You must log in or register to comment.
It’s not just men. My mother was pushed down the FaceTube YouBook weaponized disinformation rabbit hole.
It’s outrage porn… They LOVE being angry at ‘the system’ or ‘corporations’ or ‘the WHO’ etc. etc.
Yes, there’s a lot of stupid corrupt shit going on, but posting on social media is the most impotent thing a person could do to make a difference. (Yes, I appreciate the irony.)
It’s not just being angry at the system, but getting to feel morally superior to everyone else who isn’t clued into their “secret” knowledge. That’s the main allure of conspiracy culture. You always get to be right, and the people you hate will always be wrong. Conspiracies melt brains.
Oh yeah, phonecalls with my mother would start pleasant and turn into her bullshit about ‘the great reset’ or ‘the great barrington declaration’, and when I expressed doubt in the accuracy of her information, she’d go full-on smug asshole and say shit like “Well, I guess we’ll know which one of us is right soon enough.” or “Don’t come crawling back to me when your investments all go to zero.”. It was 100% ‘escape to the future’ fallacy, all day every day.
I eventually got tired of the bullshit and went zero-contact, filtered her eMails to the spam folder, blocked her number, etc.
I anticipate that I’ll get the call one day that she’s in the hospital and nobody will come pick her up, but until then, my sanity remains intact.
Yup, we had a disagreement about the electrical grid, and she insisted that green power would result in province-wide blackouts every night or whenever the wind stopped blowing. I sent her the power generation mix from the Electricity System Operator, showing that renewables accounted for a single-digit percentage point of the generating capacity of the province… Nope, “Why can’t you just respect what I believe?” “Because you’re full of shit?” click
Ontario has a lot higher percentage than that, and we don’t have nightly blackouts
…just in case you want another data point :P
“single digit” means “under 10%” But yes, the point still stands, and that website was super interesting. +1! :)
No confusion about percentages. You don’t count hydro as renewable I guess?
Hydro is the oldest city-scale power production method in Ontario. Yes, it’s green, but it’s a proven technology. I’m talking about solar and wind.
Frankly, I don’t trust anyone who’s not angry at corporations, but otherwise I tale your point.
Posting on Facebook don’t change shit though… It’s just impotent outrage.
We need to find a way against algorithms that benefit radicalization.
The only winning move is not to play. Don’t use platforms that do this.
That does not solve anything, since people are drawn to platforms with easy accessible content they enjoy. People will use those platforms. The problem is that algorithms will recommend you radicalizing content. And it’s an extremely complex task to solve. I would have no idea where to beginn, except better education - but that’s something that will take a generation to work out.
If the system is so fucked that it’d “take a generation to work out”, maybe the system isn’t worth saving in the first place. We’re talking social media websites here, not something like hospitals or schools that are required for a functioning society.
It took us hundred thousand years to figure out that hitting children as education is bad. We might not be the brightest.
More serious - sure, but it’s not that it’s easy to get rid of social media. Sure in china you can just forbid them, but they go more the way of using them to spread state propaganda. And in most democracies, people won’t support a blanket ban - I wouldn’t.
Treat them like cigarettes. Systems designed to amplify “engagement” are rage-farms, and bad for your brain. Limit their marketing, de-platform the companies, and commit to public health measures that educate people on that fact.
You could outlaw for-profit participation in the sector. Facebook would suck way less if it didn’t have to increase profits for shareholders constantly.
That would be a marvelous solution for sure (if we manage to close loopholes), but you will need one hell of a salesmen to sell it to general population.
On a practical level, with the current system, there is no way to fix this. My choices are utopian dreams or despair, and I’ve made my choice.
Not using the platforms is a personal solution for any individual who wants to escape, not a general solution. For “don’t use the platforms” to work as a solution for the masses, so few people would use the platforms that the platforms would cease to exist.
so few people would use the platforms that the platforms would cease to exist
I’m genuinely failing to see the downside here of facebook, twitter, and the like ceasing to exist.
I’m genuinely failing to see the downside here of facebook, twitter, and the like ceasing to exist.
Me neither. I should have been clearer. Despite all the bad things they do to make things worse, the problem is not the existence of the platforms. The problem is people. I was alluding to the fact that if there were enough people who recognized the problems of these platforms and acted on that, those kinds of platforms would never have arisen in the first place.
The various nasty types have always found ways to spread their messages, convert people to their cause, and convince others to do the actual dirty work.
Throughout history, every time a technology was introduced to increase the speed and geographical distribution of a message, extremism founded on false conspiracy, propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation has at least temporarily increased. There are really simple explanations for why that is. First, we have the problems of human cognition. Our brains are really lousy at identifying cause and effect, separating meaningful patterns from useless ones, and creating and maintaining accurate memories.
Second, truth requires verification. Verification cannot happen without investigation and communication among investigators. This means that verification will always happen much slower than message distribution. That is why a lie can circle the globe before the truth can get out of the starting blocks.
As bad as these platforms are, it’s important to remember that their problematic algorithms are little more than codification of the methods that propagandists have used for centuries. Rush Limbaugh brought these concepts to a peak before most people had ever heard of the internet. Usenet was filled with the same stuff we see on Facebook, and there were no algorithms or central systems, just people doing what people do.
When it comes to social media … Regulate, regulate, regulate … at local, regional, national and international levels
Imagine if all newspapers, magazines, books, publications were unregulated and uncontrolled? What do you think would be published everywhere? Imagine if daily newspapers just had no regulations at all and just ran and published all kinds of nonsense every day pretending everything they said were true? Imagine if regular publications everywhere just published non stop lies and nonsense? Everyone everywhere would go crazy with all kinds of ideas pushed by whatever group to do and think terrible things.
Imagine if all TV news programs, media news shows and information TV shows all just blasted complete nonsense, conspiracy theories and broadcast it all far and wide?
When you don’t have any controls or regulation on the mass information that is being shared everywhere … it turns into the wild west and the world starts to run on rumours, lies, half truths and misinformation. Society breaks down because no one is able to trust anything any more and information becomes a poison that no one wants any more.
Imagine if all newspapers, magazines, books, publications were unregulated and uncontrolled?
You can actually write in a book pretty much what ever you want and I would appreciate if it stayed that way.
I don’t think that there is any benefit in pretending that regulating any media is not a difficult tusk. It’s a delicate balance act and with social media even trickier, since it’s an individual against the state situation.
I think the identity of men is unstable nowdays.
A lot of people don’t know what is to be a man today, so they go back to the old ways when it’s was simple for then and bad for woman.
The nuances and uncertainty of modern life is too much for some people usually need success model’s to follow to feel safe.
It’s not the identity of males that is the problem … it’s the loss of power, privilege and status and the idea that males, especially white males are supposed to be equals to every other human on the planet.
The fact that this is changing is what is very upsetting to males … especially white males.
Most humans wants to be privileged and fulfilled.
The question is how to get there.
The male privilege can vary drastically.Let’s say you’re talking about a poor white man or a wealthy one. Wealthy white man still has patriarchal families and tradicional values.
The poor and middle class man are the most affected, they don’t know how to progress to get the milestones of life, so they search for answers on how to behave, how to get a job, how to create a family, how to be respected.
So they build a identity of a man to be portrayed in society, this can lead to integration of toxic masculinity traits, it will also get worse with isolation, but a stable and reasonable person can help listening and speaking about the challenges.
This is a good point with the additional wrinkle that traditional male identity has always been threatened and unstable. By women, by gays, by peace… a core component of the traditional male identity is being under attack (and thus being defensive).
Nothing modern has changed this. The problem is the traditional male identity itself.
It seems like the common thread is men not feeling like their problems are heard.
The internet and decline in friendship are partly responsible, but men’s groups that tried to form in my town had police called on them and the fire alarms pulled, and people with megaphones would yell over them and they got doxxed and harassed.
I know that these “feminists” were a small group and thought that these men getting together was going to hurt them, and some of the men were shitty, but they ended up silencing men online and off so that only the scummiest people became the ones standing up for men’s rights, so now that’s who the majority voices are.
Men do have serious issues: there’s parental rights and family court, there’s still the breadwinner expectation and unemployed men find themselves divorced at high rates, men taking parental leave are punished by fewer and worse job offers, the education system isn’t serving men well (as evidenced by both low achievement and high rates of medication), and men largely don’t see the point of pursuing higher education. There’s also addiction and suicide, the lack of support networks, feeling excluded from safe places in the way women’s shelters exist (these used to exist commonly in communities, without being toxic “boys clubs”). I’d bet a lot of men have gotten in trouble for pouring their feelings out to a partner too, I have, it hurts.
Those are all real and big problems, on top of the existing problems for everyone of life getting more unaffordable, good paying jobs being hard to find (long gone are the factory workers supporting a family of 6).
What these influencers are peddling are: easy answers (that are also largely wrong, things like blaming women), an easy to identify with ideal (the strong alpha male with cash and toys and hot girls and no fucks to give), selection bias/self made man bias (in truth nobody is self made), and an approachable “I have the answers, and you can too if you listen to me” persona.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d bet that working on addressing these issues (especially education and finance) for younger men would dry up the audiences of these influencers.
People don’t have hope for the future, and it’s killing them .
Edit: I should clarify I’m all for feminism, I’m egalitarian, the “feminists” alludes to the small group who pretend to be for women but they’re actually just anti-men. Almost all feminists and women are not in that group, they’re the female incel equivalent.
but men’s groups that tried to form in my town had police called on them and the fire alarms pulled, and people with megaphones would yell over them and they got doxxed and harassed.
Where did this happen? Why would people prevent men from forming groups? That sound completely surreal to me (Germany).
Canada, they were branded as sexists/misogynists before even having a meeting.
So a bunch of guys want to meet up and people just show up with megaphones, call police and trigger fire alarm? Canada is wild.
Yeah, that happened around the time that Red Pill movie came out (I have it seen it, but it doesn’t seem hateful based on Wikipedia).
The fire alarm and police happened over multiple meetings this group tried to have.
I’ll just leave this here https://youtu.be/rQv8VuLpKN4
The entire KICK platform is to intentionally fuck up kids and twenty somethings.
KICK?
I do think there is an attack on masculinity that is going unaddressed and this is a huge issue that if that was solved issues like this wouldn’t arrise.
If you ever speak about it, it just goes the old “you’re a man you have life on easy don’t you know how hard it is to be X” or “that’s not the way the world is any more you are stuck in the 40’s” or " you need to be thinking about X and how men make them feel and you need to do better even though you haven’t done anything wrong you’re responsible."
Boys and men want some shithousary, they want some aggression and they want to be tough. But they don’t get the support in a lot of ways I did even a few years ago.
Guys don’t want to be weak and breakdown and cry and talk about their feelings, they want to be part of a group that supports each other and helps each other grow and be tougher. But when guys are wrestling and calling each other cunts or whatever that isn’t healthy, they should be asking each other about their emotions and what not. I’m just convinced men aren’t built like that and building the world away from the old systems isn’t good for men.
They need a group where they can go and relax and shithouse. Things like scouts, full contract sport, boys groups, mens groups in the pub. That does more for my mental health and most guys mental health than any of the stuff being pushed now. What we need to push is society is community and I think men need that more than they need anything else, just look at loneliness levels. Secondly it’s probably purpose, being seen as tough and a provider.
That’s what men crave and there is such a severe lack of that community that it is taken from twats like Tate because there is no other option.
If you ever speak about it, it just goes the old “you’re a man you have life on easy don’t you know how hard it is to be X” or “that’s not the way the world is any more you are stuck in the 40’s” or " you need to be thinking about X and how men make them feel and you need to do better even though you haven’t done anything wrong you’re responsible."
Stop talking with the voices in your head. It helps a lot.
I’m just convinced men aren’t built like that
I’m a man and I’m build like that. How about not making generalizations about like half the population of earth. Some men want do MMA, some do want talk about feelings and some might even want to do both. There is no one size fit them all approach to masculinity. And it was never about, making traditional manly man any less manly. It is about realizing that we are all different and no-one is less human or men because we don’t fit in some box.
Stop talking with the voices in your head. It helps a lot.
Holy shit. Nail on the head. To the OP, I hope that’s not so harsh you don’t hear the message. You are rather ill-informed on what is acceptable human behavior, and what is that old toxic masculinity that us humans are trying to get rid of. You are absolutely fine hanging out with buddies and doing guy stuff. “Clubs” have been on a downward tend since the mid 20th century, and it’s not feminism that did that. It’s just that people are less and less interested in joining them and committing time. They all struggle with membership (yes, I belong to one).
There’s also the possibility that if you don’t have guys to hang out with, it might be that your idea of “shithouse” is just being shitty. I’ve spent plenty of time in locker rooms -and that kind of behavior gets on peoples nerves as you get older. That’s not an attack on masculinity.
Stop talking with the voices in your head. It helps a lot.
Congratulations, you did exactly what others have said is the problem: men’s problems are dismissed or blamed on the victims. Are you seriously denying that this happens?
How are do you write despite lacking the ability to read? Is there a nest of you guys somewhere next to this sub?
Yeah, you are way down the toxic masculinty trip, that you fail to differentiate what of these things are what people actually want and what they think they want, because it was instilled into them by society.
Usually the people that present this to the outside are emotionally very fragile and break down easily, just not in public. Also your inability to find a community is not the issue of changed expectations, but of your own ability to socialise. And that typically stems from the “old school” training you probably received by your parents and male guardian figures in your life.
That “old school tough” typically involves denying your own emotions and punishing emotions in other people, be it women deemed “hysterical” or men deemed “weak”. But nothing is more weaker than that.
Meanwhile “real men” don’t need to get into bar fights because they cannot handle the fact, that their coworker isn’t into them. They actually face up to their emotions and deal with them constructively.
Sometimes what they want and what society says they want is the same thing.
I didn’t say I didn’t have a community I said people find it hard. I have had plenty of communities whether it was from clubs or sports or friends or more recently travelling. You’re just making incorrect assumptions here.
That’s just not true. No one has ever taught me to lash out at anyone. This is the exact issue I’m talking about and if you take nothing else away from what I have said look at this. As soon as someone (me) talks about masculinity being good for some people someone (you) attacks me for it and says it isn’t right. A lot of men want to be tough they don’t want someone to told their hand. It’s not a “oh you messed up hunny, you want to lean on my shoulder and cry. It won’t happen again.” it’s a “you fucked up and let the team down. Smash some cunts in the next tackle like I know you can” then when that happens you get a “that’s fucking more like it”. Yet somehow that level of support goes to you beat your wife or something as you are going on about. It is exactly the issue I am talking about.
You’re just wrong on this.
Traditional male support that a lot of people born traditionally male respond well too. But other people on the outside look down on us and discourage boys from having that support.
Even something as simple as all mens groups are heavily discouraged.
you are argueing against a strawman. Ibam not aware that anyone is demanding men to break down and cry on a shoulder when they fail to do something. Noone is forbidding men from being strong, be it emotionally or physically.
But when you talk about being agressive and “smashinf cunts” that of course means lashing out and attacking people for no proper reason.
In OP’s defense I read that is if it were in the context of like a rugby game, and I agree with OP that physical sports one can be a healthy outlet for men, it doesn’t have to be bar fighting levels of violence.
yeah but noone is seriously claiming that rugby needs to stop. So hes argueing against complete strawmen
Yes they are though. People say if men keep their emotions bottled up and don’t cry or talk about their emotions it’s a bad thing. The fact that men express their worries, emotion and support in a different way is the issue because so many people do not like it and try stop it.
I have no idea how you got to attacking people when I was clearly talking about team sport. Obviously punching unsuspecting people is bad but that is horrifically different to what I was saying. Killing people is also bad, but equally that isn’t what I said.
People have told me I shouldn’t act the way that emotionally supports me. People have told me contact sports should be banned, boys shouldn’t rough house, calling your friend a cunt is not acceptable in anyway, being loud and singing in a way that does not disrupts others isn’t okay, playing voluntary games like drinking or slapping each other is unacceptable. People have told me that team sport, and men only environment, is negative for society because I believe it allows men to act in a way that is natural to them, yet some people don’t like it.
Boys and men should be supported in doing things that help them. Wether it’s making friendship groups where you can call your friends cunts or where they will look out for you when needed.
Slap a “some” on there. Not everyone is the same
Fair enough. I left it as a low key implication of “most”
