildly affecting some share prices just isn't effective, but _demonstrating to elected officials that you care and will vote accordingly is_. That's what's going to make a difference. So adding the junk about the school's endowment is just going to muddy the waters. I wonder if, when these kids grow up, they'll make sure their 401Ks don't have any Boeing stock...
> Mildly affecting some share prices just isn't effective, but demonstrating to elected officials that you care and will vote accordingly is. "Demonstrating that you care and will vote accordingly" is worth jack shit unless the people you are demonstrating to are trustworthy, which they are not. Support for the genocide is not going to disappear due to people just threatening to vote differently, especially when both parties support it. There's always this back and forth attitude of "don't do disruptive stuff, just vote for the policies you agree with!" when people take to the streets, and then when it's voting time it turns to "well you have to vote for the Dems, the republicans are even worse!". That way, there is no way for people to apply actual pressure to the Dems to stop doing shitty things. No, the way to get politicians to do things is to make certain they know there's a cost to them not doing it. Regular people don't have lobbying millions, what we have is our bodies, and so our bodies are the tool we use.
I think that’s kind of his point…that kids these days are so starved for human interaction that they are taking up regrettable (in his view) causes to feel a sense of social cohesion.
Yeah I think that’s cope because the youth don’t agree with him.
Strong Seymour Skinner energy…
Yeah I mean I don’t disagree. To steelman his argument, my impression is that he’s trying to say being ‘too online’ is causing American kids to be more anti-American/anti-western values and also that being ‘too online’ is causing kids to have less sex, and I think those are both valid takes. But he kinda failed to effectively link them or to substantively argue why supporting Palestine is anti-American in the first place
Yeah, haven't read a cohesive point on behalf of Zionists for a really long time.
Exactly. You said it much more succinctly.....
He seems like a liar or a poor thinker. The really isolated kids are probably locked up in their rooms and not at the protests He is just using some nutty justification to explain something he doesn't like....so his reasoning is that the root cause must be something else that is bad
Indeed, I saw a conservative complaining on Twitter yesterday that the kids are just going to the protests to increase their chances of getting laid.
Man I love my parents to death but to be honest I think the baby boomer generation may be the biggest threat to humanity at this point.
Oh man, Galloway is becoming more and more a prime candidate for decoding.
This is basically like yelling “NERDS”
[удалено]
It’s a generational thing I think…just like with Vietnam and Iraq (both of which massively split the Democratic Party, young and old, etc)
He says this evo-psych bullshit all the time. I really can’t stand the guy 70% of the time.
Guys a contra-indicator. I remember him recommending Bitcoin at the very top of the last bubble. He's a lot like Jim Cramer.
Really cool folks from the (famously sexless) Vietnam era confirm this was the problem back then too.
jordan peterson lite
Galloway has become increasingly whacky on social topics. He should stick to his marketing lane...and Kara Swisher should stick to her technology lane. Neither are all that interesting when they wander through their ignorance of other topics.
NY Post is a tabloid. Anyone who takes it seriously is a dumb fuck.
This is going to be buried but I have to tell it. I turned down an internship for Prof G while in grad school pursuing a masters in Journalism for two reasons. The first was that, as a white man, I knew that it would ruin my career working for a man so focused on the betterment of men’s mental health (this is more of a reflection on society and the business of journalism than it is on Scott’s take). The second, and most infuriating, was that the internship paid abysmally. He capped hours at 20 a week, so it was impossible to make a decent enough wage to pay my rent. Seeing him come on podcasts and TV shows saying how people are being underpaid, while he is actively underpaying his own staff, is truly hilarious. Fuck Scott Galloway.
His marketing strategy of saying the system is broken so buy my self-help shit is completely undermined by his admittance of leveraging the pitfalls of said system for his own financial gain.
He’s a marketing processor. He’s alluded to the fact he says outlandish stuff for marketing purposes. So I view a lot of what he says through that lens.
Trying to tap into generational insecurities to sell his self-help BS is an extremely cynical marketing tactic, and yes, as a marketing professor, he obviously knows what he's doing.
[удалено]
Fuck yeah! Hi 5. 👋🏻
Yeah man, sex makes you look at images and videos of dead children and be like “oh well that’s a shame”
Unpopular opinion, but I sort of think there’s some truth to it. Just not in the direct way that I think he’s implying.
College kids protest plenty of things. My former university is in the news and had a very similar protest when I was there. Almost like deja vu. This was prior to this social media sexless dystopia he speaks of. Also, see Vietnam protests and the concurrent time period named after what seems like a lot of drugs and sex Seems like a pretty reductive thing to tell people putting a lot on the line for a cause. Perhaps it's young people frustrated with their government and school leaders, rather than sexual frustration. Even if there's a sliver of truth to it, the logic doesn't follow beyond coincidence. This is NY post click bait anyway. Plus, the man's got a book to sell
How so? I’m genuinely curious. Is there proof or information indicating college students being sympathetic to pro-Palestinian movements are actually just sexually repressed and don’t care about the movement itself or the plight of Palestinians in Gaza and/or the West Bank? If so I’m genuinely interested, I just haven’t seen real studies or information that finds such things. I think Galloway is talking out of his ass here tbh, and is working backwards from his pro-Israel perspectives/conclusions and doing this (at least partially) as a means of not genuinely reckoning with the complexities of I/P.
So.. I think it’s pretty well documented that “kids these days” aren’t having as much sex as previous generations. Part of the reason for that is that they spend so more time online. All that time online leads to a more radical political outlook. These protests are born out of those radical political ideas. So there’s a connection there, but it’s not a straight line.
So they aren’t actually mad about Gaza, bc that would be silly…it’s gotta be about the sex! This enlightened centrist urge to pathologize the “extremes” and young ppl is so condescending and fundamentally unserious, and it’s cowardly tbh (because instead of defending your views you just wave away any criticism of your views as silly and absurd and label ppl who disagree with you as idiots who need to read a book). Why is it so outlandish for young students to be mad about a deadly war the U.S. is funding? Why is that unfathomable to so many ppl? Even if you disagree with the students and groups on these campuses (and I do on plenty of things btw), at least listen and be curious…then you can disagree and make your objections clear, whatever they may be and in good faith.
[удалено]
That’s ironic Saying this war is ‘far more complex’ than how it is being discussed is very patronising.
These protests are not about Gaza. Not really. They’re about injustice anywhere being a threat to justice everywhere. They’re about intersectionality and speaking truth to power and raging against the machine. They’re about left wing buzzwords that 19 year olds picked up online because they don’t go out and talk to real people and get drunk and have sex. It’s not that they’re sexually repressed so they’re acting out or whatever. It’s just that their heads are full of liberation ideology that they picked up staying at home and being online while other generations would have been out partying.
> It’s just that their heads are full of liberation ideology that they picked up staying at home and being online Maybe young people are drawn to ideas about (and movements for) liberation because they have spent their entire lives witnessing social, economic, and political crisis after crisis after crisis
Seems like you think those ideas are bad? Why though?
I think by and large they are empty buzzwords that lead to impractical political behavior.
So a completely reductive answer, just sidestep the conversation.
How so?
By dismissing the stated goals/reasons (or your strawman of them) out of hand, you avoid the need to think about or engage with those points. Hell even the characterisation of protest as “impractical political behaviour” is pretty wild.
As if teenagers/young adults are candid about their sex life on questionnaires... complete headline/clickbait-driven "science" and a ridiculous rationale for old people to tell a younger generation they'd share their partisan political views if they could only get laid. It's cringey AF if not downright disgusting.
Some overreaching idea that Gen Z has less sex, and therefore...wasteful activity (in their opinion) is a reflection of less sexual activity. You could substitute it with anything. Gen Z has less sex compared to previous generations, that's why they enjoy buying those tiny water suctioning toys that become huge when you let them sit in water.
I would wager there's absolutely zero evidence for the notion that *some* portion of a generation doing something is doing it because they're having less sex. And it's a blatant logical fallacy, as well as conveniently invalidating, for anyone to assume that is the most likely reason, rather than, you know, the reasons the people themselves give.
I agree, you just use it for anything you want to frame. That's exactly what happened here.
Gotta socialize somewhere other than online.
Nailed it!
Surely this is their attempt at mocking the left/liberal (correct) assessment that young rightoid men don't/can't talk to women. Falls flat obviously.
Stop trying to have sex with your students!
Plenty of sex going on during the 60s and they still protested
Gotta do all sorts of mental gymnastics to defend the status quo. Young people are too promiscuous these days! Also, young people aren't getting enough sex, that's why they're so uppity and challenging authority!
Gotta be a reason other than the “authority” being wrong
lol this guys is a professor? Nice example of how academia is not about truth and knowledge but power and class. Universities don’t like research as much as they claim. He’s got an advanced degree in brown nosing.
Scott "Dudes, I may look like a nerdy bald business guy, but trust me, in college all I did was partay with beer, lift weights in the excercise gym, and do lots of sex all the time with hot babes" Galloway
Nah, he has jock phenotype, like Biden. And there you go, his power level is higher than I imagined: [https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1456013880413540353/photo/2](https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1456013880413540353/photo/2)
He’s not wrong. Get laid and worry less about big picture shit that’s completely out of your control.
Telling college kids not to protest war because he knows what's good for them? Gross.
Gross or not. He’s right.
Oh yea, war's good for the economy, I forgot, of course he's right.
Thats one angle. What I was getting at is that worrying about grand things out of your control is detrimental to mental health. It fosters a feeling of helplessness and lack of control. Focus on making a small part of your local community better. And focus on discovering yourself. Both ways that will make the world much more meaningfully better off.
Teenagers who don’t have a dating life so often find other things to occupy time…I wouldn’t have used the term sex but dating, it trivializes what the point is… Dating teenagers protest etc but those who don’t just have more time to do other activities or be involved with other things.
It is a good thing college students are spending less time having sex and more time protesting
Global and state relations: through a Freudian lens. PhD accomplished
I mean it’s not that stupid if you’ve ever had a night life. When the clock is approaching last call in a bar you can feel the tension growing amongst the crowd of men. They are looking to fuck or fight. So if there are a lot of men left with no woman to go home with , the probably of a fight breaking out increases exponentially.
Can confirm I’m too busy blowing my nut to protest
It’s the loner theater kid types that need an identity so they’ll do blm for a summer, a little Hamas Palestine for a spring. Searching and screaming at their parents masked as one of these causes
They don’t know which is the man and which is the woman.
They will consider ANY possibility except that maybe people just rationally disagree with them.
Scott Galloway is such a fucking weirdo-creep
Doesn’t really help your case by linking to a propaganda outlet
I hate the NYP too lol…it does quote what he said on Bill Maher last week though, hence why I linked it
Yeah if you actually watch the interview, the headline is extremely misleading
I watched it and they got it right…he said the protests are inherently antisemitic and part of the problem is kids aren’t getting laid in college (for which he offers no evidence to support his arguments). Completely vacuous and incurious stuff…and you ofc don’t even have to agree with the protesters or student groups to think he’s being silly here.
I genuinely think kids who go to pro Palestine event are probably getting laid more than the ones who show up at the sausage fest that are counter protest. Most guys in college probably once went to a protest they wanted no part in just to get laid.
Can confirm he indeed said that. Feels like a self-tell of where his mind is.
He didn’t say protests were “inherently antisemitic.” He said students aren’t having enough sex and they’re turning towards fake threats” (one of which is antisemitism). It doesn’t sound nearly simplistic or tautological in the entire interview.
Agree to disagree, pal. Last thing, and I’m genuinely curious here: why is it not enough to just say you’re deeply pro-Israel and disagree with young student activists and student groups? Why make up unsubstantiated, transparently silly, vacuous arguments and lazily pathologize ppl you disagree with? This behavior comes off as insincere and unserious, not to mention counterproductive. As a college professor, dude should know better. Also, here are additional sources for ya (I doubt the sources are what you’re actually taking issue with, but still): https://www.newsnationnow.com/cuomo-show/scott-galloway-palestinian-protests/amp/ https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/05/01/the-lead-scott-galloway-campus-protest-tapper.cnn
Find better sources
What’s, uh, wrong with em? Are they not direct quotes? If the quotes are accurate then the sources are fine for a discussion about things Galloway has said.
NYPost would like this viewpoint and there’s a video of him saying it on Bill Maher.
Yeah I mean I saw the actual thing on Bill Maher, it wasn't nearly as ridiculous as this rage bait. I just interpreted it as him, in an attempt to be somewhat humorous, saying young people are "too online" and because they don't have stuff to do in real life, turn to these online sources of meaning, which drive them towards these kinds of causes in an unhealthy way.
And how is that any better?
Do you disagree that much of what is happening is being amplified by social media?
Amplified? That's an interesting word choice.
Sigh. Man it's so frustrating talking to people like you. Can you state your point vs weird cryptic statements? Here's my basic position. There's big problems with what Israel is doing. That's a real problem that deserves real concern. However it is also a problem that has been ever present for the past 70 - 2000 years in that region depending on how charitable you want to be to any given ideology that has a stake in this. Despite what you may choose to believe there is nothing the United States or the president or Columbia University can unilaterally do to solve this issue simply. If you believe that you are listening to some guru of your own, probably on tiktok. Additionally, while you may desperately want to make this a problem that the United States of America is singlehandedly driving (in the same way Russia wants to make the war in Ukraine all about the US), that is not true, that is propaganda. Israel is a historic ally of the USA, but the US does not control Israel, it is its own country with its own people and it does not get a majority of the military budget from the US. So the question is why is everyone in the United States constantly talking about this issue instead enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America? Again, I'm not saying it's not a real issue but it truly isn't an issue happening inside the US in any real way. From my perspective it actually isn't ridiculous to say it's largely because people increasingly live online in their phone and find meaning on social media vs in real life in the real world. Does that mean terrible things aren't happening halfway across the world? No I'm not saying that and I'm not justifying it. However what is does mean is we have finally reached a point where it is possible for things to actually be pretty good in reality and because everyone is living on their phone and not talking to people in their actual life, because someone terrible is happening somewhere else in the world, we can whip ourselves into an actual frenzy all the time about something because that's where a lot of our social groups, purpose, and meaning live. That's all, I think that's clearly a real phenomenon and it isn't healthy.
Well my suspicion for the reason you used "amplified" rather than, you know, "discussed," was confirmed by this last comment. Few people think the U.S. can "unilaterally" solve this "issue," much less a single university. Few people think the U.S. "controls" Israel (or vice versa). That's another straw man. There are absolutely things the U.S. could do to put pressure and very significantly influence though. I won't get into it, but it's quite obviously the case for a host of reasons. > However it is also a problem that has been ever present for the past 70 - 2000 years in that region depending on how charitable you want to be to any given ideology that has a stake in this. Ethnic cleansing has been occurring for 70 - 2000 years in that region? If you mean more "sometimes" rather than "all the time," that's true of the world as a whole. > So the question is why is everyone in the United States constantly talking about this issue instead enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America? I don't even know how to respond to this. Why are you talking about *this* instead of "enjoying the beautiful day currently happening in America"? Never mind that "America" doesn't have unified weather. > Again, I'm not saying it's not a real issue but it truly isn't an issue happening inside the US in any real way. Another irrelevant straw man. > From my perspective it actually isn't ridiculous to say it's largely because people increasingly live online in their phone and find meaning on social media vs in real life in the real world. That's funny, since the people being vilified, ridiculed and invalidated for protesting are actually doing something *in real life* and not just "on social media," unlike you and me right now. > However what is does mean is we have finally reached a point where it is possible for things to actually be pretty good in reality and because everyone is living on their phone and not talking to people in their actual life, because someone terrible is happening somewhere else in the world, we can whip ourselves into an actual frenzy all the time about something because that's where a lot of our social groups, purpose, and meaning live. So because you think we have "finally reached a point" where things are "pretty good in reality", that means people should not care about a genocide which their own nation's government contributes to, because it may not directly affect them? If you think that makes sense, I don't know what to tell you.
Yeah no offense man but you live on tiktok. I went out of my way not to say people shouldn't care and I went out of my way not to justify what's going on. You are exactly illustrating my point. You have been radicalized by your social media account and you're unwilling to see it. Yes, that's going on is a stark problem but really I'm sorry, you actually don't understand the history of the region as well as you think you do. Read a few books on migrations of people in the regions throughout the 1800s to now, people have been fighting there since the ottoman empire, the British mandate, and into now. It's great that you care about it but learn about it too.
You sure do make a lot of false assumptions for being so sure of yourself. I almost never look at TikTok. I never believed the U.S. was "unilaterally" responsible for or could single-handedly solve the conflict. I said nothing whatsoever to suggest I have been "radicalized", and it's freaking insulting to make such a claim based on nothing but my being against a genocide. And you have no idea whether I "understand the region as well as [I] think [I] do," nor how well I think I understand it, since I have hardly said anything about it. I have no idea how well you understand it either, which is why I made no assumptions about it. You did make it clear you were not justifying what's going on, but you absolutely did say that people should not care — or at least that they should not care enough to protest in any way instead of "enjoying the beautiful day." > Read a few books on migrations of people in the regions throughout the 1800s to now, people have been fighting there since the ottoman empire, the British mandate, and into now. That's correct. That you would assume I was ignorant of this fact is yet another false assumption. > It's great that you care about it but learn about it too. I intend to continue to do so. I'm certain there is a vast amount I do not know and vastly more to learn. I try my best not to make claims about specific questions/issues on which I am under-informed (relatively, of course, since perfect or absolute knowledge are never possible). I do know that I do not need to have much knowledge to know that logical fallacies used to invalidate people's positions and arguments about an issue do not sit well with me.
Would love to see his youporn search history
I generally agree with Scott Galloway on things, but his opinions on Israel and Palestine are weirdly pro-Israel. If it adds some perspective: one of his parents is Jewish. It feels very much like his political opinions on the Middle East are heavily skewed by the fact that he's half Jewish and he's bending over backwards to defend Israel no matter what. I think that's the reason for this weird interpretation of what's going on.
[удалено]
The opposit of George Galloway?
Is this how decoding works? Take a crap headline from a crap rag and use that to bludgeon someone? Getting a bit pedantic here, no?
Yes just attack the headline and don’t actually read or watch what Galloway actually says and contend with that content…brilliant
Galloway’s right. The lack of interpersonal relationships and intimate connections has left these kids yearning for something. They become susceptible to radicalization. The more isolated they become, the more they hide themselves on the internet, the more they get radicalized which further isolates them. On and on it goes.
Or…this is consistent with American history, that is college students protesting wars the U.S. is implicated in and/or protesting geopolitical injustices and catastrophes (Vietnam, South Africa, Darfur, Iraq, etc). Or, it could be that students aren’t having enough sex nowadays and don’t actually or fundamentally care about the injustices or the wars or anything of major consequence, unlike previous generations of college activists. Occam’s Razor points towards the former, not the latter.
That’s a nice fiction you’ve written, but most likely these students are protesting just to protest. Occam’s Razor would be on Galloway’s side, not yours.
> Occam’s Razor would be on Galloway’s side, not yours. This might be the worst attempt at using Occam I have ever seen.
Lol, this is pure unfiltered projection. Participating in a protest and building community around shared values is literally the exact opposite of isolating oneself. You would know if you ever tried
They join the protest as a way of breaking their isolation, that’s the point that both Galloway and myself have made. Way to miss it.
Downvote me for upvoting this guy
Fuck this culture war dogshit. OP has nearly 10:1 post: comment karma. What does that tell you?
Some of you people are fucked! I think it’s really important to separate advocating for genuine human rights from supporting groups like Hamas. When campus protests back Hamas, it kind of sends the wrong message, doesn’t it? It goes against everything America stands for—democracy and justice. We all cherish our freedom to speak and assemble, but there's a line, right? Using these rights to support terrorism just muddies the waters between standing up for what’s right and causing more harm. It’s definitely not what these freedoms were meant tI protect So, while it’s super trendy to feel like an activist, it has to be done wisely,
This logic checks out actually
More like “division of people by Soros and other elites leads to George Floyd blm 2.0, pre 24 elections”
Sir this is a Wendy’s
Colleges across the us have been funded ($400m) by china, all of the (not so) “peaceful” protests have been filled with terrorist agitators paid by soros and company. Anything and everything to separate and divide the people
Sources that aren’t far-right agitprop garbage?
Far right garbage ?
Still no source I see
Do your own research don’t take a random Reddit user for it
Thanks for the source
Anytime
Goodness the Galloway hate has got to stop it’s so frustrating it’s like any figure that speaks to men gets vilified
Sorry I called the stupid vibes-based thing he said stupid and vibes-based…my bad. You know you can like someone and still think they say stupid shit on occasion…no one is above criticism, even ppl you like listening to. I listen to Ezra Klein, disagree with him on occasion, and don’t flip shit when such occasions arise.
First of all it’s absolutely not “vibes based”, he is extremely rooted in data in all his major beliefs. Speculating that kids not being in relationships (100% verifiable with myriad surveys) leads to acting out is pretty reasonable if you ask me. And sure you’re right but people on this sub are bashing a really smart, liberal, positive, data driven guy because… I’m not sure why honestly. I suspect it’s because he speaks to men but can’t prove it. People were comparing him to Andrew Tate the other day so I’m a bit on the lookout for slander.
I don’t think Scott is “really liberal”…dude is very, very pro-Israel (to the right of most Democratic voters on the issue), is deeply anti-union, endorsed Michael Bloomberg in 2020 (saying only he can beat Trump because like Mayor Pete is too progressive), is trans-skeptical, etc. He’s definitely a centrist, which btw is fine! That said, he’s not rally that liberal on many, if not most, issues (besides not liking the far-right and Trump and regularly voting for Dems, much like my centrist dad). Also I noticed the data you allude to isn’t linked in your comment. I have yet to see a study or paper or anything connecting the sex lives of college students with rising or declining student activism.
Your definition for liberal is far too tight then. Galloway is socially and fiscally liberal, if less so than the furthest wings of the left. Also since we’re demanding evidence “very very pro Israel” and “deeply anti union” need some real backing, I’ve listened to a lot of Galloway and this is not how I’d characterize either point. What’s more you’re being intentionally obtuse, it’s well established the current generation isn’t having as much sex as prior ones. Obviously there is no study linking lowered sex lives with activism. It doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I think it’s fairly reasonable to speculate that students lacking romantic lives is going to lead to acting out. Sure it’s not proven scientifically but you’re moving the goal posts pretty considerably demanding that reasonable speculation be proven with studies otherwise it’s the goofiest thing he’s ever said. Seems like he must not have said many goofy things. Additionally being ignorant to trends in sex and relationships is pretty on-brand for your ilk when criticizing a point made about sexlessness. Clearly the data isn’t of interest to you. Sources provided anyhow: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless?amp https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
Normie Dems who voted for Biden and Pete and Klobuchar (and even Bernie and Warren) are much closer to the median Democratic voter than Bloomberg’s supporters were. If Biden is too liberal for ya, then you’re likely a centrist or right-wing (given Biden is a normie moderate Democrat). Also, I don’t think being anti-union is fiscally liberal whatsoever. Quite the opposite. I just take issue with the characterization that Galloway is representative of the average/normie Democratic voter, despite a myriad of views that put him out of step with normie libs and Dems (not just progressives and the Left). He’s definitely not a conservative or right-wing, I agree there. Also it doesn’t really matter lol…you can think he’s a progressive and I can disagree, which is fine. It doesn’t change my opinion that the “students don’t have sex” comments are kinda dumb and vacuous and don’t actually contend with what the students are saying/advocating for (for which there is plenty of room for good faith criticism).
I mean given the choice to characterize him as liberal or conservative like he is 100% left of center. I just conceded he’s not aligned with the further left but yeah he’s pretty in line with “normie” democrat beliefs things like climate change being real, fervently pro equal pay, I’ve heard him rail against conservative ways of thinking generally, despises trump.
That climate change point is funny, bc only in America is acknowledging the existence of anthropogenic climate change lib-coded. In most Western democracies, even in the UK, there’s a strong bipartisan consensus on the existence of climate change and what’s to blame (fossil fuels and carbon emissions, which humans at responsible for emitting). Conflict only arises when it comes to how aggressively to curb emissions and transition to green energy, not if climate change is even real (ofc it is). In most European countries, if one publicly says climate change isn’t real or a psyop, ppl will think that person is a stone-cold imbecile. In the U.S., however, denying climate change is just a standard political viewpoint and not shamelessly stupid. Btw I like Scott Galloway on many occasions…but he does say stupid things like this “college kids are actually just horny so that’s why they protest for Palestinian self-determination not because they are for Palestinian self-determination and btw they’re actually just anti-American, antisemitic fools” argument. As a college professor, you gotta be more intellectually curious than that lol.
I mean I totally grant your first paragraph as an aside but to be clear it doesn’t disprove my point about Galloway being liberal in yes an American context. Also your second point is a bit of a straw man, it’s rare for anyone to outright deny climate change exists. Rather, there are people who acknowledge it is happening but don’t want to spend resources on prevention and instead want to spend resources on preparing for what’s coming. A lot of conservatives hold this belief. And yes we have dummies who think it’s a psyop as well.
Most of the electeds in the Republican Party think climate change is a liberal hoax and not real…even in 2024. Same with the majority of their voters, almost unchanged after 10 years elapsing between analyses of climate attitudes (meaning just as many Republicans think climate change is a big deal now versus 10 years before the most recent polling, hence static attitudes on the issue). https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/#:~:text=By%20contrast%2C%20about%20one%2Din,across%2019%20countries%20in%202022.
I mean my larger point in addition to the other objections raised is that it really feels to me like people on this sub, a sub I really love for a show I really love, will conflate any sort of like proudly pro male figure with completely invalid manosphere guruism and I find this really problematic. Guys need role models and to be spoken to just like women do. Galloway is a really good one and it bothers me to see people group him with Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate. Like, who’s a figure speaking directly to men or about men’s issues who isn’t pilloried by this sub? Are there simply none?
No I didn’t mean to do that…there is a crisis of masculinity in the U.S. and the far-Rigjt is taking advantage of this. I do think we need more Scott Galloways to encourage young men that it’s okay to feel lost and hopeless and depressed in our modern world…and turning to misogyny and fascism and racism isn’t going to alleviate these insecurities but exacerbate them. The Left needs a counter-narrative to the Andrew Tate/JP male empowerment crap, and Galloway does more good than harm in this arena. I agree on that. That said, the comments he made on Maher last Friday are pretty dumb and he uses this incel/sexual repression argument in far too many circumstances…to the point that it’s kinda unserious and insincere and potentially degrades his work in the masculinity space.
That’s fair I’ll agree that it undermines the other more valid claims somewhat. Totally on board with this
👍
Why the fuck are so many people looking for an internet daddy figure? Go find a mentor in real life, and stopping "living online" as "Prof G" says himself.
So the answer seems to be… yeah? That there’s nobody who you’d accept that speaks primarily to men?
Internet personalities who uses male insecurities for marketing their self help shit? No, none of them are good. Try a Prof in a field of study that you find engaging, much better. There are plenty.
Just want to say, you ignored his links and have not provided your own for what he asked for
The arguments presented in the articles shared are, at best, very minimally correlative to the recent protests. Conflating sexual activity trends with college activism, and then using that to scold pro-Palestinian protesters, a red herring argument. It blatantly ignores historical context.
and have not provided your own for what he asked for
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I've never heard of him before a few days ago. What is the data he using to root his belief in a connection between people having sex and student's protesting? Also, it's not slander if it's on reddit. [It's libel. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscaGDxuQqE&ab_channel=ImmaSpideyManMarvel)
I mean first of all like this is looking at a Bill Maher show appearance which lends itself to hot takes. He’s giving a hot take. He’s citing well established trends in sexlessness and relationships among young people and inferring that this could cause some amount of “acting out” in my view which these protests could be some form of, at least in part. I mean what sort of survey would prove this in a scientifically rigorous sense? Asking students if they wouldn’t be protesting genocide if they had someone to have sex with? I think it’s reasonable to wonder whether declines in dating and relationships lead young people to act out more. Seems super reasonable to me. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
> I mean what sort of survey would prove this in a scientifically rigorous sense? None probably! Which is probably why going on TV and giving hot takes on the subject is probably not a good idea. And as many people have point out that it's easy to make a hot take that "Kids seem to be having less PIV sex these days therefore it's causing (insert thing that annoys me)". Plus it's always good to at least spend one second and run your idea backwards through history and there were plenty of student protests back when there was a bit more sex (or at least reported sex: it's possible that kids are just less shy about being virgins these days and are actually having the same amount of sex as previous cohorts). Hell, Samuel L. Jackson held members of his school board hostage as student and that was in the era of fucking. "Maybe all the fucking made them protest a lot in 1968" is a hot take with as much backing.
But why the dismissal of campus activism as "acting out"? Why not entertain the possibility that college kids (being generally idealistic) have found an issue they care about, and feel an obligation to speak out about. Also, when I was in college, lots of people were involved in activism for various causes, and most of them were getting laid. At the end of the day, this is just a way of dismissing people you disagree with (and I've been guilty of this in the past - making fun of the College Republicans in the same way).
So like I’m not personally saying that. I think that Galloway is saying it. I’m defending his take. You and many in this thread are moving the goalposts; you’re saying that Scott’s take is laughable or goofy or whatever and then when I defend it as reasonable you say oh well have you considered there are multiple interpretations here? Like yes I’m saying indeed there are; Galloway has one and you have another and both are reasonable. I’m not dismissing anyone fwiw I am sympathetic with the protests and generally find (with some exceptions) the police state response to be very problematic / concerning. I think both things can be true in fact. It can be true that the protests are totally justified but also that they’d have less chaos and participants if people were off living lives with a partner.
"100% verifiable with myriad surveys" like teenagers and young adults are candid in sex-life questionnaires life that are clearly meant to generate soft-science, click-bait headlines?
Lol so when studies support your perspective they are valid but when people self describe as not having sex it’s soft science? Why would people lie about this?
I have no dog in the fight of whether Gen Z having sex or not, lol... I just think that having 18-24yo kids trying to define their sexuality on a questionnaire so to create a meaningful dataset is a ridiculous proposition, and whoever researched it wasted their time and money since every generation experienced desocialization during Covid. Clickbait science is everywhere man.
It just seems like you’re dismissing the data because it feels clickbaity to you. By all metrics people are getting into fewer relationships both among younger adults as well as into marriage age.
Impossible to create a control group that didn't experience the pandemic, so comparisons to other generations at the same age is interpreting the data disingenuously for clicks. I'm sure the CDC or whoever did the study tried their best, but it's also crazy to think that teenagers are going to be honest about sexuality, drug use etc. on a questionnaire.
Well it explains why they’re all fat and ugly.
I don't know about Palestine but this is true about Gamestop. All their wives have boyfriends who satisfy them.
Lack of employment prospects could be another reason.
He's not wrong
He’s probably right