Par for the course

I don't think he even cares. He wants to appeal to MAGA's bosses.

In 4 years, if Dems take back power, he will make a vibrant speech about the need for diversity and to tackle fake news.

Watched the episode. Completely disagree. His whole schtick was “yeah moderation is really hard yet super important to get right, that’s why as a cost cutting measure we are curtailing the entire operation lol.”

Zucklefuckle regularly lies and shifts about as much as a chameleon. His goal is to raise shareholder value and nothing more. He's not worth listening to.

The rhetoric of the right has shown time and time again that they will use disinformation and misinformation to conform their gullible audience towards whatever views suit their needs. Humanity continues to confirm his remarkable susceptible to this practice. This form of deceitful expression is not the 'free speech' a society should tolerate and why fact checking entities need to exist with the power to shutdown this discourse.

sitting through any length of jre is going to either waste your time or expose you to hours of garbage.

why?

That would mean listening to Joe Rogan, and unfortunately I'd be too busy setting my hair on fire before I ever listened to Joe Rogan.

I actually have listened to Zuckface on a podcast once because I had never heard him talk. He definitely does some good masking as being a human person. And I think if he wasn't evil he might have some interesting ideas, sure.

This could have been me. For the longest time I was watching right wing YT channels without really realizing it because they were hiding their messaging well under legitimate critique of the movies and shows I was no longer enjoying. My girlfriend and I got into multiple arguments over this and I could tell that this was something we'd never agree on, which makes sense of course. Eventually I managed to pull myself out by unsubscribing from these channels ocne the messaging became a lot more clear (around 2021, you can probably guess why) and since then things have been much better between us and in general.

It’s also very likely the divorce was the reason for the behavior. Getting lost in the sauce of that nonsense is a tragic but not unreasonable reaction to the trauma of divorce, or just being hurt by a woman. That ideology and the people who make money from it prey on weak, lost men for a reason. Thats what its designed to do.

You could be mixing up correlation and causation. The divorce could have happened for any number of reasons and the ensuing loneliness and alienation could have been what led the husband to seek validation in manosphere bullshit

I bet that is really fucked up because you might spend a long, long time trying to convince yourself that he would change back or just be less of an asshole. That's a special sort of grief where they are still living but you're mourning who they used to be.

Any romance language country, really

Germany woke af by having a gender-neutral pronoun already

What does that have to do with a situation that’s not in France?

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

What’s weird about this broader “conversation” on masculinity is I feel more masculine than ever, despite not giving a flying fuck about any of this.

I never really struggled with it except as a teen, but the older I get the less I care.

—

I still say we made a mistake with communicating to men about feminism. We kind of left people who are terrible like Andrew Tate to dominate the conversation when people shut down men’s rights groups as de facto misogynistic, and now here we are.

dude that's awesome... it should be a meme or something...

Why are those considered masculine traits?

You mean the man who can't make his wife wet, and loudly proclaimed to the world that women don't get wet down there?

Love the Tom of Finland reference I bet it went over most peoples heads

The whole master-apprentice thing is not really found in America anymore. It is lowkey there in academia, but there is so much admin work that even good PIs struggle. I have not really seen it in my little private industry experience. And I have no public experience to comment.

This is why a positive kind of masculinity also needs to reject patriarchy and capitalism.

“Producing more than you take” doesn’t have to mean money. (Though I did mean money in my original comment, cuz Zuck is a greedy monster.)

Just listening to people more than you demand to be listened to. Doing chores that you know your friends and family hate. Sharing your knowledge. Cooking. Fixing things. There are so many ways you can contribute to your group that don’t take money, and don’t even take much time.

Being financially responsible and helping people when you can is important, don’t get me wrong.

But seeing your worth in purely financial terms is really limiting and unhealthy for the individual, and also tends to create perverse hierarchies inside of families.

The answer is often more complex

Masculinity isn't just for men. Just like femininity isn't just for women. A healthy person has a mix of these qualities, along with many others that we don't tend to align with a specific gender.

When I say "a real man", I don't mean it as an objective assessment to stick a person neatly into one of two piles. That's not how gender works, and it's not how being a person in general works.

What I mean is that if you're indulging in behavior like belittling other people for fun or "cool points", or using your power or physical strength to get what you want, and calling that "being a man", then your idea of manhood is a mirage. If you want to aspire to something based on your male gender identity, aspire to humility, vigilance, and service to others. Those are great qualities that anyone can have, but they're especially important for men if we're gonna have a respectful and productive society.

(Edit: I didn't downvote you btw. I thought your comment was pretty reasonable and mild. But I did wanna take the opportunity to elaborate, because this topic can be complex and emotionally charged. We all have a lot of baggage when it comes to gender, and it's hard on the internet to develop rapport with each other.)

Masculinity has been defined as toxic by default for many.

It's ok. It's going to suck. Real men and women could provide for you. Not that you're not a real woman/man, but in context.

LOL I would never! Unless it’s to get close enough to et tu brutus him

There has got to be better sexbot models out there.

...., Being poly doesn't make you a cuck

He does when his cpu starts to overheat.

I really wish CEOs would stop and ask "If I wasn't the CEO, would I want this regulation to exist?"

But that requires them to have empathy.

I hate outrage bait, as you pointed out it makes us blind to the REAL danger, which is... Zuckerberg trying to get out of playing by the rules.

I think the mistake here is thinking it's about "things" or material objects. Most people interface with money at a basic level: you can buy a new jacket, reliable car, a sizeable home, etc. However, at the level that you are with these billionaires, it's no longer about having things or owning things. It's about having more power to do things.

For example, there's are some fun little calculators where you can calculate all the things that some could spend their money on https://neal.fun/spend/ https://www.spend-elon-fortune.com/

At this point it's an imperialist kind of mindset, where you want to own multiple corporations, properties, and show it off to your wealthy colleagues that you are the best at X. It's probably not unlike how professional athletes will destroy their bodies with steroids to become the best in the world, just the negatives are externalized.

It's a mental illness. They have to have more power, if not money...

"To speak of 'limits to growth' under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society."

• Murray Bookchin

That's a bingo!

I believe "shirtless photo on horseback" might be the next stage.

Huh you pretty much verbalized what I thought but were unable to put it to words. Big Kudos!

Like when trump kicks it from too many hamberders and adderall, we can buy Vance to come back to the light?

The FDA is too strong of a brand, they won't defund or eliminate, they'll just replace entire staff with sycophants and lower standards so that all kinds of snake oil (that administration has a "taste" of) becomes "FDA Approved" so the AI can sell it to incels on twitter and facebook. And ultimately when editing is "FDA APPROVED" then NOTHING is FDA Approved. The next 4 - 20 years are going to continue to be a push to break confidence in American institutions, to make America a weaker and weaker player (and a bigger joke) on the international stage. All so that they have less influence in world affairs (I.e. Ukraine, Israel, etc).

Yeah that seems to be the excuse for why shitty people (like Dawkins) turn even shittier

Ok but you can't explain what's wrong with the comment?

It's easy to get offended and think it's wrong, but considering my comment is at +1/-6 yet no one has actually explained what's wrong reinforces my belief it's actually sensible. Something that's obvious nonsense can be debunked with no effort, yet here we are

Lizards too

There's two different ways to read the previous poster's point:

• That any kind of quotas system (no mater whose "born with certain genetic traits" group it favours) is generally bad and causes more problem than it solves. From what I've observed in my one and only time working in a place with such quotas, that's what I saw, with both very incompetent people from the favored group who clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time with competent members of that group having trouble being taken seriously because they were assumed to be incompetent and having only got the position due to having the genetics that made them be a member of said favored group (they were de facto seen as second class), so in general I would agree that priviledging in hiring anybody due to the genetics they were born with is wrong (not to be confused with systems that try and make sure nobody is discriminated against due to the genetics they were born with, systems I totally agree with: basically I disagree with people being given different treatment when it comes to selection for a professinal occupation due their genetics).
• That women and non-straight men are a problem in that profession. If that's the take, I not only totally disagree with it but find it apalling and unnacceptable. Again, experience tells me that in IT women and non-straight men are neither less nor more competent than straight men: from what I've observed gender and sexual orientation are, as expected, entirelly irrelevant when it comes to professional competent in that domain. One needs to have no clue whatsoever about that domain and be an abnormal simpleton to think gender or sexual orientation is what makes somebody a good or bad professional in any of the various areas of the Industry.

wut

Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I've seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.

In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people's gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.

Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people's gender or sexual orientation.

Frankly one of the things I really missed after I move to Britain from The Netherlands was exactly the general Dutch viewpoint that "that's about as relevant as eye color" when it came to judging people as professionals based on their gender or sexual orientation.

Maybe the point of the previous poster was about that American-style quotas systems.