Seems like a huge part of the problem is equating “self-worth” to “getting laid”.
Putting your dick in a woman doesn’t make you any more of a man / successful / worth more than anyone else.
Societal expectations need to be rejected. Oh, success is measured by your ability to get married, have a house, and raise your 2.5 children? For a vast majority, NONE OF THAT IS CURRENTLY SUSTAINABLE AND/OR OBTAINABLE. So why bother? Right?
I get it. It ain’t right, but I get it.
Pro tip: getting laid creates more problems than it solves.
Oh, I’m well aware. I’m one of those problems. 😎
Pro tip: don’t say “getting laid”, ever, unless you want to sound misogynistic.
Yeah i have sad it before. Many young men belive that to be a good person they must me the manlyest man to have manned in the history of manhood. Anything else and they a moral failure.
And you believe that men are fuck machines, fuck beasts, that to be a man is to fuck. Well thrn a man that is not having sex is failure of a man.
Changing their. Minda is not just a changing some view it is changing their whole world view. It is the sane as convincing the pope to convert to Buddhism. It is way more then facts or some conversations ot converting a whole generation.
Putting your dick in a woman doesn’t make you any more of a man
Yeah, puting a man’s dick in you makes you more of a man.
It’s simple math, really.
thank you for your service
Yeah instant double the amount of man… wanna become a 3x man? Just lmk
It’s literally the most natural thing in the world to equate reproductive effectiveness to worth. All life is “worth” their reproductive effectiveness. So not having sex is very relevant to our entire existence as a species.
As such, our mental faculties put a heavy punishment in the form of mental pain, i.e. “self-worth attached to getting laid”, on this whole thing.
This has very little to do with societal expectations. It’s simple biology. Not getting laid is supposed to be one of the worst things for an organism.
You’re rationally right with what you say, but it’s simply not very relevant. Rationality does not help with our most deeply rooted biological desires. The only thing that helps is getting them fulfilled, i.e. having sex.
I’m asexual. Can’t relate, I guess.
EDIT: Wait, that’s even shittier!! People unable or have difficulty reproducing are worth less to society?? I may be a bit naïve, but I don’t believe that’s a majority of society believes something like that. That’s disgusting.
The comment was about self worth not societal worth. Being asexual shouldn’t matter with that argument because you wouldn’t feel the same sexual drive; your self worth isn’t impacted.
Self-worth can be a result of societal expectations. Your parents badgering you about how you should “go get married and have a family” to show how “successful” you are as a person is very much a thing. It can greatly impact a person.
The only reason a person would feel bad is because society is pushing the narrative that they should feel bad if they aren’t having sex with someone.
Self-worth can be a result of societal expectations.
Sure true, but you can’t ignore that humans have millions of years of evolution that have honed our physiological and social behavior to act a certain way. Just because it’s not rational doesn’t mean you can flip a switch and shrug it off.
For example, peer pressure in teens is more than a normal learned behavior. The need to conform to an in-group that (historically) will be your lifelong community is immense. The pain of exclusion and embarrassment is amplified, closer to actual physical pain, compared to what an adult/child might feel in the same situation.
The only reason a person would feel bad is because
society is pushing the narrative…is because reproduction is a core part of animal evolution. An asexual person saying that core discomfort is invalid is like a person who can’t feel physical pain rolling their eyes at touching a hot stove.
I’m not saying it’s invalid, I’m just saying that I personally don’t believe that it’s the true core of the issue!
It’s way more than just “Men mad because monke brain want sex mad because no sex”.
Dunno what to tell you, but your second sentence is just wrong. It is mainly “men mad because monke brain want sex”.
You only think it’s not because like you said, you can’t relate to most people since you’re asexual.
What is the core of the issue? “Society bad”? There are a lot of comorbid social ills but you can’t reduce everything to your favorites.
Economic frustration will likely manifest as anti immigrant sentiment. Extremist groups provide inclusion as a cure for social isolation. Degrading healthcare systems are fertile ground for anti-vax and pseudo-medicine. Digital echo chambers give a space to amplify every toxic narrative.
Occam’s razor says the guys preaching the fatalistic misogyny gospel are probably experiencing some strong sexual frustration. If they didn’t have that problem they could find something else to be mad about.
No toxic ideology precludes the others, but a racist with a stable marriage isn’t going to be blackpilled. He already knows minorities are the real problem.
Everything you wrote is nonsense. Pointing at a process that often occurs - evolution - and then working backwards to claim that organisms must feel pain when they don’t reproduce is completely antilogical. Evolution may be caused by feelings of pain or suffering when otganisms don’t reproduce, or it could be something completely different. You are putting the effect before the cause.
Trying to do evolutionary psychoanalysis on something as cognitively complex as a human is practically guaranteed to give you wrong conclusions. What’s more, this sort of bullshit is part and parcel of a lot of bioessentialist rhetoric, so if I were you I would definitely consider revaluating a few things.
It’s not though. I’m not working backwards. I’m just not writing a dissertation. It’s possible to observe lack of sex leading to psychological pain in all the different societies throughout all of history we have as humans. It’s incredibly more likely to be caused by our biology than by artificially created societal expectations.
I agree with you because it’s my anecdotal life experience. I’m quite successful in terms of my career and finances. I’m pretty good looking and outgoing. I’m also a single dad and I’m in a nearly year-long dry spell. My self esteem is awful. Not having sex is torture for me and it has nothing to do with societal norms. It’s just biological misery.
There’s always more to it as well. That’s maybe what people don’t get. Yeah, not having sex is terrible, but if it’s the only thing unpleasant it’s bearable. But if other shit starts piling on top, then it becomes misery. Then people might say “oh it’s only society”.
Hope you’ll feel better friend. Seems you’ve got the masturbation going nicely already, so that helps 🤣
Lol what else can you do I guess.
In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn’t often occur, it always occurs. And we’re not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we’re talking about actual reproductive encounters.
Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There’s a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don’t have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.
Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn’t part of normal human function. Which is it?
None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There’s no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are “supposed” to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.
24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That’s a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.
More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?
It’s not a ‘goal’ there is no purpose or goal to evolution or life…it’s a property of life that it propagates itself but that’s not the goal, reproduction is a function or a property of life. You could also argue the ‘goal’ is survival and there are sticks and carrots poking at making an organism survive, but again it just sounds like you’re misunderstanding how those words are used in academia, you’re doing the same thing with fitness. Fitness in evolution isn’t about running or being strong it’s how well an organism functions in its environment and what makes an organism fit varies from organism to organism and environment to environment.
One of us is misunderstanding for sure.
Fitness is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.
You’re conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.
Yeah you’re the one misunderstanding lol
Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I’m not wrong. I can reword it if you want: “my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics”
And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be “I don’t like what you’re saying” followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn’t do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.
If I’m misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I’ve had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:
- Sex is a widely researched topic, it’s mental health benefits are well established and there are dozens of studies on the physiological benefits in multiple species.
- Neural pathways for sexual behavior have ties to drug addiction and violence.
- Disrupting or over stimulating those pathways has very clear behavioral implications.
All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.
People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It’s possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.
-20
They hated them because they told the truth.
It’s not the absolute truth. But it’s most likely the largest part of the explanation.
People like putting blame on “society”, and while societal pressures surely play a part, the reason it’s so nice to mainly blame society is because it creates a problem that has an acceptable solution.
Because what do you say when you say society is mainly to blame here? You’re saying it’s completely fine for many men not to have sex. Just have to fix society making it hard for them to live without sex. If my assumption is correct though, that doesn’t help those men very much. But who does it help? Anyone those men would want to have sex with, because they’re not under “threat” anymore.
Yeah sure, but it’s also one of the most natural things in the world to bite people
Of course it is, if you have rabies
Rabies is natural ;3
Well, everybody in the manosphere is a toxic idiot/asshole, no matter what particular brand of stupidity they follow. It does feel very similar to religion, though. Some sects might be more violent, but they all follow some made-up shit.
It is semi-religious in that every single head in the “manosphere” is just a leader of a cult of personality.
It may be true of humanity in general, but it’s definitely true of Americans that they just love themselves a good cult.
So where do we meet the devotees in the middle to try to deprogram them?
It won’t work, as long as these right wing grifters designed to draw in incels to their circles. It seems even if they get married somehow it doesn’t solve their issues, as long as the grifters convince them otherwise
“It’s important to remember that it’s not zero-sum. We can care about the well-being of women and girls and also acknowledge that young men are struggling, too. Those don’t have to be at odds.”
I think you need to be on a subdued position by society to be considered as “struggling”. Incels accept their condition completely and are not in a vulnerable position when related to society. Unless you call being called out for “mental health” problems as submission.
Being weak doesn’t mean you’re subdued, I bet incel’s existence is profitable to someone. All in all, I don’t wish you a time trying to “care” for these people, I don’t think they would care for you. Unless you call “care” throwing them into some mental institution for something’s sake.
Yes, I hate the way that people in media thought they could empower women by creating absolutely moronic and attractive male characters that they could sexually harass. Like, what!? That’s not the way! I think people in general need more support because we’ve sort of nullified the way support networks used to exist.
stop using the photo of that kid lol the actor has enough bad reputation for staring in that series, he needs to do something crazy next to break out from that role
I swear he looks AI to me, I don’t know why.
Well it seems he’s going for another round so…
What bad rep? Being acclaimed as one of the greatest actors his age? He’s just playing a character. The kid doesn’t even look like the character anymore.
Reading these comments makes understanding why the world is in its current state, extremely easy
Keep preaching and applying that brand of empathy guys, it will surely pay off eventually
The simple fact is no one really cares about the plight of men, and this is obvious when you look at social service funding and especially homeless shelters.
We are in a ‘bare branch’ crisis, and back when this happened in medieval China, whole gangs of angry unmarriable men would form raider bands and just pillage and rape until they were put down by the military. It happened so often that warring states would purposely stage useless battles with massive losses on both sides to keep down the ‘bare branch’ population so they didn’t get to rioting levels.
Maybe the fact that warfare is no longer culling the most desperate, lonely, and impressionable men has let to such a large population of unfocused, angry, lonely, and fundamentally unlikeable males.
It’s mainly because biologically we evolved to have kids and die on a hunt, our evolution pressures just aren’t capable of handling a male population without a certain degree of unnatural casualty.
While we’re making shit up, did you know the sky is purple? 1 + 1 = 3. Since we don’t need sources, up is down, and you are correct. You are also not an incel, and it’s 25 o clock.
Based comment. In our society, men still believe in working 50+ hours a week for peanuts, so we won’t see any of these gangs forming any time soon. Maybe a few active clubs though lol
Sounds like Bullshit, got an sources for that?
I’m actually impressed at how ridiculous this is. But I’ll bite:
What’s the plight of men?
Is it sexual frustration?
Is the solution ensuring that young men have access to sex, regardless of the means or impact on women?
If that isn’t feasible, are we simply supposed to engage in war to cull off these sex-starved, victimized men who seemingly are incapable of contributing to society in any other way then impregnating women and waging violence?
If so, what is the benefit of living in such a world?
I’m not the guy you’re responding to but here’s my thoughts on it based off my experience.
Is it sexual frustration?
I’d wager that that’s a big part of the problem for a lot of them. I know it was for me when I was younger. Seeing your peers entering into relationships while you can’t seem to get even a second glance from a woman does a number on you. Especially when you can’t figure out what the problem is. I was fortunate that things turned around for me pretty quickly once I got out of the toxic high school environment and moved onto a different social circle in college that helped me get out of my shell. A lot of dudes aren’t that lucky and just get stuck in that bad mindset where they feel like it’s hopeless which then takes them on to all kinds of nasty places as time goes on.
Is the solution ensuring that young men have access to sex, regardless of the means or impact on women?
No, in my opinion the solution is making mental health services available to help teach them how to deal with whatever it is that’s making it hard for them to find a partner or to cope with it if it’s something that can’t be resolved. Also just having more social opportunities in general to get people offline and meeting and interacting with each other more would be nice. Women certainly aren’t responsible for making sure men are all getting laid as often as they want but sexual frustration/loneliness is a problem a lot of men struggle with coming to terms with and it does fuck up their lives sometimes.
I think that’s a very sanitary answer. My opinion? It’s not some mysterious sociological quandary to unravel why men are sexually frustrated and lonely. These young men have few prospects, a bleak future, and have been raised with exploitative social media that’s slowly eroded their critical thinking skills and empathy towards others. Their failure to achieve a life they’ve been told they’re entitled to all their lives breeds resentment and is being manipulated against women and minorities as a function of social engineering through social media algorithms.
Our next door neighbor is an 80 year old man with 12 grandkids, a nice house and every one of his kids was fully paid for college
He had a high school diploma and was functionally illiterate
He worked as a gas station attentand until they made him manager and he retired with a pension.
NO ONE WILL EVER HAVE THAT AGAIN
Men see their value as partners, leaders, and providers and also see little viable paths to be any of those things.
It’s the same issues as other genders to some degree just a lot of society really doesn’t want to listen to a man who’s down and out, because toxic masculinity isn’t just how men act but also how society can expect men to act.
Our legends are soldiers who die for great things. Workers that broke their bodies for the loved ones. Psychopath that gave up their humanity to be something important. All of which imply that just being isn’t important not by itself, and again that how people treat you. Try just being, not “making something of your self”, not “being a generous lover/boyfriend/husband”, just being a person and people honestly treat you like crap.
The dude that fed the ducks where I lived was fucking awesome, but people treated him like he was a fucking bum. The apartments harassed him for taking care of them.
The homeless people I’ve talked to, almost always had the same story, hardworking to take care of a family, something took them from them, drugs, cheating, injury (and thus disability), and then when they “had nothing” they dropped out.
Everyone hears their stories and thinks the same thing though, that they buck up and do something with their lives. Never just for their sake, not because having connections and meaning in their lives would be good for them, but it’s disgusting to others to not be useful.
Sexual frustration isn’t the cause but it is comorbid. It isn’t even nearly as much a problem as the crushing loss of self worth that poverty and hopelessness bring. It’s just the only frustration that society allows men to express is sexual because anything else is weakness. It’s that lack of self worth that make such men unappealing.
The cause is there is no reason to work for a future in a world that will barely reward you enough to survive for your hardest, most skilled efforts. Tons of young men are now looking at a bleak future and let’s be realistic, you aren’t going to be a good partner till you are financially stable.
There’s no reason to be a good member of society if the people most greatly rewarded are the ones that abuse the social contract, so a lot of men just don’t see the appeal in being appealing.
Why work on yourself if you can never afford to take a partner out? Or have time to? Why make the effort to court possible rejection when you can just sit around online with all your other lonely, attention starved, hopeless, emotionally suppressed fellows and share things that piss you off
Because being angry feels better than being depressed, and the two can’t really live in the same head.
So they stoke their hate, whatever flavor they have of it, to feel anything other than alone, unwanted, and depressed.
And after a while some clots of hate coagulate into a target or a movement, and then well if the world isn’t going to reward them for their best efforts, why not burn it all the fuck down?
As lemmy is just as biased and irrational as reddit, I fully expect this to get me banned from yet another community.
I thought school was for basic education, not getting ready for the labor market.
Hmm maybe at one point but that point is long gone
That hasn’t been the case… Ever I think. We’re still trapped in the industrial revolution’s education system - create laborers - but with a lot of extraneous bullshit tacked on in an attempt to mesh it’s obsolescence with modernity and labor-saving tech. It’s always been about controlling the workers.
Originally, school was for the nobility and (fledgling) bourgeois, so they could run their spreadsheets, wage wars, and impress people with trivia, everyone else’s education came from family tradition, neighbours (farmers talking farming stuff), or an education in the trades. Want to study geometry? At some point, the best option was to become a mason. And they would swear you to secrecy.
Universal education is a brainchild of Martin Luther, he wanted everyone to be able to read so that all could read the Bible.
Yeah but everything changed when the
Fire Nation attackedIndustrial Revolution began.
Sorry to burst your bubble. We’re all just pawns for the capitalists.
My bubble is already completely destroyed.
At least keep walking and become a queen.
I had to check where I had seen your name before. :)
I say burn the board.
:) But don’t hold that in my favor.
Burning the board reverses development. Which decision in the past was wrong that could have led to a better society?
We would make the same mistakes again.
We could create a white pill. When groups of humans become enemies and it’s ok to hate them, then somebody is playing a fascist playbook and it becomes time to offer an alternative to all participants. (Which is just other words for ‘pawns of capitalists’.)
From my current pov, there is no good life, hell not any life on this planet in the future, under capitlism.
The infinite extraction of profit needs to go.
That is what I mean by burn the board. Because the idea that the pawns are only able to run towards the enemy in the hope of becoming a queen (which is the epitome of the carrot on a stick) is just sick.
How to change human nature? People could stop being pawns and redefine the game but they don’t do it. Here, NEETS stop playing the game and they are immediately shunned by society. People can’t stand to see in others what they have to suppress in themselves.
The end of capitalism would require some benevolent people to be in control or a majority of society that doesn’t fall for manipulations.
The best that I can imagine is that those who don’t like capitalism create their own island, kind of like the situation in brave new world. Fortunately I am not that clever so I hope that others find a better solution.
How to change human nature?
you mean the neoliberalist take of social darwinism. thats debunked. people are born good and empathetic. even evolution has not happened as capitalists like to picture it. not the strongest individuum has prevailed but the most kooperative group.
People could stop being pawns and redefine the game but they don’t do it.
The next neoliberalist take of individualizing systemic problems. people have zero real influence on their lives. there are also very few countries that even have a semblance of democracy. even in germany, people are so manipulated that they obviously decide against their own self interest.
The best that I can imagine is that those who don’t like capitalism create their own island, kind of like the situation in brave new world.
That is currently being done. Many places are building horizontal, base democratic communities. It also has been done many times over, but capitalist countries have destroyed a lot of them. Sometimes killing the people involved.
The western countries are in a very precarious situation in terms of democracy. Capitalism is ultimately a fascist system (absolutist hierarchies, eviction of the weak, darwinism) and will always lead to fascism if unrestrained.
Some ideas of people are either solely worker owned companies, full blown democratic socialism or base democracy with federation. All promising concepts.
The point of school is to churn out workers. The government didn’t throw money into education because it felt generous.
Ya’ll are forgetting it also doubles as childcare for all the workers you’re employing, but paid for by the state, which is why capital was behind it.
Oh, 100%. But we wouldn’t need childcare if the kids could work the factories. Unfortunately, that needs a minimum level of education.
I don’t think I need to learn chemistry and physics to get a job.
And that’s how we accidentally get chlorine gas made by the janitors
They’re worth learning to understand the universe and the history of how that knowledge was derived and/or discovered.
If it helps you get a job, all the better, but they’re worth learning for their own sake.
In a democracy, you should have good schools for the simple reason as to have a people that’s actually able to carry a democracy.
The United States is a flawed democracy, so we have good schools for few and great schools for fewer.
What a terrible article. NEETS and lie flat movement has almost no overlap with incels.
Ostensibly the whole world has been online for enough time now. Yet everyone continues to demonstrate a remarkable lack of ability to grasp internet cultures.
It makes no sense. Like trying to explain technology to my elderly grandma. Except she knows she’s very old and out of touch. What’s everyone elses excuse. It’s made even worse because everyone else thinks they are digitial culture savvy.
It’s intentional to cause infighting and and to help build the association between neets and incels.
Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast media conglomerate, which is owned by Advanced Publications, which is owned and controlled by the billionaire Newhouse Family.
That’s why Steve Newhouse wants these types of articles to be written, because it obfuscates truth and pushes division.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
They overlap because they are all rejects and failures with no prospects.
…I’m honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or not - if you’re pointing out a problematic point of view or if you’re attacking the people the article is talking about.
Since we’ve past growth now there are precious few winners in a zero sum game. Why even try, if you’re not cut to be a liar and a thief?
And what do you base that of? It’s incredibly easy to identify the cause of that overlap…
I took the white pills
It was extasy
Had a great time
Raising kids these days must be a real minefield with all this toxic culture being so accessible.
And most parents are too lazy or too tired to police their children
The kids are also at school half the day or more, we’re trying to teach and reinforce critical thinking as much as possible with our son. And I’m trying to show him that there are lots of ways to solve problems when examples arise.
But I’m also a dad that both fixes the cars and cooks the dinners and solders the electronics and sows on the buttons. He’s a smart kid, and a contrarian like his folks, so I hope he’s gonna be ok.
Fundamentalist religion is at the top of the toxic culture, and it has been around since before the incel term.
Usually, it’s just another term for the same thing, I would say.
Anyone offering easy answers to complex questions should be suspect. And that does largely incriminate all religious groups around the world. They often espouse seemingly decent and benign ideologies. But unfortunately the mindset that latches on to those things, idealogues; are the danger. Even if the ideology themselves aren’t necessarily.
We had an easy answer - a decent paying job that offered a decent lifestyle and a hope for a better future but the rich took it away.
They often espouse seemingly decent and benign ideologies.
Sometimes they are so conditioned that they don’t even think of their bigotry as bigotry.
I think organized religion fills their heads with problematic ideas about gender roles.
Heh, while religion isn’t required for that. It’s impossible to argue that it doesn’t help with it. Putting faith in anything and turning off critical thinking is always a recipe for disaster.
Pretty sure the old testament gives wives more authority in the community and in the household than what our current government is aiming for.
Fucking hell there are instructions for abortifactants in the OT
Don’t pin this on religion, this is purely the bias of petty men coloring their interpretations.
I don’t think that raising kids was ever easy.
I think the point is that parents have less influence than ever when kids are getting their values from online communities.
lol no one raises kids these days, they leave that to youtube
If I choose to have children, they’ll be home-schooled, and their internet use will be entirely supervised until they’re older. None of this, hand-a-toddler-a-tablet nonsense.
What a shit headline. Yes we should care about people saying fuck it. But not this colored pill horseshit.
How can we help them make more friends? How can we get them involved in real-world activities that will diminish their time spent online?
By locking them into suburban houses with no places to go without being driven by their parents, until they’re old enough to drive. 🇺🇸🇨🇦
I used to go to school by bike with friends, nowadays there is car traffic congestion to drop off kids at school
I lived on the street next to a high school.
The primary entrance to both the high school and the rest of the neighborhood was appropriately named Funnel.
Getting out of the neighborhood was sometimes the longest part of my journey, and that was driving from the suburbs into downtown on a notoriously traffic ridden (and always under construction) freeway - they liked to close exits with little to no notice sometimes requiring massive rerouting. Was late a couple times because of that, but the traffic right at the start of the commute was the worst.
A combination of high schoolers who can’t drive, and half asleep parents who need more caffeine or less kids - probably both - as well as pedestrians and kids on bikes. I don’t know about your area, but cyclists in that area did not abide by traffic laws and no one stopped them, so they kept doing it. More than a few people died at that crossing in the ~5 years I lived there.
Thankfully, I usually only saw it bad on my way home in the morning (medical IT, I worked nights).
Covering some other shifts though? Whew, I had to leave at least 30 minutes earlier than I would for a night shift.
Yeah. Not to mention how much time, effort and money it takes for parents to shuttle kids around to create some semblance of social life. The more difficult it is, the fewer people do it. Growing up in commie blocks, it was impossible to go out the entrance and not bump into some kids playing. You’d go on the balcony and get yelled to come down by some kids outside. We walked alone to school since kindergarten. There were multitudes of small local stores to buy yourself a treat and share it with the other kids. Even the least attentive parents had their kids get socially functional by society. This sort of thing is possible in some places in North America but I think it’s the exception rather than the norm.
In the 2000s my elementary-school step-son wasn’t allowed to walk, bike or skate to school. Also, they didn’t get to keep a locker. Fuck teaching personal responsibility! 6-yo children, bent double with giant backpacks. All they needed were coolie hats to complete the slave motiff. All in all just a nother brick in the wall.
Howany cases of scoliosis did that make. No really that nearly happned to my brothers when he wasin school. I was lucky and had lockers.
The middle school I went to in the 90’s had bike racks. They were old and corroded, most were kinda shoved to the side. I never once saw a bike locked to them, and I got the feeling that you’d get in trouble if you did.
That school was about 60 years old, and was once the town high school, it was in amongst the residential side of town. They opened a new middle school out on commercial land back behind the Best Buy out on the stroad that’s only known by its US route number. They installed no bike racks there.
And then making cars impossibly expensive, teenage boys uninsurable as drivers, wages hilariously low, and reliable transportation a prerequisite for employment.
Those profits aren’t going to make themselves!
It was never gonna work out forever. Capitalism is really young and has never really been sustainable.
I’m sure they expect others to take care of them though. Like giant house pets.
Fight hard in the comment section, brocels! Victory is coming!!! A lot of comments here missed the point - the article isn’t talking about pssy, it’s primarily about job prospects. Incels are just men who fail in every way in which it’s possible to fail. Lack of pssy is just a normal result of having no money, no status and no job.
“De-radicalization is a noble, worthy line of research,” she said. “But the existing evidence from that field of study suggests that prevention is easier and more effective than trying to pull these people out once they’re already in.” Potential strategies might include fostering better digital and media literacy, i.e., teaching kids to be cognizant of the content they’re consuming online. Exposure time is another key issue.
The education system world-wide is quite bad. Yes, it’s better than nothing, but still, its not good. Media and online literacy are part of the smallest subset of curriculums. As a whole, the education system fails at preparing most people for life. It’s even bad at preparing people for a vocation, its seemingly intended goal.
With better education, traditional mindsets would be much less common. I mention this because in my opinion the major cause of being an involuntary celibate and considering that status a problem, is traditionalism. That attaches self-worth to achievements in life and tightly couples success with partnership and parenthood.
Better education creates more free thinkers and independent individuals who are not easily controlled or swayed by popular narrative. They are not immune to it, nobody is, but giving humans a toolset for critical reasoning can go a long way.
That attaches self-worth to achievements in life and tightly couples success with partnership and parenthood.
I am highly skeptical of a viable alternative here. Self worth is strongly tied to the quality of our social relationships. Our social relationships depend significantly on our achievements. People want to be around other people who are succeeding, because they know that successful people can help them also be successful. Sure, your mom will always love you, hopefully… But who else?
There are countless alternatives and everybody has to find what that means for them. For example I have no real achievements to speak of. Sure, you could look at my paycheck and say “that person successful”. You could look at where I live and say “you’re successful”. You could look at where I vacation and say “you’re successful”. But what does that mean? It might mean something to you because you attribute some kind of value to it, but I don’t. My self-worth is attached to how I treat others (or how I don’t), how I view the world, how I will leave it when I’m gone and the things I tried to do before ending up as fish or worm-chow.
If you feel like you have to live up to some kind of metric of success setup by other people, that’s fine. I hope that makes you happy. It wouldn’t make me happy, but I’m not you.
I don’t feel like I have to live up to some arbitrary metric of success set up by others. I am aware of the fact that others will be interested in knowing me based on my achievements. For example, if I have the achievement “earn enough money to support myself”, other people will want to be around me than would otherwise. These are nice people whose company I enjoy, so I am going to try to keep earning this achievement.
If I can say “I have run a marathon” or “I placed 3rd in my community chess competition”, these things indicate that I have positive attributes which other people will find attractive, like fitness, consistency, intelligence, and an interest in community events. I also want to spend my time with people who have cultivated these traits - so when someone tells me that they once meditated for 24 hours straight, I am impressed and am more interested in knowing them because I intuit that spending time around them will imbue me with some of that potential. Meanwhile, if someone tells me that they spend their free time watching reality tv reruns, I am less interested in knowing them, because I am not interested in becoming more like them.
I’ve had friend groups where nobody knows which job the other person had. Somebody could’ve been a CEO or a cleaner. It didn’t matter. We went to the same concerts together, hung out in bars and the beach together, had deep political discussions and also shot the shit.
At no point did I think “wow, if this person hadn’t told me they went skydiving, I’d never hang out with them”. We happened to have the same sense of humor, watched some of the same shows, did similar activities, and were open to others vision of the world. I can’t even remember their “achievements”, just that they were nice people to be friends with.You may require achievements and some mix of attributes you attach to those achievements in order to hang out with people. That’s fine. Not everybody’s the same.
Fuck these losers. Just discard them from society.
