There's probably a fair number of teenagers and young adults, but I think that makes it worse than if this was nothing but jaded 30-somethings discussing their romantic troubles. Children are...
There's probably a fair number of teenagers and young adults, but I think that makes it worse than if this was nothing but jaded 30-somethings discussing their romantic troubles.
Children are information sponges, they'll soak up whatever they're given. And sex ed / "relationship ed" in US schools is hugely lacking. I think there's a very real risk that a lot of kids will go on to reddit looking for relatively harmless stuff like how to ask their crush out, advice on kissing, or whatever, get "redpilled" at a very young age, and grow up with a severely distorted picture of what real adult relationships are like.
First, wishful thinking, there's lots of angry adults. Secondly, isn't that even more frighting? You're building a lot of personality in your teen years, and while many people leave that behind as...
First, wishful thinking, there's lots of angry adults.
Secondly, isn't that even more frighting? You're building a lot of personality in your teen years, and while many people leave that behind as they grow older, it stays in your mind. I've seen examples of incel forum type posts that were basically blaming their inability to find girlfriends on humiliating highschool experiences. It's tradition that you overcome this stuff but now we have a community wallowing in it. That can't be healthy.
Added to that are the ones who deem themselves as centrists, which seem to spend more time picking apart women's rights, trans rights, lgbtqia, etc. than anything else. And because the only types...
Added to that are the ones who deem themselves as centrists, which seem to spend more time picking apart women's rights, trans rights, lgbtqia, etc. than anything else. And because the only types of people who are willing to dogpile on those conversations are those on the right, I often see the centrists slowly ebb their way in along with them.
Several years ago I decided to friend-breakup with two people who were anti-feminist and transphobic, and would just not budge whatsoever on either talking points to the point of intolerance and throwing hurtful comments my way when I'd cornered them in a debate. I know their reddit accounts and check in on them every now and again, and they've both slowly fallen into pitfalls of equating fascists to anti-facsists, seeing homosexuality as a mental disorder, etc., all while touting themselves as "not wanting to hurt feelings, these are just facts."
Absolutely, which is why I'd only said they deem themselves as centrists. I don't know that I've ever encountered a true centrist/am not sure what that would look like, but it feels like it's...
Absolutely, which is why I'd only said they deem themselves as centrists. I don't know that I've ever encountered a true centrist/am not sure what that would look like, but it feels like it's either a label right-wingers apply to themselves as a defense mechanism on account they're too afraid to express their true feelings, or just a label they use to portray themselves as above party politics, despite soliciting obviously extremist right-wing ideas.
Oh man, I hadn't considered how off-center American politics have become over time. Didn't Shapiro recently assume a British conservative was liberal? I fully admit I am unfamiliar with what's...
Oh man, I hadn't considered how off-center American politics have become over time. Didn't Shapiro recently assume a British conservative was liberal? I fully admit I am unfamiliar with what's considered American left versus a more global left.
Can you give some examples of beliefs you consider to be on the left and right?
I think Loire meant that America has changed such that people who used to have been considered centrists are now considered liberal (assuming they kept the same opinions).
I think Loire meant that America has changed such that people who used to have been considered centrists are now considered liberal (assuming they kept the same opinions).
I appreciate the general message that this is sending, but it doesn't mention any of the subreddits that exist to counter the misogynistic take that /r/TheRedPill and other such communities have...
I appreciate the general message that this is sending, but it doesn't mention any of the subreddits that exist to counter the misogynistic take that /r/TheRedPill and other such communities have taken. My favorite one is /r/MensLib, which takes a far more nuanced and less circlejerk-y approach to any and all discussions of "men's issues" than /r/MensRights et al. From the sidebar:
Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to create active progress on issues men face, and to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations. We consider ourselves a pro-feminist community.
Emphasis mine. This is a productive way to engage in discussion about these topics, yet it gets staggeringly little media attention, or even from Redditors themselves. Even many users on Reddit who do not actively participate in toxic subs still identify more strongly with the kneejerk reactions and paranoid rants about women that happen in redpilled communities than they do with the legitimate, level-headed, and thoughtful discourse that exists in bluepilled ones. Hence, /r/MensLib has 70,000 subscribers, and /r/MensRights has 225,000. The later is older, certainly, but the author of this article is still completely right to state that the tone of men's issues has shifted in the past few years, and not for the better. Redditors make it worse by turning a blind eye.
So... what's the over/under for how long it takes the reddit admins to ban a bunch of these subreddits now that there's an article written about it in a major publication?
So... what's the over/under for how long it takes the reddit admins to ban a bunch of these subreddits now that there's an article written about it in a major publication?
They've actually been surprisingly active for the past week in banning a few toxic communities. While I'm sure the quarantine of t_d was meant to just be temporary damage control by spez, my hope...
They've actually been surprisingly active for the past week in banning a few toxic communities.
While I'm sure the quarantine of t_d was meant to just be temporary damage control by spez, my hope is that community will just fold in on themselves with outrage and hatred and move themselves towards a full ban.
I'd be fine with Reddit's admins quarantining communities for offensive/violent comments if they enforced their guidelines equally. r/ChapoTrapHouse is probably just as if not more problematic...
I'd be fine with Reddit's admins quarantining communities for offensive/violent comments if they enforced their guidelines equally.
r/ChapoTrapHouse is probably just as if not more problematic than t_d was. On the SRC subreddit there have been frequent posts of CTH users inciting violence and harassing other users. Yet they're not quarantined...
chapo was literally almost banned outright not even three months ago for the heinous crime of users expressing the take "kill slave owners" (which is an objectively good, reasonable take) so i...
r/ChapoTrapHouse is probably just as if not more problematic than t_d was. On the SRC subreddit there have been frequent posts of CTH users inciting violence and harassing other users. Yet they're not quarantined...
chapo was literally almost banned outright not even three months ago for the heinous crime of users expressing the take "kill slave owners" (which is an objectively good, reasonable take) so i don't think this line of criticism works anymore, sorry.
Remember that spez sees himself as "someone in charge" or "at least not a slave" if society collapses. The two options imply to me that he sees himself as someone who would own slaves in a...
The two options imply to me that he sees himself as someone who would own slaves in a post-collapse society, which is why he took special offense to a community expressing they would kill slave owners.
I wouldn't trust SRC to give a reasonable viewpoint of any situation. From what I've seen of CTH, nothing they did is in the same realm as what t_d did. Remember: t_d actually got someone killed...
I wouldn't trust SRC to give a reasonable viewpoint of any situation. From what I've seen of CTH, nothing they did is in the same realm as what t_d did. Remember: t_d actually got someone killed and many people physically hurt.
While I agree with the notion that CTH members are pain in the ass to deal with (especially when cop related post comes up), you really shouldn't trust anything that comes out of SRC. That sub is...
While I agree with the notion that CTH members are pain in the ass to deal with (especially when cop related post comes up), you really shouldn't trust anything that comes out of SRC. That sub is just a facade to whine about "free speech" and mod-abuse which is a thin veneer to promote their own circlejerk and rule breaking behavior.
It doesn't really inspire hope in a meaningful conversation when the article decides to go for outrage culture with: I mean, yes there are definitely radicals in there and the culture is...
It doesn't really inspire hope in a meaningful conversation when the article decides to go for outrage culture with:
Manosphere members might think of themselves as “involuntarily celibate,” like the man who drove a van into Toronto pedestrians last year
I mean, yes there are definitely radicals in there and the culture is horrifying, but what exactly do you expect to gain by jumping to the most hyperbolic position possible and preventing any sort of connection or middle ground to prevent that radicalisation?
If members of the "manosphere" just sat in their stereotypical basements and exchanged memes with each other, we wouldn't care about them much. It's only because those online communities have...
If members of the "manosphere" just sat in their stereotypical basements and exchanged memes with each other, we wouldn't care about them much. It's only because those online communities have induced people to action across the broader internet and to violence in the real world that those "manosphere" communities matter. This example and others like it are therefore extremely relevant to this discussion.
This seems like a cause for the issue rather than something unrelated to the situation. Nobody seems to care about mental health problems until someone with those problems does something violent...
we wouldn't care about them much
This seems like a cause for the issue rather than something unrelated to the situation. Nobody seems to care about mental health problems until someone with those problems does something violent to someone else, but that doesn't mean you introduce a bunch of people with a mental illness as 'here are a group of people with schizophrenia, like that person who shot somebody thinking they were a hallucination'. That's not in any way helpful to anybody, it just gets article clicks and shares.
calling it purely a product of mental illness is disingenuous framing at best and actively ridiculous and ignorant of what causes such violence at worst. most of these people are not doing these...
Nobody seems to care about mental health problems until someone with those problems does something violent to someone else, but that doesn't mean you introduce a bunch of people with a mental illness as 'here are a group of people with schizophrenia, like that person who shot somebody thinking they were a hallucination'.
calling it purely a product of mental illness is disingenuous framing at best and actively ridiculous and ignorant of what causes such violence at worst. most of these people are not doing these things explicitly because they're "mentally ill" (although some people would say that the only way they could commit such crimes is because of underlying mental illness), they're doing it because they're engaged in the same sort of brinksmanship that pushes people on 4chan and 8chan to shoot up mosques and synagogues in the name of Deus Vult or establishing a white homeland and ending the (((Jewish Cabal))) which controls the world. if incel spaces didn't consist almost entirely of disaffected people whose idea of the female sex is that they're literal subhumans, whose idea of justice for what they "do" to men is rape and murder and disfiguration, and who think the only solution to the problems females bring is to instate a program of sex slavery and state enforced girlfriends or something else, you would absolutely not see this sort of pathological, consistent pattern of violence among them as a group of people. we can acknowledge that mental illness is a part of the problem, but let's not act like the main driving feature isn't the toxicity of incel spaces and the ideas that fester and constitute normality in them and that removing that aspect wouldn't cause the level of violence that has taken place because of incels so far to plummet.
umm... @vakieh didn't say that misogynist violence is a product of mental illness. He was using mental illness as an analogy. He was comparing the two separate situations of introducing incels by...
calling it purely a product of mental illness is disingenuous framing at best and actively ridiculous and ignorant of what causes such violence at worst.
umm... @vakieh didn't say that misogynist violence is a product of mental illness.
He was using mental illness as an analogy. He was comparing the two separate situations of introducing incels by talking about their real-world violence, and introducing people with mental illness by talking about their real-world violence. He was saying that, similarly to us not caring about incels until they commit violence, we also don't care about mentally ill people until they commit violence - but we don't introduce schizophrenics by talking about their violent offenders, so we should do the same thing for incels: don't introduce them by talking about their violent offenders, either.
I may disagree with him, but I understand what I'm disagreeing with.
i really feel like you shouldn't speak on his behalf and assert that you alone know exactly what he's saying or that everybody else is misinterpreting it personally considering that he's perfectly...
i really feel like you shouldn't speak on his behalf and assert that you alone know exactly what he's saying or that everybody else is misinterpreting it personally considering that he's perfectly capable of responding on his own and making that case himself, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯
I've been on the wrong side of these misunderstandings too often on Tildes. A lot of people here don't seem to recognise analogies or metaphors. It's a common problem on Tildes (so common that I...
I've been on the wrong side of these misunderstandings too often on Tildes. A lot of people here don't seem to recognise analogies or metaphors. It's a common problem on Tildes (so common that I think of it as "The Literalism Problem of Tildes"). I've seen it often enough by now to know what it looks like.
And, if I can help clear up one of these misunderstandings, I will.
Keep in mind that sometimes people just give up discussing things when they feel like they're not being heard or they're wasting their time. They're not always going to come back to explain themselves - especially when the other party is someone like you or me, who enjoys arguing points to the death. Sometimes they think it's better to just walk away rather than be subjected to yet another of our diatribes.
if you're going to just ignore most of my point i'm not going to waste my time because conversations like this irritate me to no end. please, for your own sake, don't assume literally everybody on...
if you're going to just ignore most of my point i'm not going to waste my time because conversations like this irritate me to no end. please, for your own sake, don't assume literally everybody on this website wants you to correct other people on their behalf, because far too often some of you lot seem to assume that everybody on here magically agrees with what you personally think is the right thing to do in this situation and that's not actually the case. maybe you are correct that vakieh's point was misrepresented by me or whatever--however, that does not inherently mean he wants you to intervene in this situation and speak on his behalf about how he feels, and if it were me in this situation being misinterpreted i would want no fucking part of you doing that for me. that's my point.
Close. It's a severed foot with the vagina on top (where the bone would be) so it's not even really a foot fetish thing, it's a serial killer, fuck you in the stab wound fetish.
Close. It's a severed foot with the vagina on top (where the bone would be) so it's not even really a foot fetish thing, it's a serial killer, fuck you in the stab wound fetish.
I'm getting to the point where the internet (aka "people") really disturbs me. I don't know if I'm just getting old, or what, but I think I'm happier just not knowing stuff like this exists. Man,...
I'm getting to the point where the internet (aka "people") really disturbs me. I don't know if I'm just getting old, or what, but I think I'm happier just not knowing stuff like this exists. Man, and I really love learning new stuff. It's a quandary.
I used to follow TRP about five years ago when a redditor recommended I go there. But my initial impression of the place was like a mix of a self-improvement board and r/seduction. Then I noticed...
I used to follow TRP about five years ago when a redditor recommended I go there. But my initial impression of the place was like a mix of a self-improvement board and r/seduction. Then I noticed that the community was becoming increasingly belligerent. The point where I decided to leave was when I got messages from others in the community that were just chewing me out with offensive language like they were some wannabe drill sergeant.
A year later, I met a girl on Okcupid (who later became my colleague) who told me about how paranoid the Red Pill community made her, particularly because RooshV was holding a march in a neighbouring city to ours, and as I later learned, that guy is a notorious spousal rape advocate.
Also, wasn't expecting the Open University article to label 'blackpill' as an example of a misogynistic term. It means a truth so harsh and damning that it's soul crushing, and it's been attributed to any claims that women really do go after the 10/10 male model looks and chiselled jawlines you often see associated with chads.
I've been wondering how many of the toxic "manosphere" users are just kids, like 12 to 18 years old. There can't be that many angry adults, right?
There's probably a fair number of teenagers and young adults, but I think that makes it worse than if this was nothing but jaded 30-somethings discussing their romantic troubles.
Children are information sponges, they'll soak up whatever they're given. And sex ed / "relationship ed" in US schools is hugely lacking. I think there's a very real risk that a lot of kids will go on to reddit looking for relatively harmless stuff like how to ask their crush out, advice on kissing, or whatever, get "redpilled" at a very young age, and grow up with a severely distorted picture of what real adult relationships are like.
First, wishful thinking, there's lots of angry adults.
Secondly, isn't that even more frighting? You're building a lot of personality in your teen years, and while many people leave that behind as they grow older, it stays in your mind. I've seen examples of incel forum type posts that were basically blaming their inability to find girlfriends on humiliating highschool experiences. It's tradition that you overcome this stuff but now we have a community wallowing in it. That can't be healthy.
I would bet a satoshi that you're right. Children and trolls.
Added to that are the ones who deem themselves as centrists, which seem to spend more time picking apart women's rights, trans rights, lgbtqia, etc. than anything else. And because the only types of people who are willing to dogpile on those conversations are those on the right, I often see the centrists slowly ebb their way in along with them.
Several years ago I decided to friend-breakup with two people who were anti-feminist and transphobic, and would just not budge whatsoever on either talking points to the point of intolerance and throwing hurtful comments my way when I'd cornered them in a debate. I know their reddit accounts and check in on them every now and again, and they've both slowly fallen into pitfalls of equating fascists to anti-facsists, seeing homosexuality as a mental disorder, etc., all while touting themselves as "not wanting to hurt feelings, these are just facts."
equating fascists and anti-fascists and seeing mental disorder ist not centrism, it's right wing extremism.
Absolutely, which is why I'd only said they deem themselves as centrists. I don't know that I've ever encountered a true centrist/am not sure what that would look like, but it feels like it's either a label right-wingers apply to themselves as a defense mechanism on account they're too afraid to express their true feelings, or just a label they use to portray themselves as above party politics, despite soliciting obviously extremist right-wing ideas.
Oh man, I hadn't considered how off-center American politics have become over time. Didn't Shapiro recently assume a British conservative was liberal? I fully admit I am unfamiliar with what's considered American left versus a more global left.
Can you give some examples of beliefs you consider to be on the left and right?
I think Loire meant that America has changed such that people who used to have been considered centrists are now considered liberal (assuming they kept the same opinions).
I appreciate the general message that this is sending, but it doesn't mention any of the subreddits that exist to counter the misogynistic take that /r/TheRedPill and other such communities have taken. My favorite one is /r/MensLib, which takes a far more nuanced and less circlejerk-y approach to any and all discussions of "men's issues" than /r/MensRights et al. From the sidebar:
Emphasis mine. This is a productive way to engage in discussion about these topics, yet it gets staggeringly little media attention, or even from Redditors themselves. Even many users on Reddit who do not actively participate in toxic subs still identify more strongly with the kneejerk reactions and paranoid rants about women that happen in redpilled communities than they do with the legitimate, level-headed, and thoughtful discourse that exists in bluepilled ones. Hence, /r/MensLib has 70,000 subscribers, and /r/MensRights has 225,000. The later is older, certainly, but the author of this article is still completely right to state that the tone of men's issues has shifted in the past few years, and not for the better. Redditors make it worse by turning a blind eye.
r/MensLib really is great, it is one of the few good subreddits where quality conversation actually happens.
So... what's the over/under for how long it takes the reddit admins to ban a bunch of these subreddits now that there's an article written about it in a major publication?
They've actually been surprisingly active for the past week in banning a few toxic communities.
While I'm sure the quarantine of t_d was meant to just be temporary damage control by spez, my hope is that community will just fold in on themselves with outrage and hatred and move themselves towards a full ban.
I'd be fine with Reddit's admins quarantining communities for offensive/violent comments if they enforced their guidelines equally.
r/ChapoTrapHouse is probably just as if not more problematic than t_d was. On the SRC subreddit there have been frequent posts of CTH users inciting violence and harassing other users. Yet they're not quarantined...
chapo was literally almost banned outright not even three months ago for the heinous crime of users expressing the take "kill slave owners" (which is an objectively good, reasonable take) so i don't think this line of criticism works anymore, sorry.
Remember that spez sees himself as "someone in charge" or "at least not a slave" if society collapses.
The two options imply to me that he sees himself as someone who would own slaves in a post-collapse society, which is why he took special offense to a community expressing they would kill slave owners.
(...half /s)
Reddit is also the kind of place where you can be site-wide banned for posting the US Navy Seals copypasta.
I wouldn't trust SRC to give a reasonable viewpoint of any situation. From what I've seen of CTH, nothing they did is in the same realm as what t_d did. Remember: t_d actually got someone killed and many people physically hurt.
CTH isn't that great and all, but please don't trust SRC.
While I agree with the notion that CTH members are pain in the ass to deal with (especially when cop related post comes up), you really shouldn't trust anything that comes out of SRC. That sub is just a facade to whine about "free speech" and mod-abuse which is a thin veneer to promote their own circlejerk and rule breaking behavior.
It doesn't really inspire hope in a meaningful conversation when the article decides to go for outrage culture with:
I mean, yes there are definitely radicals in there and the culture is horrifying, but what exactly do you expect to gain by jumping to the most hyperbolic position possible and preventing any sort of connection or middle ground to prevent that radicalisation?
If members of the "manosphere" just sat in their stereotypical basements and exchanged memes with each other, we wouldn't care about them much. It's only because those online communities have induced people to action across the broader internet and to violence in the real world that those "manosphere" communities matter. This example and others like it are therefore extremely relevant to this discussion.
This seems like a cause for the issue rather than something unrelated to the situation. Nobody seems to care about mental health problems until someone with those problems does something violent to someone else, but that doesn't mean you introduce a bunch of people with a mental illness as 'here are a group of people with schizophrenia, like that person who shot somebody thinking they were a hallucination'. That's not in any way helpful to anybody, it just gets article clicks and shares.
calling it purely a product of mental illness is disingenuous framing at best and actively ridiculous and ignorant of what causes such violence at worst. most of these people are not doing these things explicitly because they're "mentally ill" (although some people would say that the only way they could commit such crimes is because of underlying mental illness), they're doing it because they're engaged in the same sort of brinksmanship that pushes people on 4chan and 8chan to shoot up mosques and synagogues in the name of Deus Vult or establishing a white homeland and ending the (((Jewish Cabal))) which controls the world. if incel spaces didn't consist almost entirely of disaffected people whose idea of the female sex is that they're literal subhumans, whose idea of justice for what they "do" to men is rape and murder and disfiguration, and who think the only solution to the problems females bring is to instate a program of sex slavery and state enforced girlfriends or something else, you would absolutely not see this sort of pathological, consistent pattern of violence among them as a group of people. we can acknowledge that mental illness is a part of the problem, but let's not act like the main driving feature isn't the toxicity of incel spaces and the ideas that fester and constitute normality in them and that removing that aspect wouldn't cause the level of violence that has taken place because of incels so far to plummet.
umm... @vakieh didn't say that misogynist violence is a product of mental illness.
He was using mental illness as an analogy. He was comparing the two separate situations of introducing incels by talking about their real-world violence, and introducing people with mental illness by talking about their real-world violence. He was saying that, similarly to us not caring about incels until they commit violence, we also don't care about mentally ill people until they commit violence - but we don't introduce schizophrenics by talking about their violent offenders, so we should do the same thing for incels: don't introduce them by talking about their violent offenders, either.
I may disagree with him, but I understand what I'm disagreeing with.
i really feel like you shouldn't speak on his behalf and assert that you alone know exactly what he's saying or that everybody else is misinterpreting it personally considering that he's perfectly capable of responding on his own and making that case himself, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯
I've been on the wrong side of these misunderstandings too often on Tildes. A lot of people here don't seem to recognise analogies or metaphors. It's a common problem on Tildes (so common that I think of it as "The Literalism Problem of Tildes"). I've seen it often enough by now to know what it looks like.
And, if I can help clear up one of these misunderstandings, I will.
Keep in mind that sometimes people just give up discussing things when they feel like they're not being heard or they're wasting their time. They're not always going to come back to explain themselves - especially when the other party is someone like you or me, who enjoys arguing points to the death. Sometimes they think it's better to just walk away rather than be subjected to yet another of our diatribes.
if you're going to just ignore most of my point i'm not going to waste my time because conversations like this irritate me to no end. please, for your own sake, don't assume literally everybody on this website wants you to correct other people on their behalf, because far too often some of you lot seem to assume that everybody on here magically agrees with what you personally think is the right thing to do in this situation and that's not actually the case. maybe you are correct that vakieh's point was misrepresented by me or whatever--however, that does not inherently mean he wants you to intervene in this situation and speak on his behalf about how he feels, and if it were me in this situation being misinterpreted i would want no fucking part of you doing that for me. that's my point.
I didn't intervene for his sake. I didn't comment for his benefit. I was helping you. Or so I thought. But you don't want my help. Got it.
I...should not have googled this.
Well... a day where we learn something new is not a day wasted, but I'm not sure what I want to do with the new knowledge I have.
It's an ankle you can fuck, isnt it.
Close. It's a severed foot with the vagina on top (where the bone would be) so it's not even really a foot fetish thing, it's a serial killer, fuck you in the stab wound fetish.
I'm getting to the point where the internet (aka "people") really disturbs me. I don't know if I'm just getting old, or what, but I think I'm happier just not knowing stuff like this exists. Man, and I really love learning new stuff. It's a quandary.
I used to follow TRP about five years ago when a redditor recommended I go there. But my initial impression of the place was like a mix of a self-improvement board and r/seduction. Then I noticed that the community was becoming increasingly belligerent. The point where I decided to leave was when I got messages from others in the community that were just chewing me out with offensive language like they were some wannabe drill sergeant.
A year later, I met a girl on Okcupid (who later became my colleague) who told me about how paranoid the Red Pill community made her, particularly because RooshV was holding a march in a neighbouring city to ours, and as I later learned, that guy is a notorious spousal rape advocate.
Also, wasn't expecting the Open University article to label 'blackpill' as an example of a misogynistic term. It means a truth so harsh and damning that it's soul crushing, and it's been attributed to any claims that women really do go after the 10/10 male model looks and chiselled jawlines you often see associated with chads.