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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
A 2020 research study found that age and gender can influence how lonely people feel. Younger people report more loneliness than older people, and men are more vulnerable to loneliness that is more intense than women.
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.
A simple search with the keywords “men” and “loneliness epidemic” should pull up plenty of resources on the topic.
Instead of me doing some rando search and assuming those were your views, I was asking for examples/articles on your views. I don’t think you want Joe Rogan or Tate talking for you, do you? Both of those assholes show up in those broad searches.
I’m on mobile right now and don’t feel like doing a whole deep-dive but here’s an article from NASW
'Gender roles appear to contribute to male adolescent loneliness. “In most cultures, men are expected to provide. Men are expected to lead,” says Romero. ’
I don’t disagree that these ideas exist. Some cultures far more than others. In most western cultures however, the embrace of acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women work to combat this. The recognition that they’ve had it bad for hundreds of years and this new problem with men is a short term whiplash.
Men should reject these ideas that men are the default providers or leaders. Believe those are true is an irrational trap. Men can be leaders or providers, but so can women.
I don’t disagree that these ideas exist. Some cultures far more than others. In most western cultures however, the embrace of acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women work to combat this. The recognition that they’ve had it bad for hundreds of years and this new problem with men is a short term whiplash.
What?
“Have they tried rejecting their depression? what, are they stupid?”
This is how it feels, and the reality of actually existing, Men are frequently valued based off of their potential(earning or otherwise) in the real world, just by saying you reject it isn’t going to make this suddenly not true and just clear everything up in your life.
The solution to a young mans worry about his potential and place in life is… acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women? that is an opinion.
“Have they tried rejecting their depression? what, are they stupid?”
Congrats! I never said that. First, Clinical Depression is a serious matter and shame on you for trying to suggest that any amount of just thinking differently would change the outcome. There are documented medical causes and treatments by qualified psychiatrists. Millions of people suffer from Clinical Depression and its a serious matter. For those in need, I highly recommend seeking help. There’s no shame it in. We’re all broken and need help sometimes.
However, we’re not talking about Clinical Depression. We’re talking about social and cultural norms about the role of men and the disillusion that arises when those old ideas don’t match today’s reality.
This is how it feels, and the reality of actually existing, Men are frequently valued based off of their potential(earning or otherwise) in the real world,
By who? Who’s opinion do you care about that is making that judgement of you? What is THEIR motive for judging you such?
just by saying you reject it isn’t going to make this suddenly not true and just clear everything up in your life.
Of course not. If you’re looking for a ‘silver bullet’ solution you’re not going to find one. Humans a irrational, greedy, hurt, self interested, and angry. Welcome to life. However, recognized what is important to you instead of seeking validation from others is the start.
The solution to a young mans worry about his potential and place in life is… acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women? that is an opinion.
The acknowledgement is that women have faced many of these same questions for hundreds or thousands of years. This isn’t new. Its just new to young men. That recognition should do a few things:
Give you empathy that the women in your life you love have faced these struggles and you’ve been immune to them up to now. Talk to them. Ask them how they navigate life. While not all of it will, see if any of it can give you guidance too.
Realize you are not alone. No, not just other young men are in it with you, but lots of women too.
Start questioning where you derive your ‘worth’ from. Ask yourself why you’re letting other people define that for you. Ask if you agree with their definitions.
Congrats! I never said that. First, Clinical Depression is a serious matter and shame on you for trying to suggest that any amount of just thinking differently would change the outcome.
Oh my bad.
This you?
Men should reject these ideas that men are the default providers or leaders. Believe those are true is an irrational trap. Men can be leaders or providers, but so can women.
Rejecting ideas -> changing the way they think
And not only that, you for some reason think that everyone should change their opinions to match your world view.
Sorry, I reject your giant wall of pedantry and goal post moving.
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_@lemmy.world 's argument isn’t that.
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).
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.
Well, most accurate would be a feedback loop, but the point still stands that it’s self-harm, regardless of why it arises.
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.
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.
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 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.
Instead of me doing some rando search and assuming those were your views, I was asking for examples/articles on your views. I don’t think you want Joe Rogan or Tate talking for you, do you? Both of those assholes show up in those broad searches.
'Gender roles appear to contribute to male adolescent loneliness. “In most cultures, men are expected to provide. Men are expected to lead,” says Romero. ’
I don’t disagree that these ideas exist. Some cultures far more than others. In most western cultures however, the embrace of acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women work to combat this. The recognition that they’ve had it bad for hundreds of years and this new problem with men is a short term whiplash.
Men should reject these ideas that men are the default providers or leaders. Believe those are true is an irrational trap. Men can be leaders or providers, but so can women.
What?
“Have they tried rejecting their depression? what, are they stupid?”
This is how it feels, and the reality of actually existing, Men are frequently valued based off of their potential(earning or otherwise) in the real world, just by saying you reject it isn’t going to make this suddenly not true and just clear everything up in your life.
The solution to a young mans worry about his potential and place in life is… acknowledging the contributions and strengths of women? that is an opinion.
Congrats! I never said that. First, Clinical Depression is a serious matter and shame on you for trying to suggest that any amount of just thinking differently would change the outcome. There are documented medical causes and treatments by qualified psychiatrists. Millions of people suffer from Clinical Depression and its a serious matter. For those in need, I highly recommend seeking help. There’s no shame it in. We’re all broken and need help sometimes.
However, we’re not talking about Clinical Depression. We’re talking about social and cultural norms about the role of men and the disillusion that arises when those old ideas don’t match today’s reality.
By who? Who’s opinion do you care about that is making that judgement of you? What is THEIR motive for judging you such?
Of course not. If you’re looking for a ‘silver bullet’ solution you’re not going to find one. Humans a irrational, greedy, hurt, self interested, and angry. Welcome to life. However, recognized what is important to you instead of seeking validation from others is the start.
The acknowledgement is that women have faced many of these same questions for hundreds or thousands of years. This isn’t new. Its just new to young men. That recognition should do a few things:
Oh my bad.
This you?
Rejecting ideas -> changing the way they think
And not only that, you for some reason think that everyone should change their opinions to match your world view.
Sorry, I reject your giant wall of pedantry and goal post moving.
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.
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.