1230
there's a reason it's "hard out there" you know (OC)
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
This comment section: "Actually I'm pretty sure the bike fell over for reasons unrelated to the stick"
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).
Well, most accurate would be a feedback loop, but the point still stands that it's self-harm, regardless of why it arises.
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.
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?
A simple search with the keywords "men" and "loneliness epidemic" should pull up plenty of resources on the topic. I'm on mobile right now and don't feel like doing a whole deep-dive but here's an article from NASW
Quote:
There's plenty of debate to be had for whose "fault" this is, but the fact that young men are facing the brunt of the loneliness epidemic is a matter of fact that's reinforced by countless polls.
I’m not the one you’re responding to, but I have a recent, relevant, non-biased video here that discusses the issue from a mental health standpoint.
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:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6142169/
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.
Why do you need to assign victimhood to a factor of modern existence? We're all hyperconnected and lonely as fuck.
https://ourworldindata.org/social-connections-and-loneliness
They're fixating more on the "man" part than the "loneliness" part.
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_@lemmy.world 's argument isn't that.
Loneliness ≠ not getting affection.
I completely agree, however some people make that mistake. I wanted to make sure that wasn't what we were talking about here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
What's the term, sea lioning?
That is the exact term.
You're choosing barbs then? See ya.
If we knew each other in real life, I'd pretend to be deaf.
If you really mean that then you don't need to pretend. There's a "block user" lemmy feature. If you're agreeing with @Jax@sh.itjust.works and think I'm disingenuous, you'll do us both a favor.
I'm not doing that. @PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 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?
Lmao, the victim complex of the most abusive subgroup of men on the planet is hilarious.
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.
I didn't say anything about immunity to propaganda.
Feel free to address what I said, though. I'm mocking the ironic victim complex of abusive individuals.
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. You are creating a safe space for abusive ideologies to fester.
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.
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.
Translation: "I can't refute your core argument so I'll attack the way it was delivered."
Returning to the idea of rehabilitating these men, I leave you with a quote:
"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."
Sorry, what? I was agreeing with you. I’m not the other poster you were arguing with.
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.
Whoa, whoa! Miss, incels are misunderstood victims, never entitled and self-centered assholes. Take your downvote. (/s).
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.
"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.
I think critism is fine.
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.
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 agree with everything you've said. Generally.
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.
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.
Ok. I am wrong. Positive male role models are numerous and recieve equal airtime to their toxic counterparts.
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.
Where did I say that they don't have problems? I didn't mean to convey that, which is why I didn't say anything of the sort.
It is possible to call out shitty behavior without dismissing the existence of problems.
You didn't explicitly state it you implied it by ignoring almost everything the guy you responded to said. Again, I don't think you meant to come off that way but that's what happens when you pick one small part of a large post to respond to and do so using negative and corrective language. You imply the rest was received in an equally negative fashion but was even less worthy of response.
No, you inferred something I neither said nor implied based on your assumption that not mentioning the irrelevant part of their post meant something.
You're still doing it. What you're calling the irrelevant part of the post was more than 90% of it. You chose not to address any of it and to act pretty condescending in your reply. Now I'm telling you how some people are going to interpret that and you're refusing to acknowledge it as a valid interpretation. I don't give a shit if you accept what I'm telling you or not but at this point you can't say you're unaware that you're coming off like an asshole. Do with that information whatever you like.
I don't really care if you think I'm an asshole for not wasting time on the part of the post I agree with that wasn't the part being discussed. Maybe you should go back and read the conversation again and engage with what I wrote instead of what you assumed I meant.
What political movements paint masculinity as evil?