Show transcript
Screenshot of a Tumblr post by nongunktional:
when i first heard about the male loneliness epidemic i was like oh yeah close camaraderie and bonding between men is often discouraged in favor of competition or, if not discouraged, at least filtered through a lens of individualism that precludes deep connections. and then i learned what people meant by it (men arent getting laid) to which i say skill issue
to all the men out there not getting laid: try less hard to get laid and try more hard to be an enjoyable and relaxing presence
I’ve heard this line quite a few times. But… as far as I can tell, camping is still absolutely a popular past time. Parks and beaches are still a thing. Gyms and bars and clubs are as crowded as ever.
This reads much more like a meme than reality.
There’s a lot of mass media that’s screaming at people about how women and men are natural enemies and the only path to intimacy is through sexual assault.
Absolutely attack this ideology. Drag your friends back from it if you can. Mock and deride the notion if you can’t. Don’t tolerate the intolerable.
Absolutely. So throw a party. Invite people out to do things. Mix and mingle.
Mocking and deriding people is very effective at radicalizing them, please do not do that, it consistently makes the problem worse.
I get that they would deserve that behaviour if they are advocating sexual assault, but if you care about that person, or the cultural issues they’re succumbing to, or the rising sentiment that men have to be rapey to ever have success with women, please don’t do that, it’s detrimental to the cause.
To your side, certainly. That’s how hazing works. Exploiting people’s insecurities by calling them cucks and betas while presenting a facade of success and popularity is the Andrew Tate Special.
Piercing that bubble and outing fanatics as weirdos is necessary if you want to break their grip. If you’re tolerating abhorrent behavior - or, God forbid, rewarding it - you’re reinforcing it.
That sounds like an extremely good way to ensure they cling even tighter to the lies sold by the Tates of the world
Antagonism is extremely effective at shutting people off from change. If you antagonize someone and they actually change, they almost certainly could have been better reached through compassion.
And when, like the vast majority of people exposed to antagonism, they don’t? You have now convinced them anyone outside their bubble is unreasonable and cruel, and given them a sense of persecution they will reflexively hide behind any time they’re confronted with an outside perspective
That’s because you’ve bought into the right wing propaganda. The endless campaign to coddle fascists has only ever produced more fascists.
Holy, this thread is a mess. If you think all men who struggle dating are fascists, this conversation ends here. If you accept the fact that not every man not in a relationship is a fascist, then we can talk. More specifically, we can talk about how the point isn’t to “coddle fascists”, but rather to not antagonize new men into the arms of Andrew Tate and others.
Is someone with social anxiety, therefore struggles dating, a fascist? You might know a far-right socially anxious guy, sure, but that doesn’t prove anything beyond the fact that this one person is a fascist. I’m not sure how it’s right wing propaganda to say that generalization is bad. But I’m also not sure whether you realize an issue (in this case, men struggle with relationships) can have more than one cause.
Word. I’m demisexual and greyromantic. The idea that any guy who isn’t dating or may have trouble dating is a fascist is inherently aphobic.
No idea where you got that. But I do see a lot of fascists who alienate women as friends and partners, then grow resentful when they don’t receive “respect” they feel they deserve.
This can quickly escalate into stalking and further violence against family or ex-partners, unless other people intervene.
The idea that a violent misogynist shouldn’t be argued with or deterred, because their sense of superiority is more important than anyone else’s safety is what’s brought us to the modern fascist moment.
If “social anxiety” means lashing out at women in order to force them to comply with your demands?
Absolutely.
You know that’s not what I mean by social anxiety. Even the fact that you put it in quotation marks makes it sound like you don’t believe anxiety can be a genuine reason to have never dated. I have social anxiety. I am a man. I’ve never dated. Therefore, you will now assume I’m a fascist who hates women, stalks women, is violent towards women. You will also assume that my social anxiety (or “social anxiety”, as you say) is a lie, a cover for the way you assume I act.
I’m not making excuses for actual fascists or actual men who do the things you mentioned above. I am, however, against this idea that men who struggle dating MUST do those things because there’s, supposedly, no other explanation. Do the men you describe exist? Sure. Attacking any men not in a relationship is where I draw the line.
What a dumbass take.
The key point here, however, is that exploiting insecurities through insults is not the only thing that Andrew Tate does.
He simultaneously messages to young men that they are weak/poor/unhealthy/cucks/betas/etc, but also that they deserve more, that it’s not entirely their fault that they’re not getting rich/women/success/etc, and that if they do xyz, they’ll fix themselves. Solely insulting them isn’t what makes the messaging effective, it’s the putting down of their current position in life while simultaneously promising a solution through notions of them having things like sex or money “taken” from them.
It’s certainly okay to mock or insult ideologies that are harmful, and to do a bit of that to the people that promote them, but only doing that will only radicalize them away from you. Think about these 2 scenarios:
Scenario A: “You’re worthless, you’ll never be anything, you’re poor, a virgin, and will die alone”
Scenario B: “You’re worthless, you’re poor, a virgin, and you’ll never be anything unless you follow these x steps to become a better man”
Scenario B is what Andrew Tate uses on young men. Scenario A is pure harassment that doesn’t motivate anybody on its own, Scenario B motivates action.
If you just ridicule a friend that has negative beliefs and don’t present any alternative, they will stop being your friend. If you deride them for sharing a harmful belief, then explain the alternative and how it would make them better off, you’re more likely to get them to actually change. (though this is, of course, not universal, and I’m sure a small subset of people could be motivated to change purely off insults and nothing more)
I hope I explained that well, I’m quite prone to rambling 😅
Dead isn’t precise enough. Expensive is generally what they mean. Along with many free spaces being dead.
Having to spend money to socialize is a concern for many. Often times this is a lack of a car too. Or lack of public transportation. Sprawl, Stroads.
It’s a multi variate thing when people quip that third places are dead.