From the original comment:

I'm fine saying that people like Dutroux, Breivick or Abdeslam shall not be out before a very long-time. However, they're not the average criminal.

Obviously they aren't for complete prison abolishment.

Purple, spite.

You came across many very dumb people, therefore most people are dumb. Seems logical. I work with thousands of meat workers, therefore most people must be meat workers. Your experience is more or less selection bias.

Yes, and? I don't believe these are replacing any existing infrastructure, but are for places that have no infrastructure for the internet. They could drastically improve things in those areas, and if those place became a warzone sometime in the future they'd probably be pretty fucked with or without proper land based infrastructure.

I bet you think you're taking some sort high road to the effect of "oh I just state the facts, I'm not telling anyone what to think," while conveniently ignoring the part where the way that you report these facts, or which ones you leave out can very much influence the conclusions people reach.

You stated that Alexander killed many people, but also his actions benefitted millions of people. These two things put together in the way that you did will lead an uninformed person to he conclusion that it's fine that he killed people because it benefited many others. And maybe that could be true in some contexts, but you completely failed to mention the fact that he didn't just kill a bunch of people, he executed defeated peoples and sold a whole bunch of people into slavery, which would naturally influence the conclusions a person could come to.

Yes, and? Have you not gotten to the part in your schooling where you look at history to see what can be learnt from it?

They literally said it pushes those things when not logged in. So when YouTube doesn't know your tastes it pushes things like that.

Nowhere did I say kids shouldn't do whatever they can to escape abuse, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I was addressing the fact that the original comment was saying that there should be no consequences regardless if it was an abusive environment.

"A lot," in this instance is a tiny minority. Or do you think that the echo chamber that is Lemmy is somehow representative of a majority?

What you're describing is still toxic masculinity and has absolutely nothing to do with toxic femininity. Men that have been hurt by their previous partners or ridiculed for being emotional, is toxic masculinity. This is because men are discouraged from expressing their emotions or seeking support, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that vulnerability is a sign of weakness. Men get hurt by women doing this because of the toxic view many men and women carry about masculinity and male gender roles.

Toxic femininity on the other hand, is a societal expectation placed on women to conform to traditional gender roles and stereotypes, like being passive, nurturing, and submissive.

Nice deflection, but it's obvious from how furiously and continuously you defend your opinion that you're also pretty "stressed" about this lol.

I might, tennis too.