In this thread: User ThuleanPerspective apparently losing their fucking minds and then having their entire account comment history removed. I've never been so intrigued to know what crazy nonsense this person posts.
Update: Looked closer at their history. Managed to comment in dozens of threads per minute. Likely a bot that got removed. That's more boring than I'd hoped.
I think at the moment it's mainly about causing drama and chaos. I'd say 70% are bots made just because we seem like easy targets, 25% are bots made by people with vested interested in the liked of Reddit and similar trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the fediverse, and 5% are just people making bots for no real reason
If you’re curious as to the actual content of their spam posts, I actually saw some of them (yesterday) (on a different post) (from one of their alt accounts) (they have several now)
It’s essentially a wall of gibberish text, all caps, followed by what appears to be series of ai-generated images of a naked Simpsons character. Didn’t examine it too closely as it was NSFW
The fact that that image exists at all (aside from the obviously horrifying murder)...like someone learned about the murder, thought it up, and then created it. And then shared it. Who does that??
Had an older co-worker who kept saying that Andrew Tate had some real gems and that he was just telling young men to give up videogames and hit the gym if they wanted some self worth.
So one day I looked him dead in the eye and gave him my best impersonation of a 1950's radio voice and said. " Young ladies if you don't work on refining and improving your womanly figure with clean living and labourous exercise and not stop wasting your time reading novels then how will you ever expect to catch a husband?!"
I would like to say that I scored a point but he just sputtered and went on being horrible.
Andrew Tate is the absolute worst, but it is also a fact - one that has been true for all of recorded history - that competing with each other for female attention is a generally popular male motivation. And when a guy doesn't do those things, he can expect mockery. Do you have anything nice to say about neckbeards? No? Didn't think so.
I can’t think of anything nice to say about neckbeards but I can say some lovely things about some guys I know who spend more time playing games than working out
I mean the premise is flawed. The "neckbeards" are not intrinsically unlovable but they are getting duped into being annoying and problematic to people.
When you treat the attention of any kind of people as a status symbol or a commodity to use for bragging rights or prestige for others it's not exactly fair to the people whom you are essentially using. You see the same principle with famous people. Being in any kind of relationship with someone, even friends, soley because you like what their association does for your image is a jerk thing to do
The people who do the mocking are every bit at fault for being assholes. Only when the person being mocked accepts the assholes premise as true and care about their acceptance do they also become an asshole in turn.
Like "being nice to people" is transactional. It doesn't really look at emotional needs. The so called neckbeards think they are being nice... But the issue is that nice is superficial. Nice will get you promotions at your customer service job but it ignores emotional need.
The fact so a contingent is so poisoned by so called "benevolent" sexism is a feature not a bug.
You're being downvoted for pointing out human nature. You're not wrong, we compete for females. We're animals, even if people want to lie and claim we've progressed. We have not.
One of the best things taught to me growing up is that you don't have to prove yourself to anyone. There are shallow people, but why waste time with them? Why not go with people who are more open-minded, have good control to not give into superficial and shallow biological instincts, and will accept you for who you are?
So i take it if you fancy a new "female" you kill her previous partner in a fight and then her children with that partner, so she will focuse her attention on the children you make with her. If necessary by raping her? Also if there is no nee females available you will rape and make new children with your own daughters?
Are you trying to use this argument to deny evolution or evolutionary instinct? Cuz your attempted argument makes no sense. Trying to claim humans aren't driven to procreate is simply contrary to all available information.
Are you not understanding that social and cultural evolution is part of evolution and that there might be good reason why not murdering and rapeing each other like animals do, is an evolutionary advantage?
Social evolution is a wonderful thing, it's not stronger than your biological imperative though. Maybe one day, but that days not today. The guy is still going to chase the virile woman and the woman is still going to seek comfort and safety.
Well ya, you're a freak of nature by literal definition, of course you wouldn't agree. Humans, like all animals have a drive to reproduce. You don't have that drive, you're not relevant.
You're going to interpret this literal fact as homophobia too which is kinda funny if you knew me LoL.
For me, the reason it is hard out there is because I am super careful when trying to pick someone up and they end up mistaking my pickup lines for friendly banter and I end up getting friendzoned.
Plus I am super choosy myself and take long to crush on someone and then take super long to get over a crush. (o﹏o)
But I agree that listening to toxic males like Tate will likely not make it easier.
I'm not a Rogan meathead, but women are absolutely super choosey these days. Dating apps have given women an inflated sense of their own (dating) worth, and they largely want tall, handsome, well-off, slightly older men.
Of course I'm painting with a broad brush here, but this post is talking in generalities anyway.
I’m not a Rogan meathead, but women are absolutely super choosey these days. Dating apps have given women an inflated sense of their own (dating) worth, and they largely want tall, handsome, well-off, slightly older men.
If this is happening even a little bit it is because of the distorting forces of capitalism and addictive phone apps are warping peoples interactions on dating apps.
I promise you, if you are genuinely a pretty nice human being who tries to be a good person there are plenty of women out there who want to fuck you. Really, the world is full of horny women who get hot and bothered by realizing that cute man they just met is also really sweet and kind. You don’t need fit any particular idea of a man, I understand it feels like you do and that is an awful feeling but it is a feeling not the reality.
Also women are probably more choosey because they are by large exhausted from work places that grind them down, trying to make rent, healthcare bullshit and any number of other struggles of modern life, just like you. They want to make sure that use their vanishing amount of free time, energy and money pursuing somebody that isn’t going to be a dead end.
If you want the quickest route to more men finding women who are interested in them, then support unionization, the social safety net, workers rights, and progressive legislation on housing. We need to take better care of people so that they have more free time, energy and money to pursue love and sex.
The comments are quite saddening, and also quite worrying.
This isn't to put women's issues down, but men have problems too. There's a reason why young men turn to these grifters and get manipulated by them.
Even above all of that, assuming you don't agree, it's a problem. We're building up generations of uneducated and toxic men led by these role models. We can't just shrug that off and say it's not our issue, because at some point it is going to be our issue.
This is a problem that I really feel like gets no attention.
With all the focus on women’s rights, young men feel neglected. And modern feminism does imply that men can’t really talk about issues because that comes from a place of privilege.
This isn’t the only time it happened. Male victims of sexual harassment and assault were pretty much entirely shut out of #MeToo.
So, young men feel marginalized and they will listen to whoever makes sense.
modern feminism does imply that men can't really talk about issues?
not to be all "source?" but — source?
This statement feels full of selection bias. Let's assume Angela Davis literally said this, does that mean Judith Butler agrees?
But I imagine it's more that this was said by a semi-anonymous rage bait account on a social media platform.
That's not to say such things aren't hurtful - they are - but in the same way FirstnameBunchOfNumbers on Twitter says stupid shit all the time - eg all unions are all always bad and are literally communism - that doesn't speak for the entirety of tradespeoples.
I'd much rather actually discuss the points raised. I was interested to discuss whether the person I was replying to (might be you - can't tell on mobile) thought that what they said reflected all feminist thought, and whether that was current, new, or had always been there since Wollstonecraft etc
Do you really want to go into the difference between the "notallmen" epithet and the concept that because someone accuses a group of something does not mean that they are guilty of it nor does it mean that group is a monolith? The conversation seems fairly straightforward and doesn't really need elaborating on. But I guess if you genuinely did have questions about the difference between "notallmen" and "accusing a group of something they didn't do" I'd be willing to attempt to answer reasonable questions on the topic.
And modern feminism does imply that men can’t really talk about issues because that comes from a place of privilege.
I mean yeah there are shitty feminists like there are shitty types of all people but no most modern movements of feminism that are considered seriously by academics and people concerned with gender, sexuality and politics absolutely DO not imply men can’t talk about issues.
Intersectional Feminism isn’t just about empowering women, it’s about creating structures that defend and empower everybody including women.
A feminist might be exhausted from toxic masculinity and the power imbalances of men vs women in society and in the moment not respond well to you bringing up issues with men, but feminists definitely by and large do care about men and the issues they face because at the end of the day they are just the flip side of the problems women face.
It’s all part of the same problem and the only way to fix it is to take better care of each other, which includes men, it includes everyone.
Andrew Tate isn't creating these young men out of well adjusted people.
Young men today face a mountain of issues with zero sympathy from the people or institutions around them. And grifters prey on these men.
Having grown up in the "teach boys not to rape" era of progrssive rhetoric, it's actually insane to see all these people just insist being a guy's world is all sunshine and rainbows and all these men are just awful people falling of their own accord.
Young men get told some pretty damaging things growing up, even from progressive people.
Everyone has problems, lots of people are come of age all kinds of fucked up, and we can't fix this by implying it's all their own doing.
On top of all that, these days most rejection of men happens before there is even any opportunity for the men say anything. With dating apps putting so much emphasis on looks (a very small minority of users of these apps do anything but look at the first photo before swiping left or right), and surveys finding that women consider over 80% of men less attractive than 'medium' (i e. a 3 or lower on a 7 point scale), mean that tons of men reach that conclusion in the final panel simply from getting no traction with women at all, making whether they're a Tate acolyte or whatever not even relevant.
Young men today face a mountain of issues with zero sympathy from the people or institutions around them. And grifters prey on these men
Idk, I don't feel like young women are really offered any kind of safety net or support system that isn't being offered to boys.
it's actually insane to see all these people just insist being a guy's world is all sunshine and rainbows and all these men are just awful people falling of their own accord.
This is the thing, I constantly hear how awful young men are being treated. I don't ever really hear any specific reasoning that can't be explained by other means other than sexism against men.
Imo this is one of the first generations of young men, especially young white men, that weren't born on third base. The men's right movement is a reactionary movement that's just upset about being placed on an equal footing, and then falling to achieve the same results of previous generations of young white men.
That feeling of slowly rolling a stone up a hill all day as others unbound by such heavy burdens briskly walk by is the same feeling poc and women have experienced in this country since it's inception. You aren't being treated worse than everyone else, it's just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives. Welcome to the jungle, I hope you learn to enjoy your stay. I think the affectations of the moneyed class have ended, they have decided they don't have to keep up the charade. We're all the same to them now, and will all be exploited as such.
Ignoring the issues people face becuase they come from what you determine to be a "privileged" class is just another form of bigotry.
Young men don't stand to benifit from the same patriarchal systems we do, nor do we stand to benifit from the patriarchal systems our fathers did. And even if it did, one privileged doesn't nullify the issues faced by other inequalities such as race, wealth, class, ability.
The issues they face are real reguardless of what privilege they have or are assumed to have.
Equality should be about giving every individual a fair chance at life regardless of who they are or what they came from. Not some team sport where "one side" must be crushed under to goosestep of self proclaimed progress seekers.
Ignoring the issues people face becuase they come from what you determine to be a "privileged" class is just another form of bigotry.
Simply stating that the problems are not intrinsic to being male is not ignoring the problem.
Young men don't stand to benifit from the same patriarchal systems we do, nor do we stand to benifit from the patriarchal systems our fathers did.
Who is we? What I'm saying is that young males are not being hurt anymore than any other demographic, they just aren't culturally inoculated to it, and so they think they're worse off.
And even if it did, one privileged doesn't nullify the issues faced by other inequalities such as race, wealth, class, ability.
I never claimed it did?
issues they face are real reguardless of what privilege they have or are assumed to have.
Like? As I said, I keep hearing these blanket statements attesting to unique issues, but no one claims what they are or how they occur.
Equality should be about giving every individual a fair chance at life regardless of who they are or what they came from.
Do you think that we are living in some sort of post scarcity society? If there is an elevated class, its only means of elevation is to stand on the heads of it's "equal"counterparts.
Not some team sport where "one side" must be crushed under to goosestep of self proclaimed progress seekers.
Lol, and those who stood on our heads suddenly proclaimed themselves victims. How do you think they stand elevated if not by crushing down the competition?
It's only goose-stepping when the boot is on your face, when its someone's else's face they're told to turn the other cheek.
Nobody is arguing for "elevation", nobody in their right state of mind anyway, and I'm not asking anyone to turn their cheek to anyone wrong doings done to them. However, when it's men who feel wronged you ask them to turn the other cheek. Man up. Deal with it.
The fact of the matter is it's exactly this dogmatic rejecting of men that pushes them towards people like Andrew Tate. If the progressive zeitgeist refuses to listen to someone and they will follow anyone else who will. We shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, but if we truly seek to defeat it we must understand it and treat the systemic issues that cause it to arise. It's not the romantic ideal of the rebel taking down the empire in a victorious display of self-satisfaction, but it is the method that gets lasting results.
I've never stood on anyone's heads, least of all yours. I'd appreciate it if you could at least treat the next generation with the same respect.
it’s just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives
I cannot speak for "that country", assuming you mean the US, as I don't live there. That said, I think people don't have actual past lives as a reference. If my grandfather or father lived in a different world, this can at most create expectations, but cannot be really generating a feeling of prosecution, because the current one is the only life I have actually lived and I know.
Then there is another issue, which is that in reality there are a lot of factors that determine whether you are born "in third base". Gender, historically, has been one of them, but it's far from being a guarantee. However, the political discourse often flattens this issue and makes it almost two-dimensional. If you are a white man, you are privileged, period. Fact is, there are tons of white man that are absolutely not privileged, and are also victim of an unequal and oppressive society. These people are substantially alienated because their voice is simply not represented anywhere.
My leftist interpretation is that some of the egalitarian discourse (feminism, LGBT rights etc.) has been to some extent swallowed by the status quo, and lost a lot of the revolutionary potential it had, becoming more focused on individual perception and rights, rather than on systemic issues that therefore could capture also the dynamics of a white man being also oppressed, even if from a different angle.
In other words, if feminism is purely focused on battles of women as a group of individuals, and not as part of a system that oppresses them within a wider mechanism, then oppressed people that don't strictly belong to that category have a much harder time to see in women a reflection of their own oppression.
Basically, a realization such as:
We’re all the same to them now, and will all be exploited as such.
was true already decades (centuries) ago, and that's why lots of feminist battles were linked to socialism and leftist ideologies. This is nothing new, really, and forcing to read the current issues only from the racial perspective or only from the gender perspective (etc.) makes it much harder to build solidarity between groups who are instead left to fight battles within the system, without a perspective or a struggle to move past it.
Have you been on Reddit lately? Every post has about 50% of comments that are incel type statements just talking about how they’ll be forever alone, they have no good traits, etc. it’s fucking pathetic
Because these men are insecure in one way or another. Even though many of them are privileged and have good looks, it's still not enough for them. They're always looking to prove themselves to people who don't care about them, and impress people they don't like.
You got it backwards mate. Young men are falling for those charlatans because they provide an easy solution to the loneliness epidemic (of which young men are the most likely victims).
Yep and it's people like OP that only serve to reinforce their us vs them mentality. The political movements that paint masculinity as evil, or just simply stupid, paint with too broad of a brush. The western world moved mountains to understand and fix things like a lack of women in STEM - to the point that it became a meme. And likewise, society at large is so downright hostile to the struggle of the average joe who tries to do what society asked of him and talk about his problems that it's also become a meme.
The fact that they don't see the dangerous appeal of a man who claims to have all the answers reminds me of another time in history. The "morally righteous" will fail us again.
Yep and it’s people like OP that only serve to reinforce their us vs them mentality.
"If you criticize the bad stuff people do, they will just double down!" is the stupidest take of the last decade. It is an attempt to shut down any criticism by blaming the critic for pointing out the shitty people's behavior.
There are plenty of good examples out there, they just aren't edgy and engaging because being a decent person is not exciting.
That's a very dismissive attitude as well. I've never listened to Jordan Peterson or any of these other people but I totally get why some people do and this conversation is a great illustration as to why. The person you responded to was trying to have a discussion about the issues men face in society, in a thread about that topic, and your response to them could easily be interpreted as "shut up idiot those aren't real problems". I don't think you necessarily intended to convey that message but you definitely ignored the larger point they were making in favor of a short and dismissive quip that was only tangentially related to what they said.
There are a bunch of examples of things like this happening in society, especially to white men. I can feel people reading that statement thinking "white men don't have problems" and that right there is the issue. Of course they have problems, society just doesn't want to hear about them. They're focused on other things instead, often for good reasons, but ignoring people when they talk about their problems while preaching open-mindedness and tolerance doesn't exactly help the group you're ignoring to embrace those ideals. They're going to gravitate towards people who listen to them and at this point in time the people who listen them are telling them things that you don't agree with. If you actually care about fixing that problem then the least you can do is commiserate with them when they complain about their problems. You already go out of your way to do it for everyone else so it should be easy.
I think that the issue at a societal level is the lack of culturally elevated alternative role models.
I think this is particularly a byproduct of engagement driven media algorithms. Viewpoints and the people who espouse them which drive engagement are algorithmically rewarded. These algorithms can't tell the difference between toxic or not, and toxic viewpoints generally drive more engagement.
There have always been forces which drive availability of viewpoints and personalities. When television was the primary form of media, it was TV execs. MTV decided what was cool.
But there was also public programming which could drive these things for social benefit. PBS in the USA and CBC in Canada. Both of these are now "out" in terms of medium (television/radio), and they also don't get the funding to be competitive anyhow.
We ceded the space to "influencers" on the internet, governed by private companies , and we are reaping the benefits now.
Even Hollywood is terrible. Ted Lasso is maybe the only culturally powerful representation of positive masculinity I can think of. And I think people were starving for it.
So while I think critism is appropriate, I think exclusively laying it at the feet of the stupid indoctrinated masses is only half of it. Criticising a the capitalistic media system which abandoned these men is appropriate too.
I think that the issue at a societal level is the lack of culturally elevated alternative role models.
That is because being a decent person isn't exciting. Obama was a decent person and as far as the public can see, an excellent father. Being a decent person with a solid marriage is boring.
The reason that these shitheads get attention is because they are selling immediate results instead of long term relationships, and a lot of people like quick results with minimal effort. Changing from a selfish jackass to a decent person who understands other's perspectives takes time and patience, and young men aren't really known for patience. They want results now, which is encouraged by toxic culture, but that doesn't mean that there aren't decent examples of positive masculinity, but again positive masculinity is boring. That isn't a bad thing either, just that there isn't conflict and competition in decency.
There are tons of positive male role models in media. Dr. Grant from Jurassic Park. Hell, I thought of that and wasn't surprised that he was listed on my first google search result for positive male role models. In addition to taking care of kids, despite disliking kids, he also talks to women as equals.
I think it's maybe telling that the character who popped into your head was from a film 30 years ago, though. Do you think it's possible the availability has been on the decline in the last 30 years? Most of the young men who are being woo'd by this nonsense weren't even alive when Jurassic Park was released.
And I'm not saying good role models don't exist, just that they're discriminated against for airtime because they don't score as highly in the recently popularized metric of "drives engagement" by the consolidated private media entities.
I think it’s maybe telling that the character who popped into your head was from a film 30 years ago, though.
The character 'popped into my head' because I watched it yesterday and it was a popular movie that is still talked about. Honestly, there are more engaged dads and men to look up to in media now than 30 years ago, even if my ADHD brain can't think of all of them off the top of my head.
to the loneliness epidemic (of which young men are the most likely victims).
I read this statement of yours my initial reaction is not very complimentary. Instead of making assumptions on what you mean and assuming the worst, I'm interested in your view to see if I would find validity with it, or if my initial reaction was sound. Do you have any source you'd consider objective on this you'd recommend me reading to explain your position/definition on this?
I don't have time at the moment for the whole 1h and 30 min, but I listened to the first 7 min and saw the topic titles for the remaining. So far its pretty agreeable ideas (Each person is responsible for their own happiness. Its not 'owed' to you by someone else. Seeking pure external validation is a path to ruin.) However, so far this doesn't support the idea posted before of "young men are victims" yet. I will listen to the rest though before passing judgment.
I am, because many of the worst arguments I've seen revolve around men believe they are entitled to the affections of others no matter how toxic their own personality is. I want to make sure @PP_BOY_ 's argument isn't that.
I think the fact that you're instantly declaring that this needs to be addressed indicates a clear bias. You can determine bias through discourse, there is quite literally no need for adversarial behavior (which is exactly what you've exhibited, similarly to what I'm exhibiting now).
Young men are lonely and suffering, with millenials many of those young men are becoming middle aged men. That statement will never imply that young men, old men, men period are deserving of affection simply for being.
Furthermore, people like you are a big part of the reason men have a difficult time conducting reasonable discourse on these topics. You like to act as if you're arguing in good faith but the reality is you're just as prejudiced as the next bigot.
I think the fact that you’re instantly declaring that this needs to be addressed indicates a clear bias.
Of course I'm biased. Everyone is biased in some direction at some level. I'm even waving giant flags saying I have bias, but that I'm interested in having my positions challenged because if I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, but that requires exchange of facts and ideas. I'm completely transparent about that. Are you claiming to be 100% impartial?
You can determine bias through discourse, there is quite literally no need for adversarial behavior
I've asked people to explain their positions instead of making assumptions about them and putting words in their mouths. I don't know any other way to give those I'm talking to any more benefit of doubt or clear space to make their positions known. I have been trying very hard to avoid adversarial behavior. I've been met by almost nothing but adversarial responses, strawmanning, and posters making nefarious assumptions about my motives. Look at your own post. I agreed with your assertion that Loneliness ≠ not getting affection, and for that agreement with you you respond to me with vitriol.
Furthermore, people like you are a big part of the reason men have a difficult time conducting reasonable discourse on these topics.
I have not yet seen one reply to my posts that is offering ideas about a pathway to address these issues with young men. Its as though discourse has stopped simply at "awareness", which I acknowledge is important, but zero pathways for the young men experience where to go afterward at an individual level. I'm discussing with reasonable discourse. I welcome you to join the conversation on the subject in your following reply about how these young men can be helped going forward.
You like to act as if you’re arguing in good faith but the reality is you’re just as prejudiced as the next bigot.
There is an enormous amount of irony in your accusations of me when the one of the perspectives I've been introducing to this conversation has been attempting to show that others have experienced much of the same issues, and it looks like you're handwaving all of that away. Women have faced some of this already, and you call me a bigot for pointing that out. Should I then accuse you of misogyny as you have accused me of bigotry? Is it possible your experience is so poisoned you can't recognize my own personal acknowledgements about my imperfections I bring and my engagement good faith discussion?
If you're interested in discussing the topic, I'm still open to it. If you just want to exchange barbs, that doesn't help either of us or the young men in question. What's your choice?
I'm not doing that. @PP_BOY_ is. I generally disagree with that idea, but before I pass judgment I'm willing to listen to arguments. Thats exactly what I'm doing. Listening to arguments.
Why are you so quick to judgment when you don't know what people think or believe?
Dude, I just watched the first 30 seconds of that video.
The way that it is edited tells me that it is written for entertainment rather than informing (the quick cuts), intended to emotionally manipulate the audience (listen to the music), and likely biased because it is using an interview / podcast format. This is a secondary source of information, rather than a primary source.
Good sources to read and share are primary sources e.g. peer reviewed research articles. If there are a research articles given in the video, then you should be sharing those, not the video.
Here is an example of an article that is related to men and loneliness:
Please, tell me more about your immunity to propaganda.
The reality is that there's a lot of money to be made in telling young, single, socially removed men what they want to hear and there are just as many people ready to make that money.
Identifying a person as a victim of one thing isn't an excuse for any other harm that they perpetuate.
My grevience is a very basic application of social Marxism.
I'm saying that the "most abusive subgroup of men" aren't born, they're made through propaganda and charlatans. That makes them victims, which I have some sympathy for, even if they go on to perpetuate an awful cycle of misogyny. I'm just critical of these kinds of arguments like the OP which place the blame on the perpetuaters instead of the sources.
Despite this, shame is still a valid application of positive punishment to active participants of an abusive subgroup.
Go be the carrot to somebody who needs a philosophy 101 course to justify defending actively harmful forms of propoganda from criticism. I'm not your guy, I have my own objectives in this discourse.
Ultimately, none of this invalidates the observation of an ironic use of a victim complex.
"Valid" in what sense? Of course you're allowed to shame people who perpetuate terrible actions/thoughts against women. But when that group was literally created by and has grown through pre-existing, socially reinforced thoughts of shame and inadequacy, I'm going to hold you slightly responsible for that problem continuing.
I’m going to hold you responsible for defending them from criticism they need to face.
These men already face the criticism, that is the driver pushing them further to become abusive and self-abusive.
What you are suggesting is cornering an animal, and then saying "Hey, we should corner it more because it's acting aggressively." and then acting surprised when it attacks you.
We need to offer these men a healthy way out which is culturally appropriate.
What you are suggesting is cornering an animal, and then saying “Hey, we should corner it more because it’s acting aggressively.” And then acting surprised when it attacks you.
I really like this line of logic because it highlights how the insipid manosphere’s propaganda directly targets the most animalistic part of the brain - the amygdala - and uses fear and anger to propel antisocial behaviour much as a cornered animal lashes out against its captor. It’s a very apt metaphor beyond the simplistic reasoning it suggests.
Are they? or they want to be exactly because they think linke this? They want perfect supermodel women even though they look like shrek and any woman that is not flawless is "a crime and should die". I'm not even talking about ugly woman, if a girl has acne, is chubbier, wear glasses etc they are "too ugly for them". They have mental issues thara are just exploited by rogans and tates, not victims
Its easier to hate someone than to show them compassion. Short sighted, lacking nuance and tact. Being able to think through cognitive dissonance and keep two opposing thoughts at once: there can be folks that have outlandish ideas about a topic. they still dont deserve your hate. there can be peeps that havent done anything wrong but are in bad situations, lack worthy role models or are just intellectually disadvantaged and easily exploited. Its definitely not a sign of great capacity to judge other people rash and harshly.
Except they don’t offer a solution. If anything, they make the problem worse. Their “solution” is to offer bullshit advice that will turn you in to a toxic person too. Normal people don’t want to hang out with the followers of Tate and the like and because they’re all so unlikeable, they don’t want to hang out with each other.
So it’s a feedback loop that gives these grifters more money while the followers get more loneliness. It’s sad, really.
Reminds me of a post I saw yesterday, of a white supremacist finding out the german catholic descendants in red 'murica don't share his ass-backwards views of race.
