It’s assholeish to bring it up that way if that wasn’t the original scope of what they were saying, but otherwise a fair point since teenage boys are probably the most vulnerable and relevant target for that kind of messaging.
The OOP may not have directly said it in their original post. But when people talk about young men “falling down the alt-right pipeline” it is generally referring to how thoroughly targeted that entire like 12-18 age bracket is with right wing propaganda. You’re usually talking about kids that aren’t old enough to know they’re being taken for a ride yet. So while that person may have been referring to like… idk 18-22 year olds that’s such a huge outlier in the usual discussion that it should be clowned on.
idk much about the guy you’re talking about, but as someone with a 14 year old that I’ve had to teach to navigate this propaganda he’s accurate in this instance. The way the right talks to these young men is insidious, and the kind of sentiment OOP is espousing here does nothing to stop young men being pulled rightward.
Vaush is a proven misogynist creep. So it should come as no surprise that those of us who know what he and his (so-called) “dirtbag left” ilk really is all about - ie, reactionary shitlibs masquerading as leftists - doesn’t buy it when he suddenly jumps to the defence of a demographic that wasn’t even a part of the discussion.
Respectfully when I know for a fact that what this guy is talking about is happening because I’ve watched it happen to dozens of kids that age in my life and constantly see it in my own feeds because I try to keep my privacy at least a little so the algorithms can never decide if I’m a teen gamer boy they should push Neo-Nazi shit to or a newly out trans girl I could not give less of a fuck what your definition of “young men” is. In fact I think young men is a pretty fair generalization for dudes that could very well be beginning puberty depending on the person. If you’re claiming they weren’t part of the discussion when they very clearly need to be I think that’s a problem.
Feminists have been talking about this for more than a hundred years now… yet a reactionary grifter says it to score cheap points in an attempt to strawman his opponent and now you all want to die on this hill?
I’m starting to think the way it looks is the way it is.
If you agree that it’s happening, why do you minimize the statement by saying that 12 year old boys aren’t young men? Is it really so hard to leverage a win from even an imperfect messenger? I feel like if I disliked a guy but he happened to be saying a correct thing I’d leverage it into getting people to care about my cause.
Like maybe leading with how feminists have been talking about how reactionary forces prey on young men to perpetuate the patriarchal structure? Rather than saying fuck this guy he’s bad the person he’s responding to didn’t even mention 12 year old boys. Like… if we both agree that the right going after 12 year old boys is a problem, why are you sitting here arguing about some “reactionary grifter” that made up not even a quarter of the post?
Where exactly does she mention twelve-year old boys?
Or is Vaush just doing his normal shitlib thing of pretending not to have heard what the other person was saying?
It’s assholeish to bring it up that way if that wasn’t the original scope of what they were saying, but otherwise a fair point since teenage boys are probably the most vulnerable and relevant target for that kind of messaging.
Oh look at you proving the entire point of the post.
Lots here are proving to be very defensive of a misogynistic creep masquerading as a leftist - is there any particular reason why?
I’m not defending anyone. I just find these purity politics disgusting.
You’ve all chosen a very interesting opportunity to start being concerned about “purity politics.”
No, I haven’t. You don’t know me. I’ve been against for a long time.
The OOP may not have directly said it in their original post. But when people talk about young men “falling down the alt-right pipeline” it is generally referring to how thoroughly targeted that entire like 12-18 age bracket is with right wing propaganda. You’re usually talking about kids that aren’t old enough to know they’re being taken for a ride yet. So while that person may have been referring to like… idk 18-22 year olds that’s such a huge outlier in the usual discussion that it should be clowned on.
idk much about the guy you’re talking about, but as someone with a 14 year old that I’ve had to teach to navigate this propaganda he’s accurate in this instance. The way the right talks to these young men is insidious, and the kind of sentiment OOP is espousing here does nothing to stop young men being pulled rightward.
12-year olds aren’t “young men.”
Vaush is a proven misogynist creep. So it should come as no surprise that those of us who know what he and his (so-called) “dirtbag left” ilk really is all about - ie, reactionary shitlibs masquerading as leftists - doesn’t buy it when he suddenly jumps to the defence of a demographic that wasn’t even a part of the discussion.
Respectfully when I know for a fact that what this guy is talking about is happening because I’ve watched it happen to dozens of kids that age in my life and constantly see it in my own feeds because I try to keep my privacy at least a little so the algorithms can never decide if I’m a teen gamer boy they should push Neo-Nazi shit to or a newly out trans girl I could not give less of a fuck what your definition of “young men” is. In fact I think young men is a pretty fair generalization for dudes that could very well be beginning puberty depending on the person. If you’re claiming they weren’t part of the discussion when they very clearly need to be I think that’s a problem.
Feminists have been talking about this for more than a hundred years now… yet a reactionary grifter says it to score cheap points in an attempt to strawman his opponent and now you all want to die on this hill?
I’m starting to think the way it looks is the way it is.
If you agree that it’s happening, why do you minimize the statement by saying that 12 year old boys aren’t young men? Is it really so hard to leverage a win from even an imperfect messenger? I feel like if I disliked a guy but he happened to be saying a correct thing I’d leverage it into getting people to care about my cause.
Like maybe leading with how feminists have been talking about how reactionary forces prey on young men to perpetuate the patriarchal structure? Rather than saying fuck this guy he’s bad the person he’s responding to didn’t even mention 12 year old boys. Like… if we both agree that the right going after 12 year old boys is a problem, why are you sitting here arguing about some “reactionary grifter” that made up not even a quarter of the post?
The person you’re replying to is just trying to frustrate you.
He’s such a small part of the entire text that taking his statement as anything other than a jumping off point to start with feels a little silly.
Unfortunately, once in a rare while asshats can start a reasonable conversation.
Charitably, he could be presuming that the majority of the manosphere’s audience are teen boys or were when they got into it, which is plausible.
This is Vaush we are talking about - he proved himself unworthy of charitable interpretation a long time ago.