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
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.