The point is that who do you expect the young men to go to? The only people willing to speak up for them are the types of Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peteson, Jocko Willink, Dabvid Goggins etc. Can you name a male role model you approve of?

Don’t act as if I said somethig I didn’t only because it’s then easier to argue against.

I’d recommend to favour non-ml communities

Mean people like you truly puzzle me. How someone can actually get pleasure from saying hurtful things to complete strangers online is something I find deeply mysterious.

By grifters you mean the only people willing to say that it’s okay for men to be men? Gee, I wonder why young men go to them rather than the ones telling them to man down.

The thing about propaganda that’s often overlooked is the fact that it isn’t just about controlling what people think - it’s about controlling what people think other people think.

It’s the emergency dispatcher who picks up when I dial 911, not the police - but yeah, they don’t laugh when you report unlawful intrusion and theft, and neither do the police. So I’d say they’re pretty good in that regard.

Finns are quite similar in the sense that we tend to say what we mean and be quite direct - some might even say blunt. I just find the framing a bit weird here. This seems to be less about saying sorry and more about the general style of communication. Ofcourse people say sorry when there’s something to be sorry about.

I quit Yellowstone after 2 episodes but then later got back into it and ended up loving it. It’s quite hard to pinpoint what it is exactly that I so loved about it but probably has something to do with the beautiful scenery, slow pace, good vibes and the realism.

And I should know this why?

The only thing funny here is how it’s “inspirational” when the victim’s a man - but we’d all agree it’s a tragedy if the roles were reversed.

You can debate that in court. But if you steal a bucket of my dirt, the police will come, take it from you, and give it back to me. I’d call that ownership.

Do you own the dirt under your feet?

The house around me, and the dirt under it, yes.

Toupee fallacy. Just because you can recognize some of the propaganda, it doesn’t mean you can recognize all of it. You’re not aware of what flies under the radar while still influencing you.

However, we’re dealing with people who are denying our right to exist and don’t engage in good faith. Until they can take those basic steps affirming the social contract, I see no reason debate with such people needs to take place with words.

What you’re talking about here is certain individuals - and I take no issue with that. There absolutely are people who are too far gone and probably can’t be pulled back. But those aren’t the people I’ve been referring to.

My issue is with lumping tens of millions of people into the same group based solely on their political leaning and then speaking about them as if they all share the same beliefs. That’s virtually never true, no matter what group we’re talking about. The differences within a group are often greater than the differences between groups. In other words, there’s more variation between individual Republicans than there is between the average Republican and the average Democrat. My point is: they’re not all the same, and they shouldn’t be treated as such.

Depends what he means by that. Are some right-wingers fetishizing femboys? Yeah. Can we generalize this to apply to all right-wingers as people have tendency to do with this sort of things? No. Turns out that people are individuals and they have different preferences. Shocker.

I disagree with the premise that most of our financial decisions are algorithmically driven. The majority of my spending goes toward necessities that I have little to no control over - mortgage, groceries, utility bills, insurance, fuel, maintenance, and so on. I’d imagine it’s the same for most people. Very few of my purchases are something I’ve actively decided to buy.

Framing one half of the population as beyond saving or inherently evil is not just lazy - it’s historically dangerous. It reduces millions of individuals into a caricature and gives people permission to treat them with contempt, as if that’s somehow virtuous. That kind of thinking has been used to justify some of the worst things we’ve done to each other as humans.

When you actually talk to people outside your bubble, you quickly realize that most of us want the same basic things - stability, safety, meaning, a fair shot in life. We just have different beliefs about how to get there. Writing off entire groups as irredeemable only erodes any future possibility of understanding or change.