They feel like their own problems are being ignored. They feel that they're being antagonized and maligned. That there's no real place for them under the big tent except maybe over in a dark...
They feel like their own problems are being ignored. They feel that they're being antagonized and maligned. That there's no real place for them under the big tent except maybe over in a dark corner. And yes, that everyone deserves basic rights but a lot of energy is being spent on a very small portion of the population for things that seem like extras (not food, shelter, work, money).
So you'd have to stop blaming men, start acknowledging the problems men face, and be able to convincingly promise that you can fix those problems. Since men are no longer a scapegoat in this scenario, you'd have to put more emphasis on reining in corporations and oligarchs and the obscene hoarding of wealth. In other words, I find this extremely unlikely to happen.
This is mostly interesting to me as far as how to build community and show support for other men in my sphere. Not at the expense of others, but because men also need community and to feel useful, wanted, valued.
'The man problem' has been written about quite a bit but many people remain genuinely confused about the root causes (even the writers). Finally, a disclaimer that I didn't watch this video (videos are the wooooorst for me personally).
I'm sympathetic to the idea that men, especially young men who are feeling blamed for more privilege than they will actually experience, feel alienated, lonely, and underserved. I recognize that...
I'm sympathetic to the idea that men, especially young men who are feeling blamed for more privilege than they will actually experience, feel alienated, lonely, and underserved. I recognize that there are problems that men, especially young men, are facing right now that are difficult to solve, and that not nearly enough effort is going into trying. That said, I have no idea how anyone is supposed to compete with the Republican messaging of "we're going to give you back all of the power and privilege" without...offering to give them back all of the power and privilege? Which, as a non-man, I would rather society did not do.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly it is that this creator wants the dems to do? I've paused at time code 16:04 right now, so over half the video, but I'm going to watch the rest before I hit "post". She's complaining about the messaging that Tim Walz took a supporting "cheerleader" and "backseat" role to his running mate, which sounds unappealing compared to the Republican messaging where society will return to the "good 'ol days" where men were in charge. Yes, if I was a young man, I probably would prefer the latter to the former, but what is the alternative? We never have women run for president, so that we never have to have a man be supportive to a woman rather than in charge himself? We're back to the question, "how can we maintain the gains that we've made for equality while appealing to men more than the people who plan to throw equality in the garbage so they can give that power back to men?"
I get the "DON'T do this" message for a lot of the cringier stuff, and I don't disagree with most of it+, but what should the democrats have done? It's easy to criticize people struggling to accomplish an impossible task. I'd be more impressed with any actual suggestions. The only one she's given for directly addressing men is to go on Joe Rogan's podcast. That might have helped, but it would have been at the expense of other things, and we don't know that it would have helped. It really depends on what Harris would have been able to say, and again, we still haven't come up with anything that can compete with "you know Mad Men? We're gonna let you live like that again".
Next she moves on to embracing left-wing populism, which I absolutely agree that the dems should have done, but that would have been messaging and policy that targets and benefits everyone besides the uber-wealthy, regardless of gender. I've been criticized for suggesting that's one way to be clear that they'll benefit men without harming non-men, and I can't hold this creator responsible for a separate person criticizing me, but I still feel that this can't really be counted as a suggestion for how to court men specifically.
Finally she says it will take decades of work. How? Doing what? Again, I agree with most of what not to do, but unless going on JRE is a magic bullet that would make the left make sense to young men, I'm not seeing any actual suggestions for messaging to them here.
+I disagree that the ad about republican's banning porn was a bad move. I think it's a good thing to let people know about and I think men would have had different complaints but just as many if the masturbator in the ad had been a woman, or much worse, non-binary. I also think that ads that point out that it's unattractive to vote in ways that will hurt the people that you want to be attractive to can be useful, although I do agree that the media environment was not really conducive to it and they weren't done in a productive way.
I believe that the core of the issue is that young men are realizing that they are unable to reliably provide for a family and are ashamed. There are various ways to cope non-productively, ranging...
I believe that the core of the issue is that young men are realizing that they are unable to reliably provide for a family and are ashamed. There are various ways to cope non-productively, ranging from adopting the position that they do not want a family in the first place, through blaming women for not providing sufficient support, to just lashing out on anyone who asks them for help with other issues.
No liberal could ever productively address this issue, because their only answer will inevitably be "don't insist on being the bread-winner", which makes the situation even more messy, because that means most men would have to accept losing after being conditioned their whole life to compete and win.
You can't really court them conservatively either, because your corporate sponsors would not like the idea of noblesse oblige and insisting that the honorable thing to do is to ensure good standard of life for your subjects, which +/- translates into companies sharing profits with employees and not outsourcing.
So your only valid options left are 1) placate them with some macho stuff and give them some escape fantasy, 2) implement socialist policies that will actually make it possible for them to feel like winners who can provide. Which is obviously again something your corporate sponsors will push against, because it's mostly again sharing profits, this time via unions and/or cooperatives.
What doesn't help is that women have it even harder with pay gap and second work shift at home, so they are not exactly empathetic. Obviously rightly so, but it tends to add salt to the wound.
Everyone keeps talking about policy here, but in reality, policy really doesn't matter. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's true. Basically no one is voting for trump because they like his policy...
Everyone keeps talking about policy here, but in reality, policy really doesn't matter. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's true. Basically no one is voting for trump because they like his policy proposals. Most people don't even know what they are, because he changes his mind constantly and contradicts himself regularly.
They're voting for him because he feels like a subversive middle finger to the status quo. That's what he ran on in 2016, it's what he ran on in 2020, and it's what he ran on again in 2024.
Many, maybe even the majority of people feel like they're being fucked over by a shadowy cabal of rich assholes in smoky rooms.
Whether or not that's true, and whether or not the world is really so simple that you can blame all of our problems on an amorphous group of elites is completely beside the point. Trump has demonstrated that you can run a successful campaign by saying "I'm going to punish the people that make your life worse."
Kamala Harris didn't run her campaign that way. She brought a message of unity, pragmatism, and sensible governance. To people very well informed in politics and the day to day workings of a government, that's a very appealing message. Most people aren't well informed though. They have a vague notion of what the government is responsible for and think that the president somehow has significant influence in global macroeconomics. They don't get fired up by someone saying that our systems need an overhaul, that human rights need to be protected, that we need to look out for our international allies. They get fired up by someone who talks about going for the jugular.
Compare Harris' campaign to Bernie's 2016 campaign.
Bernie Sanders is, in many ways, the left's answer to Trump. He's edgy, he gets fired up, he talks about who specifically is fucking you over, and he is confident in his plan to fix it. He never had the broad appeal with the base to actually make it to a general election, but there's a very real reason why a lot of young men who voted for, or wanted to vote for Bernie in 2016 are now voting for trump.
Both of them come off as aggressive champions willing to fight a perceived enemy that have wronged their base. Kamala didn't come off that way, and biden didn't come off that way either.
If the Dems have done the calculus and think that young men are the demographic they need to get them a win, they need to draft a campaign that appeals to them, and we know the things that get young men amped up. It's not messages of inclusiveness and fairness, and it's definitely not a message that says they're the problem. It's a message of aggression, edginess, danger, and conflict. Testosterone is a very powerful motivator, as much as the Democratic party would like to pretend it's not.
I think if these men were able to afford a house and cover expenses for a family alone - but would be far better off with the help of a partner's income - they would be happy with the status quo....
I think if these men were able to afford a house and cover expenses for a family alone - but would be far better off with the help of a partner's income - they would be happy with the status quo. Women could have pay parity. Husbands and wives could be on equal social footing. We don't need to return to old power dynamics. Men just need the chance to feel productive at work and useful for their household.
The Democrats need to point at the GDP-per-capita graph and ask why the numbers are going up but people are worse off. We should look back at the 70s-90s and think about how poor those homeowners were compared to today.
I'd like to add that dropping this video cold may be doing it a disservice to the (what I think is) important discourse. The "man problem" she's talking about has been discussed in the previously...
I'd like to add that dropping this video cold may be doing it a disservice to the (what I think is) important discourse.
The "man problem" she's talking about has been discussed in the previously released "Male Loneliness Epidemic" and to an extent the "War on Normal Guys" video, which I think is important context to the position she's taking here as these videos are directly tied into her position in the video linked here. Something which Sh0e addresses in the intro even.
I apologise for not directly engaging with your arguments, I'm sort of still percolating on what you said and I'm probably not well spoken enough nor American enough to discuss them to the extent I'd want.
Thanks for sharing, it was a good argument. Have you watched Gacha Drama and the Korean Gender War + part 2? It is on-topic, but needs to establish context and it takes a while. This development...
This development is not unique to US and I don't really see this level of misandry around here, in the EU. But yeah, it's possible that it's a spill-over from US (and elsewhere) via online platforms.
I am extremely uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from an anti-feminist Youtuber who has described herself as "Andrew Tate but for women." She has a history of dogwhistling right-wing...
I am extremely uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from an anti-feminist Youtuber who has described herself as "Andrew Tate but for women." She has a history of dogwhistling right-wing politics and being overly chummy with right-wing grifters and white supremacists. I don't think this precludes her from ever having a good take, but I think it's very important to take this into account before taking her too seriously when she discusses gender-related issues. It's certainly been enough for me to not want to ever support her content.
Uncharitable approach to a multifaceted person. Generally she's anti-feminist only when talking about the extreme manhating and misandristic part of modern feminism. Though if you have to label...
Uncharitable approach to a multifaceted person. Generally she's anti-feminist only when talking about the extreme manhating and misandristic part of modern feminism. Though if you have to label her anything, you'd be hard pressed to say anything else besides "die-hard Bernie Sanders fan".
Her YouTube comment sections and other socials are rather funny in a disturbing sort of way because lefties call her a Nazi and righties call her a commie.
In other words, let people share what they want to on this site? People can create an opinion themselves without this disclaimer and you still don't have to support her content.
I'm not preventing anyone from sharing anything on this site. I am just as allowed to criticize the creator of a piece of content as OP is allowed to share it. I think it's extremely rude and...
I'm not preventing anyone from sharing anything on this site. I am just as allowed to criticize the creator of a piece of content as OP is allowed to share it. I think it's extremely rude and patronizing to insist I am not allowed to do so. My opinion on this content is not preventing others from coming to their own conclusions.
Right out of the gate you say you're deeply uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from Sh0eOnHead. It absolutely works as a barrier to entry and muddies the water before an honest...
Right out of the gate you say you're deeply uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from Sh0eOnHead. It absolutely works as a barrier to entry and muddies the water before an honest argument could be made from the other party.
Let me put it differently. I do not think it's necessary to provide biased context in an open forum that significantly colours the conversation before it even started and pulls it entirely off topic. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to think what you do about this creator, but I do feel it's largely a self-serving method to pull the conversation in your preferred direction -intended or not I do not know nor does it matter - rather than have people come to their own conclusions and arguments and have a conversation go from there organically when discussing the content of the video. The video should be the main topic of discussion which can lead into an overarching meta discussion about the general ideas they may or may not have, where I do not think your opinion about a creator you made up your mind about months if not years ago is the relevant conversation here as a topic starter. If your opinion would be relevant to the conversation that spawned from the video I'd be less inclined to respond like I do.
Rude? Probably. Not intended though, and I apologise if you feel that way. Although, I could do without being told what to think about someone on YouTube before even having the chance of creating an opinion of my own.
Edit: Clarification, no new opinions.
Edit2: To my point, this conversation now dominates the thread rather than the content of the video. A problem if you ask me.
Not to be rude, but it seems that your response it what caused this conversation to dominate the thread -- the original comment was relevant as it provided context that many may not have been...
Edit2: To my point, this conversation now dominates the thread rather than the content of the video. A problem if you ask me.
Not to be rude, but it seems that your response it what caused this conversation to dominate the thread -- the original comment was relevant as it provided context that many may not have been aware of. Yes, ideas should stand on their own merits, but at the same time knowing the underlying biases of a source can help with detecting the subtle undercurrents that you might otherwise miss.
Provided the context is valid and not steeped in personal biases. It must be true and unbiased lest you are influenced into reading subtext that isn't there. Saying they support Bernie Sanders and...
Provided the context is valid and not steeped in personal biases. It must be true and unbiased lest you are influenced into reading subtext that isn't there. Saying they support Bernie Sanders and still have the campaign sticker on their car should also tell you something incredibly relevant about them, and that particular piece of info was missing, instead dressing it up as if the content was purely rightwing gender identity politics. Again, whether that was intended or not doesn't matter, what matters is that it influences the conversation from the word go.
That aside, you were not rude at all. Maybe my response did kick it off and you're right, although I'm not the only one responding to that post and I still think my argument such an opinion should not have been a top level comment still holds.
what a condescending thing to say. If a broken clock is right twice a day i'd love to know that before spouting off the wrong time.
Rude? Probably. Not intended though, and I apologise if you feel that way. Although, I could do without being told what to think about someone on YouTube before even having the chance of creating an opinion of my own.
what a condescending thing to say.
If a broken clock is right twice a day i'd love to know that before spouting off the wrong time.
Is it not just as condescending to be told what to think? Is it not just as condescending to tell OP a video they may have resonated with is making you uncomfortable because of who it is while...
Is it not just as condescending to be told what to think? Is it not just as condescending to tell OP a video they may have resonated with is making you uncomfortable because of who it is while completely ignoring the content? It puts the onus on the OP to explain himself and he really doesn't have to.
If I was rude or condescending it's likely because I felt like I was being done to me. I clearly do not understand why it's ok to impress an opinion on others they did not ask for, and I clearly do not understand that I'm supposedly rude for calling it out. Voice an opinion that others do not like and you may receive an opinion you do not like in return.
Edit to add: It's likely because I do not see many people voicing concerns about men that aren't mired in misandry. It seems the topic is important to me, so being told that I should be careful forming my opinions about something because of a perceived "right wing slant" does hurt, as it puts me in the same corner from the bat. This is also one of the topics she actually addresses in the video.
I'm going to stop. I'm getting incensed for nonsensical reasons. Just to be clear, I'm not being some sort of freeze peach absolutist moron here and I'm not trying to get the last word. There is no ill-will here to anyone whomever they are. I just want a normal discussion on a video about a topic I find interesting and important, and I'm unable to stop myself from being dragged into the ongoing conversation that has nothing to do with the actual video. So I'm purposefully going to leave this thread.
The original comment literally does say: Obvious exaggeration here, but if I gave you a quote from Hitler, and got you to agree that it was a good quote (I don't know any "good ideas" from him,...
The original comment literally does say:
I don't think this precludes her from ever having a good take, but I think it's very important to take this into account before taking her too seriously when she discusses gender-related issues
Obvious exaggeration here, but if I gave you a quote from Hitler, and got you to agree that it was a good quote (I don't know any "good ideas" from him, per se, but just exaggerating for effect) and then told you, oh it's Hitler, wouldn't you also appreciate the context? More context isn't a bad thing.
This kind of response represents a kind of fallacy I've noticed people collectively falling prey to over the years, the idea that if someone isn't expressing exclusively progressive ideas then...
This kind of response represents a kind of fallacy I've noticed people collectively falling prey to over the years, the idea that if someone isn't expressing exclusively progressive ideas then they must be conservative or some other kind of antagonist to the "in" side of binary politics. I'm not an avid viewer of this person's videos but I've seen a few that were shared with me and to say she espouses right wing dogwhistles is a major stretch.
She defended Milo Yiannopoulos after he was banned from Twitter for harassing Leslie Jones, agreeing with him that Jones "looks like a man", and added that "she's ugly", and "looks like a...
I've seen a few that were shared with me and to say she espouses right wing dogwhistles is a major stretch.
I mean, from the limited context I have (haven't read the white-supremacist's tweets, I don't have account and found no screenshots on Kagi), I don't think saying that some female celebrity looks...
I mean, from the limited context I have (haven't read the white-supremacist's tweets, I don't have account and found no screenshots on Kagi), I don't think saying that some female celebrity looks like a man - nor gorilla for that matter - would qualify as being worse than what John Oliver says about other celebrities and politicians occasionally. And I admit I sometimes chuckle at what he says.
Now obviously platforming white-supremacists will lead to wars and genocides, no arguments about that.
You honestly don't see how saying a black woman looks like a man and a gorilla is highly problematic? I'm assuming, if you're not trolling, that you must not be America then, because in the US...
You honestly don't see how saying a black woman looks like a man and a gorilla is highly problematic? I'm assuming, if you're not trolling, that you must not be America then, because in the US especially there is a long history of dehumanizing black people by doing exactly that sort of thing. And such accusations even used to be taken seriously in certain academic circles, with many early ethnologists espousing the idea that black people were an entirely different "inferior" species closely related to apes, which was then used to justify slavery. See: Racial theories in physical anthropology (1850–1918)
I'm just going to gesture at all the abuse Michelle Obama took including literally being accused of being a trans woman (and therefore a man in those people's eyes), ugly and having ape/monkey...
I'm just going to gesture at all the abuse Michelle Obama took including literally being accused of being a trans woman (and therefore a man in those people's eyes), ugly and having ape/monkey comments thrown at her as another example of why this shit matters and it doesn't matter how conventionally attractive the Black woman is, she's still gets racist hate.
The YouTuber in question doesn't fall into the binary political lines - disliking Trump while calling BLM a black supremacy movement, going back and forth on trans issues, etc. and personally I think it's intentional. (And tbh a demonstration of my issues with that subset of Bernie Sanders supporters that're fine with slurs)
I think it's also emblematic of the early YouTube "skeptic" movement too, of which she was a part. The person behind her in the video I linked to is Armoured Skeptic, who was her fiance at the...
I think it's also emblematic of the early YouTube "skeptic" movement too, of which she was a part. The person behind her in the video I linked to is Armoured Skeptic, who was her fiance at the time, and is very similar to Milo Yiannopoulos and Sargon of Akkad in also being a full-on mask-off, alt-right, "scientific" racism believing, anti-SJW/anti-feminist (and ironically, now he's a religious conspiracy theory nutter too). That's why I found the comment about her not espousing similar beliefs or using similar dogwhistles to be laughable, and easily disproven by googling for that clip. People used to call her "alt-right Boxxy" for good reason. :P
p.s. I hate that I know all this shit, but I am and always have been pretty deep into YouTube, and like to keep an eye on these alt-right idiots to keep apprised of the hateful nonsense they're spreading on the platform. Which is why it's incredibly disappointing to see her videos being shared here, and her being defended so ardently. No matter how many decent points she may make in the video, she is still part of the alt-right radicalization pipeline on YouTube. They all know how to put on a respectable front to draw people in, but are ultimately leading those people down a hate filled rabbit hole.
Yeah, not an American. I literally do not have these connotations. I see what you mean and I now agree that in a room where people do have these connotations, it's a pretty crappy thing to say...
Exemplary
Yeah, not an American. I literally do not have these connotations. I see what you mean and I now agree that in a room where people do have these connotations, it's a pretty crappy thing to say because it will be read into beyond the superficial and will in fact dehumanize the person.
Also, you guys have some serious issues. Like we did have Nazis saying Jews literally eat children during their dark rituals, but this is whole another level of messed up. Or maybe I am just not aware.
From what I've heard she's also expressed strong support for Bernie Sanders, so I'm skeptical that the intent behind that was simply "racism". Insensitivity, sure.
From what I've heard she's also expressed strong support for Bernie Sanders, so I'm skeptical that the intent behind that was simply "racism". Insensitivity, sure.
And this kind of response represents a different kind of fallacy I’ve noticed over the years, the idea that it’s possible to make any detailed inferences about the personal habits or beliefs of...
And this kind of response represents a different kind of fallacy I’ve noticed over the years, the idea that it’s possible to make any detailed inferences about the personal habits or beliefs of someone simply sharing some context that they think is important to consider.
...is not a fallacy at all, it's well established and perfectly logical. Your comment is poorly worded but if I'm understanding the intent behind it correctly, I did not insinuate that the person...
the idea that it’s possible to make any detailed inferences about the personal habits or beliefs of someone simply sharing some context that they think is important to consider.
...is not a fallacy at all, it's well established and perfectly logical. Your comment is poorly worded but if I'm understanding the intent behind it correctly, I did not insinuate that the person I replied to was wrong for having concerns, but that the specific concerns they raised had little verifiable merit to my knowledge and that it's disingenuous to leap to those kinds of conclusions from feelings-based observations of an online persona you've likely never held a conversation with.
If the accusation is inaccurate, it's worth providing evidence to the contrary rather than going on about fallacies or the sort of "well this is the example of..." As someone else that...
If the accusation is inaccurate, it's worth providing evidence to the contrary rather than going on about fallacies or the sort of "well this is the example of..."
As someone else that intentionally will highlight the views of creators others share, it's because to the best of my knowledge they have espoused pretty gross views. I'm always happy to accept new information that demonstrates otherwise. But I don't think there's any fallacy or problem with the type of comment made. I appreciate these heads up because it helps me know the frame of reference of the person being posted.
In this case @GenuinelyCrooked did an excellent job of covering the material and @sparksbet 's information genuinely assisted in providing the frame for the YouTuber.
I don't actually think it's accurate to claim I'm falling into some fallacy relating to the progressive content she isn't promoting -- I don't think I ever referenced that in my comment. I'm...
I don't actually think it's accurate to claim I'm falling into some fallacy relating to the progressive content she isn't promoting -- I don't think I ever referenced that in my comment. I'm criticizing the things that she has done. She is not an uncontroversial figure and has a level of credibility roughly equivalent to that of Joe Rogan at best imo.
They feel like their own problems are being ignored. They feel that they're being antagonized and maligned. That there's no real place for them under the big tent except maybe over in a dark corner. And yes, that everyone deserves basic rights but a lot of energy is being spent on a very small portion of the population for things that seem like extras (not food, shelter, work, money).
So you'd have to stop blaming men, start acknowledging the problems men face, and be able to convincingly promise that you can fix those problems. Since men are no longer a scapegoat in this scenario, you'd have to put more emphasis on reining in corporations and oligarchs and the obscene hoarding of wealth. In other words, I find this extremely unlikely to happen.
This is mostly interesting to me as far as how to build community and show support for other men in my sphere. Not at the expense of others, but because men also need community and to feel useful, wanted, valued.
'The man problem' has been written about quite a bit but many people remain genuinely confused about the root causes (even the writers). Finally, a disclaimer that I didn't watch this video (videos are the wooooorst for me personally).
I thought this was a pretty well reasoned argument, and worth sharing (and discussing!).
I'm sympathetic to the idea that men, especially young men who are feeling blamed for more privilege than they will actually experience, feel alienated, lonely, and underserved. I recognize that there are problems that men, especially young men, are facing right now that are difficult to solve, and that not nearly enough effort is going into trying. That said, I have no idea how anyone is supposed to compete with the Republican messaging of "we're going to give you back all of the power and privilege" without...offering to give them back all of the power and privilege? Which, as a non-man, I would rather society did not do.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly it is that this creator wants the dems to do? I've paused at time code 16:04 right now, so over half the video, but I'm going to watch the rest before I hit "post". She's complaining about the messaging that Tim Walz took a supporting "cheerleader" and "backseat" role to his running mate, which sounds unappealing compared to the Republican messaging where society will return to the "good 'ol days" where men were in charge. Yes, if I was a young man, I probably would prefer the latter to the former, but what is the alternative? We never have women run for president, so that we never have to have a man be supportive to a woman rather than in charge himself? We're back to the question, "how can we maintain the gains that we've made for equality while appealing to men more than the people who plan to throw equality in the garbage so they can give that power back to men?"
I get the "DON'T do this" message for a lot of the cringier stuff, and I don't disagree with most of it+, but what should the democrats have done? It's easy to criticize people struggling to accomplish an impossible task. I'd be more impressed with any actual suggestions. The only one she's given for directly addressing men is to go on Joe Rogan's podcast. That might have helped, but it would have been at the expense of other things, and we don't know that it would have helped. It really depends on what Harris would have been able to say, and again, we still haven't come up with anything that can compete with "you know Mad Men? We're gonna let you live like that again".
Next she moves on to embracing left-wing populism, which I absolutely agree that the dems should have done, but that would have been messaging and policy that targets and benefits everyone besides the uber-wealthy, regardless of gender. I've been criticized for suggesting that's one way to be clear that they'll benefit men without harming non-men, and I can't hold this creator responsible for a separate person criticizing me, but I still feel that this can't really be counted as a suggestion for how to court men specifically.
Finally she says it will take decades of work. How? Doing what? Again, I agree with most of what not to do, but unless going on JRE is a magic bullet that would make the left make sense to young men, I'm not seeing any actual suggestions for messaging to them here.
+I disagree that the ad about republican's banning porn was a bad move. I think it's a good thing to let people know about and I think men would have had different complaints but just as many if the masturbator in the ad had been a woman, or much worse, non-binary. I also think that ads that point out that it's unattractive to vote in ways that will hurt the people that you want to be attractive to can be useful, although I do agree that the media environment was not really conducive to it and they weren't done in a productive way.
I believe that the core of the issue is that young men are realizing that they are unable to reliably provide for a family and are ashamed. There are various ways to cope non-productively, ranging from adopting the position that they do not want a family in the first place, through blaming women for not providing sufficient support, to just lashing out on anyone who asks them for help with other issues.
No liberal could ever productively address this issue, because their only answer will inevitably be "don't insist on being the bread-winner", which makes the situation even more messy, because that means most men would have to accept losing after being conditioned their whole life to compete and win.
You can't really court them conservatively either, because your corporate sponsors would not like the idea of noblesse oblige and insisting that the honorable thing to do is to ensure good standard of life for your subjects, which +/- translates into companies sharing profits with employees and not outsourcing.
So your only valid options left are 1) placate them with some macho stuff and give them some escape fantasy, 2) implement socialist policies that will actually make it possible for them to feel like winners who can provide. Which is obviously again something your corporate sponsors will push against, because it's mostly again sharing profits, this time via unions and/or cooperatives.
What doesn't help is that women have it even harder with pay gap and second work shift at home, so they are not exactly empathetic. Obviously rightly so, but it tends to add salt to the wound.
Everyone keeps talking about policy here, but in reality, policy really doesn't matter. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's true. Basically no one is voting for trump because they like his policy proposals. Most people don't even know what they are, because he changes his mind constantly and contradicts himself regularly.
They're voting for him because he feels like a subversive middle finger to the status quo. That's what he ran on in 2016, it's what he ran on in 2020, and it's what he ran on again in 2024.
Many, maybe even the majority of people feel like they're being fucked over by a shadowy cabal of rich assholes in smoky rooms.
Whether or not that's true, and whether or not the world is really so simple that you can blame all of our problems on an amorphous group of elites is completely beside the point. Trump has demonstrated that you can run a successful campaign by saying "I'm going to punish the people that make your life worse."
Kamala Harris didn't run her campaign that way. She brought a message of unity, pragmatism, and sensible governance. To people very well informed in politics and the day to day workings of a government, that's a very appealing message. Most people aren't well informed though. They have a vague notion of what the government is responsible for and think that the president somehow has significant influence in global macroeconomics. They don't get fired up by someone saying that our systems need an overhaul, that human rights need to be protected, that we need to look out for our international allies. They get fired up by someone who talks about going for the jugular.
Compare Harris' campaign to Bernie's 2016 campaign.
Bernie Sanders is, in many ways, the left's answer to Trump. He's edgy, he gets fired up, he talks about who specifically is fucking you over, and he is confident in his plan to fix it. He never had the broad appeal with the base to actually make it to a general election, but there's a very real reason why a lot of young men who voted for, or wanted to vote for Bernie in 2016 are now voting for trump.
Both of them come off as aggressive champions willing to fight a perceived enemy that have wronged their base. Kamala didn't come off that way, and biden didn't come off that way either.
If the Dems have done the calculus and think that young men are the demographic they need to get them a win, they need to draft a campaign that appeals to them, and we know the things that get young men amped up. It's not messages of inclusiveness and fairness, and it's definitely not a message that says they're the problem. It's a message of aggression, edginess, danger, and conflict. Testosterone is a very powerful motivator, as much as the Democratic party would like to pretend it's not.
I think if these men were able to afford a house and cover expenses for a family alone - but would be far better off with the help of a partner's income - they would be happy with the status quo. Women could have pay parity. Husbands and wives could be on equal social footing. We don't need to return to old power dynamics. Men just need the chance to feel productive at work and useful for their household.
The Democrats need to point at the GDP-per-capita graph and ask why the numbers are going up but people are worse off. We should look back at the 70s-90s and think about how poor those homeowners were compared to today.
I'd like to add that dropping this video cold may be doing it a disservice to the (what I think is) important discourse.
The "man problem" she's talking about has been discussed in the previously released "Male Loneliness Epidemic" and to an extent the "War on Normal Guys" video, which I think is important context to the position she's taking here as these videos are directly tied into her position in the video linked here. Something which Sh0e addresses in the intro even.
I apologise for not directly engaging with your arguments, I'm sort of still percolating on what you said and I'm probably not well spoken enough nor American enough to discuss them to the extent I'd want.
That's fair enough. I've heard her name but I'm not familiar with her work, it's very possible that she does address solutions in her other videos.
Thanks for sharing, it was a good argument.
Have you watched Gacha Drama and the Korean Gender War + part 2? It is on-topic, but needs to establish context and it takes a while.
This development is not unique to US and I don't really see this level of misandry around here, in the EU. But yeah, it's possible that it's a spill-over from US (and elsewhere) via online platforms.
I am extremely uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from an anti-feminist Youtuber who has described herself as "Andrew Tate but for women." She has a history of dogwhistling right-wing politics and being overly chummy with right-wing grifters and white supremacists. I don't think this precludes her from ever having a good take, but I think it's very important to take this into account before taking her too seriously when she discusses gender-related issues. It's certainly been enough for me to not want to ever support her content.
Uncharitable approach to a multifaceted person. Generally she's anti-feminist only when talking about the extreme manhating and misandristic part of modern feminism. Though if you have to label her anything, you'd be hard pressed to say anything else besides "die-hard Bernie Sanders fan".
Her YouTube comment sections and other socials are rather funny in a disturbing sort of way because lefties call her a Nazi and righties call her a commie.
In other words, let people share what they want to on this site? People can create an opinion themselves without this disclaimer and you still don't have to support her content.
I'm not preventing anyone from sharing anything on this site. I am just as allowed to criticize the creator of a piece of content as OP is allowed to share it. I think it's extremely rude and patronizing to insist I am not allowed to do so. My opinion on this content is not preventing others from coming to their own conclusions.
Right out of the gate you say you're deeply uncomfortable with uncritically sharing content from Sh0eOnHead. It absolutely works as a barrier to entry and muddies the water before an honest argument could be made from the other party.
Let me put it differently. I do not think it's necessary to provide biased context in an open forum that significantly colours the conversation before it even started and pulls it entirely off topic. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to think what you do about this creator, but I do feel it's largely a self-serving method to pull the conversation in your preferred direction -intended or not I do not know nor does it matter - rather than have people come to their own conclusions and arguments and have a conversation go from there organically when discussing the content of the video. The video should be the main topic of discussion which can lead into an overarching meta discussion about the general ideas they may or may not have, where I do not think your opinion about a creator you made up your mind about months if not years ago is the relevant conversation here as a topic starter. If your opinion would be relevant to the conversation that spawned from the video I'd be less inclined to respond like I do.
Rude? Probably. Not intended though, and I apologise if you feel that way. Although, I could do without being told what to think about someone on YouTube before even having the chance of creating an opinion of my own.
Edit: Clarification, no new opinions.
Edit2: To my point, this conversation now dominates the thread rather than the content of the video. A problem if you ask me.
Not to be rude, but it seems that your response it what caused this conversation to dominate the thread -- the original comment was relevant as it provided context that many may not have been aware of. Yes, ideas should stand on their own merits, but at the same time knowing the underlying biases of a source can help with detecting the subtle undercurrents that you might otherwise miss.
Provided the context is valid and not steeped in personal biases. It must be true and unbiased lest you are influenced into reading subtext that isn't there. Saying they support Bernie Sanders and still have the campaign sticker on their car should also tell you something incredibly relevant about them, and that particular piece of info was missing, instead dressing it up as if the content was purely rightwing gender identity politics. Again, whether that was intended or not doesn't matter, what matters is that it influences the conversation from the word go.
That aside, you were not rude at all. Maybe my response did kick it off and you're right, although I'm not the only one responding to that post and I still think my argument such an opinion should not have been a top level comment still holds.
what a condescending thing to say.
If a broken clock is right twice a day i'd love to know that before spouting off the wrong time.
Is it not just as condescending to be told what to think? Is it not just as condescending to tell OP a video they may have resonated with is making you uncomfortable because of who it is while completely ignoring the content? It puts the onus on the OP to explain himself and he really doesn't have to.
If I was rude or condescending it's likely because I felt like I was being done to me. I clearly do not understand why it's ok to impress an opinion on others they did not ask for, and I clearly do not understand that I'm supposedly rude for calling it out. Voice an opinion that others do not like and you may receive an opinion you do not like in return.
Edit to add: It's likely because I do not see many people voicing concerns about men that aren't mired in misandry. It seems the topic is important to me, so being told that I should be careful forming my opinions about something because of a perceived "right wing slant" does hurt, as it puts me in the same corner from the bat. This is also one of the topics she actually addresses in the video.
I'm going to stop. I'm getting incensed for nonsensical reasons. Just to be clear, I'm not being some sort of freeze peach absolutist moron here and I'm not trying to get the last word. There is no ill-will here to anyone whomever they are. I just want a normal discussion on a video about a topic I find interesting and important, and I'm unable to stop myself from being dragged into the ongoing conversation that has nothing to do with the actual video. So I'm purposefully going to leave this thread.
The original comment literally does say:
Obvious exaggeration here, but if I gave you a quote from Hitler, and got you to agree that it was a good quote (I don't know any "good ideas" from him, per se, but just exaggerating for effect) and then told you, oh it's Hitler, wouldn't you also appreciate the context? More context isn't a bad thing.
This kind of response represents a kind of fallacy I've noticed people collectively falling prey to over the years, the idea that if someone isn't expressing exclusively progressive ideas then they must be conservative or some other kind of antagonist to the "in" side of binary politics. I'm not an avid viewer of this person's videos but I've seen a few that were shared with me and to say she espouses right wing dogwhistles is a major stretch.
She defended Milo Yiannopoulos after he was banned from Twitter for harassing Leslie Jones, agreeing with him that Jones "looks like a man", and added that "she's ugly", and "looks like a gorilla".
But yeah, no right wing dog whistles there... none whatsoever! /s
I mean, from the limited context I have (haven't read the white-supremacist's tweets, I don't have account and found no screenshots on Kagi), I don't think saying that some female celebrity looks like a man - nor gorilla for that matter - would qualify as being worse than what John Oliver says about other celebrities and politicians occasionally. And I admit I sometimes chuckle at what he says.
Now obviously platforming white-supremacists will lead to wars and genocides, no arguments about that.
You honestly don't see how saying a black woman looks like a man and a gorilla is highly problematic? I'm assuming, if you're not trolling, that you must not be America then, because in the US especially there is a long history of dehumanizing black people by doing exactly that sort of thing. And such accusations even used to be taken seriously in certain academic circles, with many early ethnologists espousing the idea that black people were an entirely different "inferior" species closely related to apes, which was then used to justify slavery. See: Racial theories in physical anthropology (1850–1918)
I'm just going to gesture at all the abuse Michelle Obama took including literally being accused of being a trans woman (and therefore a man in those people's eyes), ugly and having ape/monkey comments thrown at her as another example of why this shit matters and it doesn't matter how conventionally attractive the Black woman is, she's still gets racist hate.
The YouTuber in question doesn't fall into the binary political lines - disliking Trump while calling BLM a black supremacy movement, going back and forth on trans issues, etc. and personally I think it's intentional. (And tbh a demonstration of my issues with that subset of Bernie Sanders supporters that're fine with slurs)
I think it's also emblematic of the early YouTube "skeptic" movement too, of which she was a part. The person behind her in the video I linked to is Armoured Skeptic, who was her fiance at the time, and is very similar to Milo Yiannopoulos and Sargon of Akkad in also being a full-on mask-off, alt-right, "scientific" racism believing, anti-SJW/anti-feminist (and ironically, now he's a religious conspiracy theory nutter too). That's why I found the comment about her not espousing similar beliefs or using similar dogwhistles to be laughable, and easily disproven by googling for that clip. People used to call her "alt-right Boxxy" for good reason. :P
p.s. I hate that I know all this shit, but I am and always have been pretty deep into YouTube, and like to keep an eye on these alt-right idiots to keep apprised of the hateful nonsense they're spreading on the platform. Which is why it's incredibly disappointing to see her videos being shared here, and her being defended so ardently. No matter how many decent points she may make in the video, she is still part of the alt-right radicalization pipeline on YouTube. They all know how to put on a respectable front to draw people in, but are ultimately leading those people down a hate filled rabbit hole.
Thanks for sharing, though.
Yeah, not an American. I literally do not have these connotations. I see what you mean and I now agree that in a room where people do have these connotations, it's a pretty crappy thing to say because it will be read into beyond the superficial and will in fact dehumanize the person.
Also, you guys have some serious issues. Like we did have Nazis saying Jews literally eat children during their dark rituals, but this is whole another level of messed up. Or maybe I am just not aware.
I think one would have to be pretty dense to not pick up the racialized nature of those insults directed at Leslie Jones.
From what I've heard she's also expressed strong support for Bernie Sanders, so I'm skeptical that the intent behind that was simply "racism". Insensitivity, sure.
I personally know people who supported Bernie Sanders and are fairly racist. Those are not mutually exclusive things at all.
And this kind of response represents a different kind of fallacy I’ve noticed over the years, the idea that it’s possible to make any detailed inferences about the personal habits or beliefs of someone simply sharing some context that they think is important to consider.
...is not a fallacy at all, it's well established and perfectly logical. Your comment is poorly worded but if I'm understanding the intent behind it correctly, I did not insinuate that the person I replied to was wrong for having concerns, but that the specific concerns they raised had little verifiable merit to my knowledge and that it's disingenuous to leap to those kinds of conclusions from feelings-based observations of an online persona you've likely never held a conversation with.
If the accusation is inaccurate, it's worth providing evidence to the contrary rather than going on about fallacies or the sort of "well this is the example of..."
As someone else that intentionally will highlight the views of creators others share, it's because to the best of my knowledge they have espoused pretty gross views. I'm always happy to accept new information that demonstrates otherwise. But I don't think there's any fallacy or problem with the type of comment made. I appreciate these heads up because it helps me know the frame of reference of the person being posted.
In this case @GenuinelyCrooked did an excellent job of covering the material and @sparksbet 's information genuinely assisted in providing the frame for the YouTuber.
The real fallacy in all this is the ad hominem of the parent comment.
I don't actually think it's accurate to claim I'm falling into some fallacy relating to the progressive content she isn't promoting -- I don't think I ever referenced that in my comment. I'm criticizing the things that she has done. She is not an uncontroversial figure and has a level of credibility roughly equivalent to that of Joe Rogan at best imo.