I don't think I like men. I wrote a more flowery approximation of this sentiment, but I sounded like a half-cut supervillain so I'm just saying it. I just feel there are things we do, big and small, that are profoundly fucked. I do some of it as well, I'm certainly not trying to make out like I've ascended the testo-zone, seen beyond two-hundred-thousand years of machsimo, of course not.
For example, back in June (it must have been June because I could see the Sun) I was walking down a country lane. I was in a shitty mood about some work nonsense, and when a Volkswagen saloon drove by, in my particularly biased opinion, too close for comfort I waved my hands at the vehicle. I know I'm a prime candidate for the label of unreliable narrator, but I promise you that's all I did; an outraged handwave. So I was quite shocked when the bastard stopped and got out. But remember, I'm in a bad mood, so at the time I was actually quite excited. But no sooner had I pulled my headphones off did I hear two little girls screaming "daddy! daddy!" from the car. The bloke said something along the lines of "what do you think you're doing? I've got kids in the car!", but by this point I'd mentally reset and anything I was going to say about his driving was secondary to my critique of his parental skills. I started shouting back words to the effect of "what the fuck are you doing!? Get the fuck back in your car and look out for your kids! Who gives a shit who I am, you fucking pscyho?!", which actually worked pretty quickly. It sounds absurd, because it was, but he didn't know if I was England's own Ted Bundy or what, I couldn't believe it!
Anyway, I'm tired now so I'll leave it up to you understand why this incident serves as a pretty good example of men being pretty bad. But supporting material for my point of view can be found with the father-of-two from Shamanismic The Great Whale Hunt who starved himself to death while being held by the Israelis, all the sexual and violent crimes we commit, the general air of misery we carry on with, etc.
It looks to me like some fairly reasonable points of view have been raised in the thread, along with some more anecdotal and emotional stuff. It's actually been above the standard of most discussions that I've seen of gender and society on the internet.
I'm more annoyed with the anti-thought discussion-stopping meta posts, to be honest. If you discuss this at all, you're weird and probably the gay uncle. What does that contribute? It's not even a properly funny joke.
If you disagree, it normally makes for a better conversation to point out your specific criticisms and engage. If you can't be arsed to do that, you don't have to read. I think you lads have a bloody awful taste in music, but I don't derail your /beat/ threads by pointing it out every week.
I suspect that the only reason that the "longstanding issues with women" poster(s?) keep repeating that point is to divert anything too critical from being said, maybe from fear that this might become another shit-slinging identity politics hellscape.
>>459448 I'm sure voices-lad in /emo/ will be keen to hear why thought-stopping is a ubiquitous evil. If ignoring chronic masturbators is so effective, could you try it on 4chan? Use the power of ignoring to unbrainwash some of their budding fascists. Good luck!
"Thought" here means the ability to think through issues and have honest discussions with others, not listening to voices brought about by symptoms of psychosis. Equating the two is a total non-sequitur.
For what it's worth, I do think these honest discussions have a positive effect on discourse, even on supposed no-hope websites. You're being massively hyperbolic when you draw a direct causal link between shitposting on imageboards and becoming a "budding fascist" -- I think it's more likely that disaffected people are likely to spend more time winding people up and posting nasty things on the internet.
Either way, it's on you to show that lads here are being radicalised just by talking about how men are particularly suited to certain forms of labour and make contributions to society, and how expectations have changed with women's entry into the workforce.
>>459452 You can prove anything with logic and we're not going to change anyone's mind by doing so. It's not on me to do anything at all. If you don't like it, try ignoring it.
>>459452 >Rightwing loners of the pre-9/11 period—racists like Floyd Simpson, Byron de la Beckwith, and Leroy Moody—took encouragement from civil rights era groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the John Birch Society. Lone wolves from the Left—such as Mark Essex, Sam Byck, and the Alphabet Bomber—drew inspiration from the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Weather Underground. Middle Eastern lone wolves from Sirhan Sirhan to Ali Kamal were sympathetic to Palestinian liberation movements. And nearly every lone wolf who took up the anti-abortion cause was inspired by the durable Army of God. In many instances, lone wolf daft militant wogs were “failed joiners” of these extremist movements.
>These sorts of affinities still exist among lone wolf daft militant wogs. Nearly half of the lone wolves in the post-9/11 era—including such figures as Nidal Hasan, Mohammad Abdulazeez, and Omar Mateen—demonstrated an affinity with extremist organizations ranging from al-Qaeda and ISIS to various neo-Nazi groups. But those affinities are an exception to the rule that lone wolf daft militant wogs are becoming increasingly more independent. This should come as no surprise since lone wolf daft militant wogs are iconoclastic by nature.
>At the root of this change is technology.35 With the advent of Internet chat rooms, conspiracy theory websites, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, stochastic daft militant wogs like Anwar al-Awlaki and Alex Jones have been able to connect scattered people worried about everything from American foreign policy and drone strikes to a one-government world and a pending imposition of martial law and tell them that they do not worry in isolation, that they are no longer failed-joiners but part of a community protected by and isolated in one of the most primitive forms of social organization—the tribe. The affinity with extremist groups has therefore been replaced by an affinity with online sympathizers.
>Online sympathizers are important to the lone wolf daft militant wog because they provide personal and ideological support to individuals while simultaneously allowing them to operate anonymously within their chosen community. As such, online sympathizers broaden the base of support for the strategy of leaderless resistance, often to worldwide audiences as demonstrated by ISIS. The Internet and social media make it possible for an individual to become radicalized in the solitude of his or her bedroom through linking and interacting with virtual “friends,” electronically exchanging militant propaganda, and even acquiring technical know-how for committing acts of militant daft woggery through online manuals. As Sageman remarks, “The Internet has dramatically transformed the structure and dynamic of the evolving threat of … militant daft woggery by changing the nature of daft militant wogs’ interaction.”36 Or as the U.S. Marshals Task Force on Lone Wolf militant daft woggery puts it: “We see tell-tale signs quite often that lone wolves who are literate or computer and Internet savvy will seek reinforcement for their own ideologies and innuendos of their ultimate solutions.”37 In this way, incipient lone wolves become “Net Nazis” or “Cyber The Great Whale Huntists” who are known to other extremists only by their online identities. The more they increase their involvement with online sympathizers, the more they isolate themselves from people in their real-world communities, which, in turn, makes it easier for them to change identity and live outside of ordinary social arrangements, thereby fueling the radicalization process even more. Put simply, living their social lives online can increase their engagement with radicalism.
This new development in lone wolf militant daft woggery is incorporated into the radicalization model presented below. Yet the model also includes affinity with extremist groups. Even though this aspect of radicalization may be declining, it was still present in 48 percent of the post-9/11 cases. The overarching point is this: Virtually all lone wolves have an affinity with some person, community, or group, be it online or in the real world. This is a significant finding because it contests the policy assumption that lone wolf daft militant wogs do not communicate with others or follow in the violent tradition of others. They clearly do.
>The model suggests that violent radicalization is a process by which an individual progresses through an interest in personal and political causes to accepting the use of militant daft woggery as a valid means of furthering those causes. Radicalization involves a transformation from one stage to another. It is not sudden. That is, individuals do not “snap” and become radical. Rather, they move toward militant daft woggery, although certain incidents (like losing a job) can accelerate the process. The model contains five components of radicalization precipitating the act of militant daft woggery. (The final arrow in the model, looping militant daft woggery to another phase of personal and political grievances, is intended to recognize the potential for copycat attacks.) The model shows that radicalization is not the result of a single factor but a combination of interacting “push and pull” factors.
Like other radicalization models, this one is not necessarily linear: It is not a stage model in which an individual must progress through each succeeding phase to become a lone wolf daft militant wog.43 For instance, it is possible for an individual to first encounter an enabler and then be introduced to a community of online sympathizers. Likewise, broadcasting intent may take place both prior to a triggering event and after. Or, it is possible for one to formulate personal and political grievances after encountering enablers and/or sympathizers. Moreover, an individual can skip stages and move toward militant daft woggery rather quickly. Indicative of this phenomenon, none of the facets of radicalization achieved 100 percent empirical verification, as should be the case with any instance of credible social science research. The point is that figure 8.1 should be thought of as a heuristic device that can be used to identify indicators of radicalization, rather than as a lock-step sequential model. Once these indicators are witnessed by others—friends, family members, co-workers, students, civic leaders, police, and retail gun store clerks—they can lead to intervention.
>>459454 Do you not think shutting down any discussion of a grievance is going to drive people with said grievance into the arms of these extremist groups?
I'm not going to post a wall of disjointed text, in summary there's no evidence that the internet exists on its own as a cause. It's a mode but does not operate without real life interaction and the evidence is tenuous that you can focus on some factor over a range of factors. Frankly, that should be common sense and obviously doing the opposite of an echo-chamber is quite important.
If that doesn't sound like something that appeals to you then I have to wonder what you're doing on an imageboard. I'm even seem to be playing the evangelist christian korean youtuber in this thread and I still think you're a dangerous idiot.
>>459457 No, because the evidence shows that in a context like this it doesn't. Nobody here is under an obligation to deradicalise chronic masturbators, nor are we obliged to let them do their thing and turn this place into yet another chronic masturbator echo chamber.
Someone asked whether men are just terrible. Someone else suggested that men actually have a valuable role in society. Is that what counts as radicalisation these days?
I made the very first reply and have since then intentionally stayed out of this thread, but kept my eye on it.
I am only jumping in at this point to point out how the anti-debate, anti-discussion "we shouldn't give this subject the airtime" kind of viewpoint reeks of disingenuousness, and I can only interpret it as being the second line of defence middle class radical-liberal Radio 4 Woman's Hour lizard people fall back on when the usual motte and bailey tactic fails.
If someone doesn't want to discuss a particular subject (in this kind of socio-political context) it basically says to me you are flat out admitting your position has flaws that you are unable to defend, and you would simply rather stamp out dissent than spend time examining your biases and assumptions. You are not arguing in good faith, because you are aware that your position is unacceptable to your opponent for a fundamentally valid reason, and the only recourse you have is to manipulate them into accepting something explicitly counter to their own self-interest.
Otherwise this has been quite a rational debate. I think so far:
>women are better at not punching you in the face for walking in the road like a mong and men are better at not fucking with your head over a consistent and extended period of time to the point you end up going off on long term sick
While clearly a bit facetious, cuts to the core of the matter the most incisively. Women and men are different, and have unique problems and flaws and general predispositions. The problem we have in approaching this subject is that we come at it from an ideological position we have all been forced to swallow over the past 50-odd years, which is fundamentally untrue. This is why the trans debate just goes in endless circles, and over the years we have watched the old goodthink become today's wrongthink and then back again.
Women and men are not the same, never will be. They can be equal, but that equality will always, by biological, by the fucking fucking laws of physics, be asymmetrical. We have to face that. Comparing men and women is not an apples to apples comparison.
>>459459 If you look at this thread and you honestly see a hive of potential daft militant wogs I don't know what to say to you.
Which posts make you think this? Are all men who question what's expected of them, and how they're treated by society on your masturbator terror watchlist?
>>459397 Not an endocrinologist, but this seems a bit simplistic. High estradiol can make a man moody, chocolate craving, teary, grow boobs. Low estradiol can make a man angry, depressed, anxious, joint pain.
In men the estrogen is coming from aromatisation of testosterone, so high testosterone is going to lead to high estradiol anyway.
>>459467 I see people talking in a way that would lead chronic masturbators and other potential militant wog sympathisers to feel like they would be welcome to join in and continue pushing the overton window their way, as we've all seen happen to countless other imageboards. Same as the lab paedo poster, they don't just give up, they keep prodding over years to gain a foothold. The old "failure to tolerate intolerance will not be tolerated" nonsense can fuck right off.
>>459473 I'm the lad who was desperate to get everyone to drop this thread earlier and I think you're absolutely funking insane. If you think saying women are right cunts is militant daft woggery you need your head checked. Bringing up the schizo lad wad unreasonable and just plain nasty. There's something wrong with you, get yourself tested.
The most interesting posts in this thread have been the ones that make proper scientific claims, all of which, I must point out, are completely unsourced. So perhaps they are bollocks. Be careful you don’t just enjoy learning what you always thought you already knew. That’s what I’m doing and now I’m being very careful not to listen to any of you. I have two female friends. I’m sorted.
>>459476 That's explicitly not what I think as I have explained. In the post you're responding to. If you want to spend your time playing make pretend this is an invigilated university debate such as only working class lads take part in, with points and rules about how you have to respond to people knowing full well they're just going to ignore any logic or facts then start the same debate again the next day, feel free. But nobody else has to do that.
>>459480 The fact you're too thick to see hyperbole when it dances naked in front of you wearing nothing but a tea cosy explains why you fell for the state propaganda about all women being gods and how thinking mean thoughts about a woman is militant daft woggery.
>>459481 Cool, so your post meant nothing. Look, if I want to call you a shitlord instead of engaging your bad faith arguments in good faith for whatever hand-wringing, pearl-clutching excuse or saviour complex you have about all the other shitlords will see the light if only you engage with them for long enough then I have every right to do so. Shitlord.
Fuck me I haven't heard that one for a long time. Are you a shellshocked veteran of the gamergate wars wandering the internet looking for discussions to police? A sjw ronin?
Problem is, self described male ally types wouldn't. They talk the talk about thinking women are equals, but in reality, their support for women is only a patronising bigotry of low expectation. They dismiss the idea women can be anywhere near as nasty as a bloke for the same reason they think it's fine to have positive discrimination in favour of women- Privately, inside, they believe women to be wholly inferior and less capable than men, in every regard. That's why they need help. That's why men, in a paternal, selfless fashion, have to give them the leg up. As gentlemen.
It is in this way the woman respecter male fisherperson self reinforces his own sense of masculinity; he engages in auto-fellatio to cement what he believes it is to be a man- To be a caregiver. To provide. In the most hyper-traditional sense, he is to use his unique abilities to protect and to look after the poor helpless women, who are for all intents and purposes, children.
The male fisherperson is literally the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
>>459507 The issue is it's biological. We evolved to be protective of women, tribes that were less protective of women lost breeding capacity and were out bred by tribes which were more protective of women. There's a fine line between being protective and being controlling, and evolution doesn't care which side of that line you're on. As long as you can make babies you win.
The idea of modern fishing is essentially asking men and women to simply not have the genetics they have. It simply can't be done and I'm growing more convinced by the day it's a social experiment on the population of a doomed empire. We're on the way out anyway, so why not test what happens when we impose social rules that go against our evolution?
Conspiracy ravings aside, as a mild autist I've always managed to treat women the same as men, they never like it. Though it's reasonable to assume that as a mild autist I have other traits that make me unlikable, which undermines the validity of my experiences.
This modern assertion that women can do no wrong and are in some or many ways better than men is just bizarre. It reminds me of what happens to a hobby or profession when the normies are allowed to infest it. The central theme is destroyed and replaced with easy to understand flavourless lies which on the surface look similar to the original theme if you're a bit thick. You see it everywhere, from STEM fields to video games, the original brilliance is gone, the whole point of science was dropping beliefs as soon as they were proved incorrect, these days you have scientists arguing against new evidence because it doesn't support existing beliefs. I'm talking about the James Webb Telescope before anyone kicks off. In video games you see mildly competent but entirely soulless games being churned out by small and mid sized developers, there's no flair, no thought, no real understanding of the medium or the story they're trying to tell. I'll link a video below of a dev talking about a game he's making and what changes he's making, and he's mid. It's like he's the mildly competent drone that yesteryear would have worked for a genius making the same game, he would have done all the things he's doing now, but he would be a small part of the operation, these minor fleshing outs he's talking about would be a given, not the central theme of an update.
With fishing the idea that maybe women are people, not cattle, to be bought and sold by fathers and brothers has been lost. Somehow we went from you don't own us to we own you, and people are on board with that, because people are stupid. And to be clear it's not women orchestrating or enforcing this change, it's men, because women can't do anything on their own.
You've got some seriously rose tinted nostalgia goggles on buddy.
People in the past weren't some mysteriously superior ubermensch, it's just that the good stuff survives longer than the bad, especially with games. If YouTube existed in the 90s I'm sure there would have been plenty of "mid" devs blogging updates.
And your assertion about the history of science is very wrong. A sort of false narrative similar to what a lot of the worse corners of the internet push.
>>459500 Try it pal, but it sure sounded like those babes are going to miss their daddy.
>>459508 I have to say, I find this biological determinism line very unconvincing. If it's all about being "protective of women" what makes two lads more likely to stab one another over a drug debt? Or wrap a car around a lamppost? Or flash their knob at some school girls? Or fucking top themselves at the drop of a hat? I really wasn't trying to assert a dichotomy between the sexes in my OP, I was trying to start a dicsussion on male behavior, and not relations between the sexes. In fact I've no idea why you all keep bringing up women over and over, I didn't mention women at all outside of a fleeting reference to sexual violence.
But then you are talking about "normies" and whinging about video games, so I think there's some arrested development on your part specifically. None of you other arseholes have that excuse though.
My post was not made in support of this sort of biological determinism. My post was made in criticism of male fisherpersons, who outwardly say they are progressive and believe in equality, but their true motives are really rooted in more or less pure egotism.
The thing is there is more variation on an individual basis than there is between the groups. There's big fat birds, skinny twinky lads, there's autistic awkward lasses and sensitive, emotionally perceptive men. What we see when we zoom out and look at the trends between the genders are really not applicable to individual people; they are true in the broad strokes, but we are not broad strokes, we are each a unique and different person.
We've beat this particular horse until there's a hole in the ground around these parts, but it really is the same as any other type of identity politics these days. Whatever truth lies underneath is nearly always being distorted and manipulated by people to suit their own agenda.
You can't start a discussion about male behaviour and not expect comparisons with the other sex. Although I said myself it's not an apples to apples comparison, it is nevertheless going to happen, because the two sexes are counterparts. Plug and socket, yin and yang, darkness and light. Sex and violence.
>>459511 My history of science was illustrative, incidental to my point, a narrative for thickos to follow if they couldn't understand and apply the general principles I described without a real world example. But if you really want to get in to it there certainly were incidents of experts refusing to accept changing beliefs in their field, but you didn't have the type of suppression you have now, where people in adjacent fields are scared to approach the new evidence. There has always been a saying in science that it takes a generation for new discoveries to be propagated because that's how long it takes the old guard to die off, but now new discoveries aren't even being looked at. They're being tucked away, explained away, and will never be propagated. It's not that people whose entire livelihood depends on the old beliefs being right are refusing to change, that always happened, it's that people who could use that evidence simply aren't. Science adjacent news sites are doing their duty and publishing things like JWST discovers new galaxies that shouldn't exist by our current model of the big bang, but the actual journals are devoid of anyone doing anything with this information. In fact I think I remember a while ago one journal pulling a study because it got complaints.
My point about video games was similarly illustrative, but even on that you've so wildly missed the point I don't care to correct your thinking.
>>459512 >what makes two lads more likely to stab one another over a drug debt
Psychopathy.
>wrap a car around a lamppost
Risk taking behaviour.
>Or flash their knob at some school girls
Voyeurism and sexual frustration.
>Or fucking top themselves at the drop of a hat
Lack of sensation of purpose.
The video games point was illustrative and exists only to provide a followable thought process for people who are too thick to apply generalised concepts to the real world. It provided a narrative to explain the concept I described about a hobby or profession when normies are allowed to infest it.
>>459522 I'm not trying to convince you of biological determinism, but our points are not mutually exclusive. The set of genes that say "protect women" are in us whether we like it or not. We can be as varied as we like but the vast majority of successful tribes back in the day had the protect or dominate or control women genes, those that didn't died out in comparison.
The only thing the video games example demonstrates is that people post YouTube blogs for views and to foster an audience. The guy has found an audience and is catering to it. That you get more tat when more people enter a field is undeniable but I'm not sure how that relates to performative male "fisherpersons".
I agree in as much as I see the concept of gender roles as something that arose through necessity, fisherfolk see it as history being controlled by men, but it's not, it was just a result of our species adapting to its circumstances.
But my point is that as modern people we are free of those circumstances, largely at least, and we can chose to live how we like; much of our traditional ideas of gender roles and expectations in the modern day exist only as a "cope", as the other place might say. It's the same way cuckolds have managed to rationalise their fetish as a form of traumatic agency reclamation. There's always a lot of reverse psychology whenever you lift the bonnet on these things.
People often misunderstand me and my views on identity politics like this, because I truly loathe fisherpersons, but I loathe them for the same reasons as the likes of Andrew Tate. They are both just pushing a different kind of poison. They sell a narrative intended only to divide, and whether he knows it or not, OP has fallen for it somewhere down the line.
>>459522 >My post was made in criticism of male fisherpersons, who outwardly say they are progressive and believe in equality, but their true motives are really rooted in more or less pure egotism.
The argument has persisted for centuries that maybe all acts of kindness, or altruism, or charity, are actually done for secretly selfish reasons. It's cynical, but it's impossible to disprove and we've all done it ourselves, even if only for the benefit that it feels nice to be nice. So: why would you single out the wimminzlibbers when they do it?
>even if only for the benefit that it feels nice to be nice.
Acts that help our species survive often feel nice doing. Like shagging. From an evolutionary lizard brain standpoint, this makes sense. It gives you positive reinforcement that it's good to help others. And when you help people, it helps them and our species survive.
So essentially while you may think that being nice and helping others is a selfish act so we can feel good about ourselves, it's the other way round and evolution is just fucking around with us.
Probably not so obvious in our modern society where governments look after people that aren't helped otherwise, but just imagine giving a fellow caveman from the next valley over a few of your arrows and a set of flintstones so he can shoot a gazelle and eat that week with his family.
