>>780336Personalities
are material conditions, or at the least are formed by underlying material conditions. If I simplify, it is because the details aren't as relevant as the thrust of the argument.
You overestimate loud but irrelevant factors and underestimate boring ones. SJWs had less than nothing to do with Trump winning in 2016 (He did terribly with young people! The clinton campaign actively helped him get the nomination! Brexit shows that some other underlying cultural force
polarization of voting by age and education was at play, since nobody cares about the social justice implications of a trade bloc!) and very little to do with him winning in 2024*
For all the hype on "Kamala's for they/them", the actual determining factor was overwhelmingly the economy being bad, the same reason almost every incumbent government outside Canada has eaten shit in the last 5 years. "Vote for me and I'll bring back the economy circa 2019" isn't a bad pitch!
(this economic explanation for voting behavior doesn't clash with "politics is about personality" either: a lot of personalities are "apolitical"/swing voters, and don't neatly fit into the leftist/rightist archetypes of the SJW/Nazi dichotomy. What the dichotomy explains is why rightoids in every country love Trump despite him being a lecherous foreigner.)
*I think they were a factor in
business leaders going over to backing Trump, but this speaks to the desirability of SJWism/wokeness as a phenomenon: it was a genuine-bottom up set of demands from workers which firms first tried to buy off with token concessions (not a corporate conjuring trick to distract from class war), then flipped over to endorsing reaction when that failed and when all the various disparate identity struggles realized that since they all felt broadly the same way, there must be something wider at work… like capitalism.
Manhating is its own separate thing. I'll tell you a weird trick, but I doubt it helps: recognize when you aren't being talked about. When someone says "kill all men" because a certain man annoyed them, it's very unlikely they're thinking of you, odds are they've no idea you exist and i all but guarantee they've got no ability to impose harm on you, so why feel it has anything to do with you?
This phenomenon is at its clearest when white people attack "white people." It's because "white people" isn't a meaningful referent in what they say, it's a filler, a joke, a signal to annoy a certain kind of insecure white person, or a face-saving way to attack a group in general. (white transwomen love to say bad things about "white transwomen" because it'd look bad to just say them about transwomen)
It takes a certain lack of self respect to invest in a group identity as generic as "being a man" and it signals a certain lack of other desirable traits to openly complain about it. You don't have to agree with whoever's saying it, you can always avoid them or ignore them.
Besides: insofar as there are still people like that, they're behind the curve on what's cool nowadays. The ones who haven't caught up are losers, and who cares about losers?
There's an underlying essay about all the nuances of social status in the modern world and how the real point of this sort of thing is to filter out low status men, but this post is too long already.