You’re a fool if you extrapolated that meaning from my words. The male fragility drives the culture of insecurity, greed, and competition. Women can be infected as well, but they are not the drivers of this psychosis.
Male fragility doesn’t drive the culture of insecurity. It’s an artificially introduced wedge tactic intended to keep the working class infighting.
Everyone with money and power are pretty happy with the status quo.
If you ever find yourself thinking that any regular working person is “the problem”, step back and ask yourself who baited the trap. Some external narrative drew one of you in to make the other pissed off.
Like, they kept telling Cletus that the immigrants are why his paycheck is small, and that the big city liberals want to eradicate him. He says “Damn those immigrants” and then you come out of the woodwork telling him he’s the problem with the country and then boom: you’re suddenly the liberal who he’s heard hates him, word made flesh, just as the prophecy foretold.
Like, how goddamn convenient that it’s male fragility. How awesome for the 1% that out of everyone and everything, they hand you a loaded term like that that will CERTAINLY be taken out of context as a blanket condemnation of 50% of the population by anyone who doesn’t study sociology (spoiler alert, MOST PEOPLE)
Like, if someone said to you that it was a result of a slowness of male development, and thus the Latin for “slow” was appropriate here, and that the accepted term that you should use in the world to try and initiate a thoughtful, respectful exchange of ideas in good faith, so you should say “male retardation”, would you say “ya that sounds like a great way to talk to men and I can’t comprehend any reason why anyone might be standoffish when hearing it”?
Again, you’re a chump. You’re brandishing a term INTENTIONALLY loaded to incite division among the working class. You are a useful idiot to the people oppressing you.
Like, they kept telling Cletus that the immigrants are why his paycheck is small, and that the big city liberals want to eradicate him. He says “Damn those immigrants” and then you come out of the woodwork telling him he’s the problem with the country and then boom: you’re suddenly the liberal who he’s heard hates him, word made flesh, just as the prophecy foretold.
Exactly and the flipside of this is targeting the liberals and catering to the idea they can be morally superior, and building this meritocratic notion where the “Cletus” actually deserves to be poor and stupid. This mechanism basically removes individuals from the political economy and moralizes the outcomes caused by it as representative of their individual virtue. This idea of “virtue hoarding” has been used to describe this which I think can be pretty accurate. It can’t solve anything either, and it’s actually a very conservative approach to the topic at large because it doesn’t acknowledge the economic material causes of why they’re like this or try to solve the thing that causes these disparities. It makes it all about the individual and their moral choices. A lot of what’s ignored from the people who liberals love to appropriate in their ideaology, like MLK Jr, is the radical notion of economic equality that made them so unpopular at the time, even among people who were morally opposed to racism. If you removed these prejduces from “Cletus,” a lot of the city liberal types would still find him detestable as a person, and he would probably be asked to leave if he tried to enter one of their workplaces. Despite him having more materially in common with the liberal professional worker, the liberal likely believes themselves to have more in common with their bosses.
The anti-trans agenda is the most brilliantly executed wedge issue I’ve seen in a long time. Most “yokels” don’t have any personal experience with trans people. They have no reason to hate them. Even if they’re creeped out by what they don’t understand, the numbers are so few that you couldn’t under any stretch of the imagination convince them that they’re a threat.
But the “foaming at the mouth big city liberals who hates anyone from outside the city” archetype? THAT looks like a threat. There are tons of city folk. They run the government. Do they really hate me?
You want to keep the working class infighting? Drop a teams issue into the mix. The country man says “Boy, now I tell you h’what, I’m not sure about that” and some genius will come out of the woodwork and say “FACIST!” and then boom, they have presented as the rabid threat. Sides are entrenched. Dialogue immediately erodes to ad hominem, both sides paint their strawmen, and they’re convinced that it isn’t a dispute over ideas but rather of the other side being intrinsically defective as people.
And in the squabble, education funding is cut. Class sizes grow. More money funneled to defence. Raytheon gets a contract to vaporize brown kids. CEO gets a 200 million bonus. The system works as intended.
They gave 50k to a single-candidate super PAC called American Leadership Action which supported Dr Oz’s candidacy last election cycle lol.
The last half century has basically been the US propping up fascist governments who will cater to private business interests of the US, like every coup they’ve sided with and helped fund in socialist countries that was basically the whole point.
Except you’re ignoring the entire reality of male fragility in your attempt to shift the blame. The alpha males, the CEO billionaires, the dickhead fascists; they’re all fragile males. (Like you.)
You’re right that I am afraid, but it’s easy for me to articulate my fears without just calling other people names. And saying “triggered”.
I’m afraid that the popularity of wedge issues manufactured to sow conflict within the working class is so effective. I’m afraid that good people (you) are being manipulated into participating enthusiastically in that manufactured conflict. I’m afraid that people like you, who have the capacity to channel their righteous anger have been conned into being upset against amorphous abstract boogeymen rather than the real concrete people responsible for real concrete injustice.
Lemmy “progressives” would rather argue about social politics than actually solve problems. It’s one of the far-rights greatest strengths, left-wing groups fragment at the drop of a pencil over the slightest disagreements
I think it’s more “tech has created extremely reliable and granular methods to hijack a democracy”. Pair that with wealth inequality, and you have a recipe for billionaires able to buy their way into becoming nobility without putting a target on their backs.
This wasn’t some accident or an artifact - a small group of billionaires bought up the Western media over the last few decades, have run astroturfing operations to misrepresent public sentiment to lawmakers, and more recently have started to use social media to shape discourse. And I think we all know they do a whole lot more behind, but these are the things that are well documented publicly if you care to look
Humanity has plenty of cycles, but this was something done intentionally and systematically by a number of individuals that could fit in one room
We won’t elect PP. We will elect whoever isn’t Mr.T.
PP isn’t doing very well even for the conservatives but they will still vote for him and the swinger voters have already made up thier mind and switched to the CPC.
He supports Ukraine, climate change targets, new housing construction, abortion rights, immigration, legal weed, and gay marriage. He has plenty of other extremely problematic positions and I hope he loses badly, but nevertheless, the gap between him and basically any Republican is pretty substantial.
He’s voted against abortion rights, he’s voted against gay marriage, he’s lukewarm about legal weed but tbf prob wont illegalize it, and his solution to climate change is producing more oil.
In 2020, he changed his position and said that a government led by him would never introduce a bill on the topic, and no private ones would be adopted. In 2021, Poilievre opposed a private member bill prohibiting sex-selective abortion.
Poilievre supports same-sex marriage; in a 2020 interview, he called it a “success” and stated “I voted against it 15 years ago. But I learned a lot”.
And yeah, he wants to produce more oil, but so does Biden. And for that matter, Trudeau also wants to build more oil pipelines. I wish there were more mainstream politicians who were genuinely anti-fossil-fuel but those are, unfortunately, few and far between.
Ya I don’t think that Pollievre would restrict access to gay marriage, but if he voted against it with his gay father in attendance, if that isn’t a sign of a piece of shit I don’t know what is. ( he also is courting the voters and MP’s that do want to restrict it)
Then vote for Singh and the NDP as he’s the only Federal Leader that kind of has a chance to become PM, that opposes oil, and at least the Trudeau government is talking about removing oil subsidies.
Honestly the most daming thing about PP is that he’s been in goverance since he finished uni, never held a real job in his life. Also I’m 100% sure he’s never made a woman cum.
I’ve already checked. I’ve got enough qualifications that I can just migrate to Canada.
It’ll be nice to teach them about what their summers are going to be like.
Canada is going to elect a conservative government, too
The whole world is shifting hard to the right. It’s pretty crazy to see happen in real time.
Something something “weak men” something something “hard times”
Male fragility will kill us all.
Male Fragility Will Kill Us All
You’re a fool if you think that far-right conservatism is exclusive to men (or that only allowing women in power would solve it)
Women buying into patriarchy doesn’t make it any less of a phenomenon or any less dangerous.
Good thing that comment I replied to said “male fragility” and not “the patriarchy” or I’d probably agree with them.
You’re a fool if you extrapolated that meaning from my words. The male fragility drives the culture of insecurity, greed, and competition. Women can be infected as well, but they are not the drivers of this psychosis.
Male fragility doesn’t drive the culture of insecurity. It’s an artificially introduced wedge tactic intended to keep the working class infighting.
Everyone with money and power are pretty happy with the status quo.
If you ever find yourself thinking that any regular working person is “the problem”, step back and ask yourself who baited the trap. Some external narrative drew one of you in to make the other pissed off.
Like, they kept telling Cletus that the immigrants are why his paycheck is small, and that the big city liberals want to eradicate him. He says “Damn those immigrants” and then you come out of the woodwork telling him he’s the problem with the country and then boom: you’re suddenly the liberal who he’s heard hates him, word made flesh, just as the prophecy foretold.
Like, how goddamn convenient that it’s male fragility. How awesome for the 1% that out of everyone and everything, they hand you a loaded term like that that will CERTAINLY be taken out of context as a blanket condemnation of 50% of the population by anyone who doesn’t study sociology (spoiler alert, MOST PEOPLE)
Like, if someone said to you that it was a result of a slowness of male development, and thus the Latin for “slow” was appropriate here, and that the accepted term that you should use in the world to try and initiate a thoughtful, respectful exchange of ideas in good faith, so you should say “male retardation”, would you say “ya that sounds like a great way to talk to men and I can’t comprehend any reason why anyone might be standoffish when hearing it”?
Again, you’re a chump. You’re brandishing a term INTENTIONALLY loaded to incite division among the working class. You are a useful idiot to the people oppressing you.
Exactly and the flipside of this is targeting the liberals and catering to the idea they can be morally superior, and building this meritocratic notion where the “Cletus” actually deserves to be poor and stupid. This mechanism basically removes individuals from the political economy and moralizes the outcomes caused by it as representative of their individual virtue. This idea of “virtue hoarding” has been used to describe this which I think can be pretty accurate. It can’t solve anything either, and it’s actually a very conservative approach to the topic at large because it doesn’t acknowledge the economic material causes of why they’re like this or try to solve the thing that causes these disparities. It makes it all about the individual and their moral choices. A lot of what’s ignored from the people who liberals love to appropriate in their ideaology, like MLK Jr, is the radical notion of economic equality that made them so unpopular at the time, even among people who were morally opposed to racism. If you removed these prejduces from “Cletus,” a lot of the city liberal types would still find him detestable as a person, and he would probably be asked to leave if he tried to enter one of their workplaces. Despite him having more materially in common with the liberal professional worker, the liberal likely believes themselves to have more in common with their bosses.
Exactly! And again, it’s absolutely manufactured.
The anti-trans agenda is the most brilliantly executed wedge issue I’ve seen in a long time. Most “yokels” don’t have any personal experience with trans people. They have no reason to hate them. Even if they’re creeped out by what they don’t understand, the numbers are so few that you couldn’t under any stretch of the imagination convince them that they’re a threat.
But the “foaming at the mouth big city liberals who hates anyone from outside the city” archetype? THAT looks like a threat. There are tons of city folk. They run the government. Do they really hate me?
You want to keep the working class infighting? Drop a teams issue into the mix. The country man says “Boy, now I tell you h’what, I’m not sure about that” and some genius will come out of the woodwork and say “FACIST!” and then boom, they have presented as the rabid threat. Sides are entrenched. Dialogue immediately erodes to ad hominem, both sides paint their strawmen, and they’re convinced that it isn’t a dispute over ideas but rather of the other side being intrinsically defective as people.
And in the squabble, education funding is cut. Class sizes grow. More money funneled to defence. Raytheon gets a contract to vaporize brown kids. CEO gets a 200 million bonus. The system works as intended.
Counterexample: Disney in Florida.
Fascism is not actually good for business. Fascism demands that the most successful business in the state must lick boots or be punished.
They gave 50k to a single-candidate super PAC called American Leadership Action which supported Dr Oz’s candidacy last election cycle lol.
The last half century has basically been the US propping up fascist governments who will cater to private business interests of the US, like every coup they’ve sided with and helped fund in socialist countries that was basically the whole point.
Except you’re ignoring the entire reality of male fragility in your attempt to shift the blame. The alpha males, the CEO billionaires, the dickhead fascists; they’re all fragile males. (Like you.)
Removed by mod
You’re right that I am afraid, but it’s easy for me to articulate my fears without just calling other people names. And saying “triggered”.
I’m afraid that the popularity of wedge issues manufactured to sow conflict within the working class is so effective. I’m afraid that good people (you) are being manipulated into participating enthusiastically in that manufactured conflict. I’m afraid that people like you, who have the capacity to channel their righteous anger have been conned into being upset against amorphous abstract boogeymen rather than the real concrete people responsible for real concrete injustice.
Ah yes, let’s red herring with gender politics and sexism.
Seriously, this isn’t productive, it’s toxic, and belongs back on Reddit and back on the gate communities there.
Lemmy “progressives” would rather argue about social politics than actually solve problems. It’s one of the far-rights greatest strengths, left-wing groups fragment at the drop of a pencil over the slightest disagreements
They were never aligned to begin with
It’s due to all the propaganda BS everyone needs a fairness doctrine for media at this point
I think it’s more “tech has created extremely reliable and granular methods to hijack a democracy”. Pair that with wealth inequality, and you have a recipe for billionaires able to buy their way into becoming nobility without putting a target on their backs.
This wasn’t some accident or an artifact - a small group of billionaires bought up the Western media over the last few decades, have run astroturfing operations to misrepresent public sentiment to lawmakers, and more recently have started to use social media to shape discourse. And I think we all know they do a whole lot more behind, but these are the things that are well documented publicly if you care to look
Humanity has plenty of cycles, but this was something done intentionally and systematically by a number of individuals that could fit in one room
Which is hilarious because I look at PP and all I see is a weak man and yet that’s what we will probably elect.
We won’t elect PP. We will elect whoever isn’t Mr.T.
PP isn’t doing very well even for the conservatives but they will still vote for him and the swinger voters have already made up thier mind and switched to the CPC.
Why wouldn’t you elect Mr. T? I would love to have BA Barakas leading my country
His main policy of “pity the fool” isn’t great.
Maybe if the leftwing was actually capable of doing something it would have some support.
They don’t need to elect anything. Fascism is inherently militaristic.
If the US goes full fascist, then it’s only a matter of time.
No place in the world will be safe.
Most places in the world were never safe from the US anyway, it has had aggressively competitive foreign policy for the last 80 years.
No argument there, but it can always get worse.
Meh, the USA won’t invade Canada. Even if we go full fascist Canada is way better as a frenemy.
Our largest trading partner won’t be able to give us a reason to invade.
Mexico on the other hand should watch out, given the amount of scapegoating our right wing throw their way.
Canada has already been identified as a valid target for decades due to South Parks “blame Canada.”
Water and farmable land?
Poilievre isn’t conservative. He’s pretty much far right.
He supports Ukraine, climate change targets, new housing construction, abortion rights, immigration, legal weed, and gay marriage. He has plenty of other extremely problematic positions and I hope he loses badly, but nevertheless, the gap between him and basically any Republican is pretty substantial.
He’s voted against abortion rights, he’s voted against gay marriage, he’s lukewarm about legal weed but tbf prob wont illegalize it, and his solution to climate change is producing more oil.
Wikipedia:
And yeah, he wants to produce more oil, but so does Biden. And for that matter, Trudeau also wants to build more oil pipelines. I wish there were more mainstream politicians who were genuinely anti-fossil-fuel but those are, unfortunately, few and far between.
Honestly the most daming thing about PP is that he’s been in goverance since he finished uni, never held a real job in his life. Also I’m 100% sure he’s never made a woman cum.
Two years still. Lots can change and people will see through the piss poor attempt at the Conservative rebranding of Poilievre.
People the world over have been remarkably bad at seeing through cheap far-right populist pandering. I don’t trust the electorate.
Can’t wait!