Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[ray245]

The vote clearly shows that Corbyn's dithering, noncommital, pathetic have-it-both-ways stance on Brexit succeeded in alienating both remain and leave voters:

but losing remain voters to the liberals was only one third as damaging (half as damaging per vote and smaller swing) as losing leave voters to the direct competition, even without considering the possibility of a coalition government; and they probably would've been easier to regain in the next election. Idiocy, although probably for the best given the manifesto this time around. It will be interesting to see where they go from here, as a resurgence of New Labour will only address the votes lost (mostly to remainers) in wealthier southern areas, it won't do anything to help (and may actually hinder) trying to get their old northern / working class base back.

It does depend heavily on how the Tories managed Brexit. If they are not good at limiting the economic downside that arose from Brexit, and the full ramifications of Brexit is felt by the Northern working class,

[His Divine Shadow]

Also lol at the idea of new labour making a comeback, they lost control of the party and can't get it back, the membership will vote on the next leader. Corbyn made sure the blairites could not take the party back after he was gone. And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

[ray245]

Also lol at the idea of new labour making a comeback, they lost control of the party and can't get it back, the membership will vote on the next leader. Corbyn made sure the blairites could not take the party back after he was gone. And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

So what kind of approach will Labour take? They've tried New Labour, they tried socialism. Both approach are soundly rejected by the voters.

It does say something about remainers, they're the traveling kind, who pick up and move easily, wearing a country like a coat. Not like the working brexit classes who might live in the same aera for generations and for whom moving isn't even possible a lot of the time.

While that might be true, it is not as easy to move as one might think. People might say they want to move abroad, but even convincing Londoners to move out of London is a hard enough task as it is.

He's just another stripe of xenophobic isolationist, when you get down to it. The Lib Dems are the only party that would hold much appeal to me, were I a UK voter. A pity they weren't even in the running.

The reason why people didn't want to vote for the Lib Dems is also partly to do with tactical voting.

[His Divine Shadow]

So what kind of approach will Labour take? They've tried New Labour, they tried socialism. Both approach are soundly rejected by the voters.

They will continue on because socialism is the right path to take, the only path left because capitalism is failing. Labour is a left party for leftist politics. It either wins on the right values or it doesn't.

And I disagree that socialism was soundly rejected. But even if it was that only means the battle has to keep going on. If you want someone who triangulates without any conviction of their own, the lib dems are right there.

p.s.
Still I am pessimistic, because the uk media is so solidly tory owned and has such a strangle hold on the terms of the debate, it doesn't matter it seems, the Tories could literally have concentration camps going on and it would be labour who were the antisemitic ones. The only glimmer of hope is that of demographic change and that the boomers are fading with every election and the younger generations are not as easily trapped by the MSM.

[ray245]

They will continue on because socialism is the right path to take, the only path left because capitalism is failing. Labour is a left party for leftist politics. It either wins on the right values or it doesn't.

A political platform that doesn't win election is as good as no platform.

And I disagree that socialism was soundly rejected. But even if it was that only means the battle has to keep going on. If you want someone who triangulates without any conviction of their own, the lib dems are right there.

And how long is it going to take? If it takes another 20 years to successfully sell socialism, that's far too late.

p.s.
Still I am pessimistic, because the uk media is so solidly tory owned and has such a strangle hold on the terms of the debate, it doesn't matter it seems, the Tories could literally have concentration camps going on and it would be labour who were the antisemitic ones. The only glimmer of hope is that of demographic change and that the boomers are fading with every election and the younger generations are not as easily trapped by the MSM.
[/quote]

The UK population as a whole are still sceptical about socialism, even in the former industrial North. While the younger generation by and large support Labour, that is not universal. We do see many younger working class Brits that did switch over to supporting Boris Johnson.

[His Divine Shadow]

A political platform that doesn't win election is as good as no platform.

And one that wins but keeps on the same way is worse than useless and exactly what we've had already and it leads to this, to brexit to populism to fascism and neonationalism. There is no alternative that I know of can win, socialism (or social democracy in this case) came a lot close than centrism.

And how long is it going to take? If it takes another 20 years to successfully sell socialism, that's far too late.

Give your alternative then, that would actually be worth having because so far the only thing that wins votes is seemingly conservativsm. Centrism gets less votes than socialism.

The UK population as a whole are still sceptical about socialism, even in the former industrial North. While the younger generation by and large support Labour, that is not universal. We do see many younger working class Brits that did switch over to supporting Boris Johnson.

And I say that was at least partially over not respecting their wishes over brexit. And now brexit is in the conservatives hands.

[ray245]

And one that wins but keeps on the same way is worse than useless and exactly what we've had already and it leads to this, to brexit to populism to fascism and neonationalism. There is no alternative that I know of can win, socialism (or social democracy in this case) came a lot close than centrism.

It came close but was utterly destroyed in this election. Five years of complete Tory government will wreck more damage than the alternative.

Give your alternative then, that would actually be worth having because so far the only thing that wins votes is seemingly conservativsm. Centrism gets less votes than socialism.

I think the SNP would have done really well in the UK if they were not merely a national party in Scotland.

And I say that was at least partially over not respecting their wishes over brexit. And now brexit is in the conservatives hands.

A labour government that presides over Brexit will get slaughtered in the subsequent elections once the negative effects are felt by the voters and the Tories began their campaign to slander Labour by saying the effects is due to Labour messing up Brexit as opposed to Brexit itself.

[Eternal_Freedom]

On a lighter note, I think some of the Labour activists in Cardiff set there alarms a little late...and aren't too bright anyway. I was walking through town today and saw a buch of them standing around a table with Labour stickers on it and a banner saying "Get the Tories Out."

I can't help but think that a) they're a couple days late and b) they're barking up the wrong damn tree. Cardiff (and most of South Wales in fact) solidly voted Labour. So I don't think you're going to get much more support than you already had mates.

[Coop D'etat]

Also lol at the idea of new labour making a comeback, they lost control of the party and can't get it back, the membership will vote on the next leader. Corbyn made sure the blairites could not take the party back after he was gone. And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Corbyn's wing of the party has lost every election they've lead the Labour party going back decades. The only thing that has stopped Tory rule in the UK since the 70s has been the Blairties you despise.

Meanwhile, the party of Corbyn has been progressively losing ground with the working class.

I think you've very much fallen afoul of the prototypical pundit's fallacy, namely that the way to political success is for a party to champion your personal political preferences.

[Zaune]

On a lighter note, I think some of the Labour activists in Cardiff set there alarms a little late...and aren't too bright anyway. I was walking through town today and saw a buch of them standing around a table with Labour stickers on it and a banner saying "Get the Tories Out."

I can't help but think that a) they're a couple days late and b) they're barking up the wrong damn tree. Cardiff (and most of South Wales in fact) solidly voted Labour. So I don't think you're going to get much more support than you already had mates.

Depends which Tories they meant and how they were planning to do it, really.

[His Divine Shadow]

Also lol at the idea of new labour making a comeback, they lost control of the party and can't get it back, the membership will vote on the next leader. Corbyn made sure the blairites could not take the party back after he was gone. And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Corbyn's wing of the party has lost every election they've lead the Labour party going back decades. The only thing that has stopped Tory rule in the UK since the 70s has been the Blairties you despise.

Meanwhile, the party of Corbyn has been progressively losing ground with the working class.

I think you've very much fallen afoul of the prototypical pundit's fallacy, namely that the way to political success is for a party to champion your personal political preferences.

But you forget the neoliberals have lost the previous elections as well and we could see in this election the neoliberal alternatives failed a lot harder. The ones that have come closest since Blair was Corbyn, he was the only one to come close.

[His Divine Shadow]

It came close but was utterly destroyed in this election. Five years of complete Tory government will wreck more damage than the alternative.

The alternative created todays situation. They helped move the overton window right and created the growing ground for right wing populism to fester. So no they would not be less damaging, they would keep on making the situation better for right wingers. We see the same all over the western world now, the old center parties are going the way of the dinosaur. Labour in england has done a lot better than the equivalent parties in other countries. The politics of tomorrow are not centrist. That era went with Blair and a new Blair will not and cannot win.

I think the SNP would have done really well in the UK if they were not merely a national party in Scotland.

I don't, liberal democrats and cuktigs espoused those. And scottish labour was actually still the kind of neoliberal you desire.

A labour government that presides over Brexit will get slaughtered in the subsequent elections once the negative effects are felt by the voters and the Tories began their campaign to slander Labour by saying the effects is due to Labour messing up Brexit as opposed to Brexit itself.

That would be true even if the labour government were blairites.

[Tribble]

Centrism is a dying concept and has been for quite some time now. When you have a large segment of the population (primarily though not exclusively on the far right) who views everyone who is not 100% committed to their cause as the enemy and whom are willing to do whatever it takes to win the war against their opponents (up into and including treason) trying to find common ground simply won’t work.

IIRC the pre-election polls on Brexit for the Tories were rather telling - the majority were fine with Brexit leading to severe economic damage and a breakup of the country... so long as it was done under a conservative. If it meant Corbin being PM, the same people who would happily see a breakup of the country overwhelmingly opposed Brexit.

[His Divine Shadow]

I noted that proportionally, Labour got the almost the same percentage of the vote as they did in 2005. But due to the intricacies of the FPTP system, labour got almost a hundred seats less this time. Ridiculous really. And I remember that was one of those Blair promised to fix, if only he'd kept that promise.

[Tribble]

I noted that proportionally, Labour got the almost the same percentage of the vote as they did in 2005. But due to the intricacies of the FPTP system, labour got almost a hundred seats less this time. Ridiculous really. And I remember that was one of those Blair promised to fix, if only he'd kept that promise.

I’m not convinced proportional voting leads to better outcomes though - in the UK election the Brexit Party failed to win a single seat, but were it a proportional vote they could have ended up being the king-makers.

The downside of proportional voting is that it is generally easier for extremist parties which would fail under FPTP to establish themselves.

I’m more partial to ranked ballots tbh, though I’ll stop here as I’ve de-railed the thread enough

[Coop D'etat]

Also lol at the idea of new labour making a comeback, they lost control of the party and can't get it back, the membership will vote on the next leader. Corbyn made sure the blairites could not take the party back after he was gone. And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Corbyn's wing of the party has lost every election they've lead the Labour party going back decades. The only thing that has stopped Tory rule in the UK since the 70s has been the Blairties you despise.

Meanwhile, the party of Corbyn has been progressively losing ground with the working class.

I think you've very much fallen afoul of the prototypical pundit's fallacy, namely that the way to political success is for a party to champion your personal political preferences.

But you forget the neoliberals have lost the previous elections as well and we could see in this election the neoliberal alternatives failed a lot harder. The ones that have come closest since Blair was Corbyn, he was the only one to come close.

Comparing the vote totals of major and minor parties in a Westminister style system is a poor method of analysis. The major party has a lot more inbuilt loyalty as well as benefits the most for bandwagoning against the other side. This is why the benchmark for success for a major party is always winning the election, while third parties are judged on how well they did compared to expectations.

That Labour is seeing its vote defect to third parties in droves is pretty significant in of itself in showing that Corbyn's approach is not all that its cracked up to be.

Likewise, comparing electoral results against a relatively new Tory government compared to one that's been in power for 10 years, the length of time at which the electorate is usually looking to shift the status quo rather than maintain it isn't exactly fair comparisons.


Ultimately its really difficult to say whether one political approach is stronger than the other. Sample sizes are small and each election is different. But the degree to which you insist your preferences are the way to success smacks of motivated reasoning. Success in general is more likely to come from having a leader people like and policies they'll vote for. By the metrics of success, neither Corbyn nor Millibrand were very good. If you're looking for success though, it probably comes in the form of someone like Blair in the most general sense, a popular guy with popular policies.

To get to that point though, Labour should do some serious reckoning with how much of a failure Corbyn was and try to fix the decision making process that kept thinking that he was the horse to back.

[His Divine Shadow]

I believe I said I would back my preferences even if they where not the way to success, because otherwise what is the point? Voting in someone like blair is not better, everything moves to the right and the center gets realigned rightwards, that's a disaster and not a win. Not that I agree with your analysis, the centrists had a friendly media from the start and all the advantages offered them and still failed miserably in every way. You could try and run a new blair, but I am convinced you'd loser harder than ever before, because it keeps happening everywhere else.

But it's irrelevant. Voting in someone like Blair is not going to happen and you know it, his time and his type of politics are gone. Corbyn is also gone, but the membership will elect a new leader, but new labour will not return. They are done for and were done in back in 2008 even if it took a while for them to die. But if you want a Blair you need to join the labour party, you and others like you, and vote one in.

[Starglider]

Blair's landslide success at the polls was due to his campaign's ability to appeal to middle-class voters, while still keeping nearly all the traditional Labour base on board. That was not unprecedented; Harold Wilson also managed 'center-left' appeal via deprioritising nationalisation and various other paleosocialist policies. Both of them displayed a talent for suppressing internal party divisions (in Wilson's case, including the joining the EU's predecessor).

The problem Labour now have is the exact opposite; how to regain traditional voters without dropping too many young/educated/middle-class voters. If I had to guess I would say some strain of Chavez-style sociopopularism would be needed, with the preqrequisite anti-intellectualism carefully dosed and delivered to avoid riling up the media elites too much.

[ray245]

I believe I said I would back my preferences even if they where not the way to success, because otherwise what is the point? Voting in someone like blair is not better, everything moves to the right and the center gets realigned rightwards, that's a disaster and not a win. Not that I agree with your analysis, the centrists had a friendly media from the start and all the advantages offered them and still failed miserably in every way. You could try and run a new blair, but I am convinced you'd loser harder than ever before, because it keeps happening everywhere else.

But it's irrelevant. Voting in someone like Blair is not going to happen and you know it, his time and his type of politics are gone. Corbyn is also gone, but the membership will elect a new leader, but new labour will not return. They are done for and were done in back in 2008 even if it took a while for them to die. But if you want a Blair you need to join the labour party, you and others like you, and vote one in.

If society itself is not prepared to accept a left-wing government, you can campaign as hard as you would like and it will still be soundly rejected again and again. When you have the former Northern Labour constituencies hating/fearing Corbyn to the extend that they will risk getting shafted over by the Tories, the country as a whole is not prepared to accept the kind of Left-Wing policies pushed by the socialists of Labour.

If the only aim of the Labour party is to become an opposition party as opposed to the ruling party, they can remain on the left as long as they want. But if they want to govern, then they need to accept the idea that the country as a whole is not prepared to accept the kind of left-wing government that they will form.

The media have a role to play in shaping the mindset of the electorate, but the electorate have their own views at what kind of government they are prepared to accept.

Blair's landslide success at the polls was due to his campaign's ability to appeal to middle-class voters, while still keeping nearly all the traditional Labour base on board. That was not unprecedented; Harold Wilson also managed 'center-left' appeal via deprioritising nationalisation and various other paleosocialist policies. Both of them displayed a talent for suppressing internal party divisions (in Wilson's case, including the joining the EU's predecessor).

The problem Labour now have is the exact opposite; how to regain traditional voters without dropping too many young/educated/middle-class voters. If I had to guess I would say some strain of Chavez-style sociopopularism would be needed, with the preqrequisite anti-intellectualism carefully dosed and delivered to avoid riling up the media elites too much.

Or an entirely new coalition will emerge, with a radical reshaping of political base much like what happened to the Democrats and Republicans in the 1960s. Boris' Northern strategy mirrors Nixon's Southern strategy in a way. The Tories will now base their support on the more well-off and the northern working class, while Labour might end up seeking more support from the Southern middle-class.

[Nicholas]

Or an entirely new coalition will emerge, with a radical reshaping of political base much like what happened to the Democrats and Republicans in the 1960s. Boris' Northern strategy mirrors Nixon's Southern strategy in a way. The Tories will now base their support on the more well-off and the northern working class, while Labour might end up seeking more support from the Southern middle-class.

My perception is that the emerging electoral coalitions are the same in both the US and England. The right is being backed by voters who are working class and/or rural while the left is being backed by voters who are professional class and/or urban. Obviously urban and rural mean something different in the US then they do in England. The new allegiances are driven by cultural and social issues which the voters consider more important then economics but I expect that the economic positions of the parties will evolve over the next five to ten years to reflect the interest of their voters.

Nicholas

[ray245]

Or an entirely new coalition will emerge, with a radical reshaping of political base much like what happened to the Democrats and Republicans in the 1960s. Boris' Northern strategy mirrors Nixon's Southern strategy in a way. The Tories will now base their support on the more well-off and the northern working class, while Labour might end up seeking more support from the Southern middle-class.

My perception is that the emerging electoral coalitions are the same in both the US and England. The right is being backed by voters who are working class and/or rural while the left is being backed by voters who are professional class and/or urban. Obviously urban and rural mean something different in the US then they do in England. The new allegiances are driven by cultural and social issues which the voters consider more important then economics but I expect that the economic positions of the parties will evolve over the next five to ten years to reflect the interest of their voters.

Nicholas

I agree. There has been a recent shift in trend between those that sought a greater sense of local identity vs those who are more willing to embrace internationalist identity.

The traditional economic left-right divide is shifting into an issue of socio-cultural identity across traditional political spectrum.

[The Romulan Republic]

And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Okay.

I'm not familiar with the term "CUKTIG", and even Google didn't help me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if its a derivative of "cuck", then its a racial and misogynist slur, and you should be ashamed for using it.

And while I actually share your support for socialism (specifically democratic socialism, not communist revolt or dictatorship), support for xenophobia and isolationism on the scale of Brexit are red lines for me, and positions which I regard as fundamentally incompatible with true socialism (since socialism must ultimately be democratic in order to actually abolish class and place the means of production in the hands of the people, and even partial isolation in the modern world cannot be maintained without authoritarian means and bigoted views that are incompatible with democracy). That is why I will not support or defend Corbyn any longer, especially now that he has shown that he can't actually deliver the goods.

Keep supporting socialism, by all means. But I'd advise you to find a new champion. Socialism is bigger than Jeremy Corbyn. Tying yourself to that sinking ship no matter what does not help the cause at this point. Its just Cult of the Leaderism.

[loomer]

And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Okay.

I'm not familiar with the term "CUKTIG", and even Google didn't help me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if its a derivative of "cuck", then its a racial and misogynist slur, and you should be ashamed for using it.

Change UK The Indepedent Group. Five seconds, dude. Also, lol - cuck is not a racial and misogynist slur. It's a weird thing for people to be throwing around but not a racial slur.

[His Divine Shadow]

CUKTIG is the acronym of Change UK The Independent Group, the centrist breakaways that left the Labour party for going too far left and promoted blair style politics.

But I can see it's pointless I write anything more since I've pointed out repeatedly I've not "tied" anything to Corbyn and that he is a goner, I've not advocated for his remaining in place a single time yet. What I write apparently has no relation to what is read so I will not bother anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

And we can look at the lib dems and the CUKTIGs to see what kind of appeal that kind of politics has...

Okay.

I'm not familiar with the term "CUKTIG", and even Google didn't help me, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if its a derivative of "cuck", then its a racial and misogynist slur, and you should be ashamed for using it.

Change UK The Indepedent Group. Five seconds, dude. Also, lol - cuck is not a racial and misogynist slur. It's a weird thing for people to be throwing around but not a racial slur.

Okay, not familiar with the acronym but I'll take your word for it.

But while its tangential to the rest of this discussion, I will call out the claim that "cuck" is not a racist and misogynist term:

When I Google "cuck definition", I get this:

cuck
/kək/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
INFORMAL•US
a weak or servile man (often used as a contemptuous term for a man with moderate or progressive political views).
2.
a man whose wife is sexually unfaithful; a cuckold.

So, insinuating that one is "weak" and "servile", ie "not a real man" if one fails to control women.

But to break it down in a bit more detail:

https://gq.com/story/why-angry-white-me ... ople-cucks

August 1, 2016
Why Angry White Men Love Calling People Cucks
Illustration by GQ/Getty
If you’ve been on Twitter in the last few months, chances are you’ve come across “cuck,” a word that you’d previously only seen while your browser was in Incognito Mode.

Its literal meaning references a submissive man sexually cuckolded by a woman. Now, it is a catch-all among the alt-right, in the dark corners of the internet where #feminismisacancer hashtags are a badge of pride and the real enemy is PC culture, where “cuck” has become shorthand for any perceived weakness, or rather, perceived reluctance to exploit strength.

Although “cuckold” has been used since the thirteenth century (the word itself derived from cuckoo birds, which lay eggs in another’s nest), “cuck” was added to Urban Dictionary in 2007. Any more exact tracing of its origins is lost in the dense knot of the internet and the speed with which its population seized upon an insult to emasculate others.

The word gained political potency during the 2016 election in the portmanteau “cuckservative” (cuck + conservative) used to imply that the mainstream conservatives of the Jeb Bush variety are weak and effeminate. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is not a cuckservative. He says what he wants and doesn’t care if it’s offensive. In reference to Trump’s comments about Megyn Kelly having “blood coming out of her wherever,” radio host Rush Limbaugh snarked, “If Trump were your average, ordinary, cuckolded Republican, he would have apologized by now.”

But Donald Trump doesn’t apologize. He went on to win the Republican presidential nomination as Jeb Bush, the one-time favorite, was irrevocably set back by a simple insult from Trump delivered with an invisible wink: “low-energy.”

Since The Donald bested the field of cuckservatives with his manly virility and full head of hair, those who couldn’t see a good insult go to waste have continued to use it in its shortened form—cuck—which applies first to anyone supporting Hillary, but also anyone who would challenge Donald Trump on his spelling, his logic, or his facts.

So now that a word previously only used for pornography or in 4chan has achieved mainstream political significance, it’s time to ask the question: Why has the word “cuck” resonated with so many angry white men?

An insult is, by nature, telling of its source: you never insult with something that you don’t think is insulting. A woman would never sneer that another woman is fat if she herself would be comfortable with her body at any size, if “fatness” weren’t something she feared. A man mocking the size of another man’s genitals broadcasts his own belief that the length of one’s penis is something to be either proud or embarrassed about.

“Cuck” is a concept borne out of insecurity.

The cultural importance of the cuckold in America is rooted in racism: in pornography, the wife of the cuckolded (almost exclusively white) husband is most commonly sleeping with African-American men, meant to provide an additional layer of humiliation if the white husband sees that man as “inferior.” In the world of pornography meant to elicit humiliation as an erotic sentiment, cuckold porn takes advantage of its viewers’ racist perceptions.

After the Civil War, the white supremacist movement radicalized its supporters with the fear of black men raping white women. Even Shakespeare evoked the sexual element of racial angst: in Othello, Iago attempts to pit Desdemona’s father against his Moorish son-in-law by evoking very specific imagery: “Even now, now, very now, an old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe.”

In 2016, the word “cuck” resonates with white nationalists who feel as though their country has been taken away from them, and not enough had been done by the cuckservative establishment conservative party to protect it. “Cuck” is a concept borne out of insecurity: a fear that one is inadequate, sexually or otherwise, and that inadequacy will lead to the loss of the things that are important to him.

And it’s becoming increasingly obvious: these men have lost. They have watched the first black president elected into office twice become a positive symbol for the progress and promise of our nation, both domestically and overseas; they have watched women join the workplace and become empowered enough to speak out at the injustices they face. They have watched as a “politically correct culture run amok” has made it socially unacceptable to be racist in public.

Those who call others a cuck do so in the desperate hope that shreds of their own masculine and racial prominence can be protected.

But here is Donald Trump who says what he thinks no matter how many people call it sexist or racist, who promises to build a giant wall to keep non-white people out of the country, who makes being in charge seem easy. Trump doesn’t require a nuanced understanding of politics or statistics or complex trade agreements. He will say whatever he’s thinking. And in this election, he’s also appealing to a base instinct, something hardwired after generations of pernicious cultural feedback: a confident man knows better than a woman.

Because after all, what is being cuckolded but humiliation at the hands of a woman? The cuckolded man is at the mercy of a woman to choose to be with him or to be with someone else; she chooses the other as a punishment for his sexual inadequacy. If one’s insults represent their own fears, those who call others a cuck do so in the desperate hope that shreds of their own masculine and racial prominence can be protected.

When their party’s political candidate can retweet images from neo-Nazi websites and call the Jewish head of the DNC “highly neurotic” without reproach, when he can quite literally launch his political career by accusing our nation’s first black president of being born in Africa, when he can rank women on a scale of 10, call them fat pigs, say you need to “treat them like shit,” and still not take a hit in the polls, the angry white men who use the word “cuck” can exhale, safe in the understanding that, even if only for a few more years, their views are still shared by millions of other Americans. They will go on calling others “cucks,” pretending they’re not afraid of their own impotence.

This is just one of multiple articles I could source breaking down the deep racist, misogynist, and homophobic subtext of "cuck".