Bibip
@Bibip@programming.dev
- Comment on The Real Reason Young Men Are Flocking To The Manosphere 1 week ago:
god it’s exhausting reading this man talk in circles. here, let’s read him say the same thing seven times:
We have taught an entire generation of young men how to analyze their emotions, but not what to do with their lives.
… offer what mainstream culture increasingly withholds: direction, standards, and permission to pursue ambition without apology.
Institutions that once offered direction, from schools to workplaces to families, now speak in softer, more hesitant language. Expectations are blurred, standards are hedged, and authority is treated as something to apologize for rather than exercise.
What they are less often given is a clear sense of what adulthood actually asks of them: responsibility, competence, discipline, and something worth aiming at. The result is a generation that often knows how to monitor itself better than how to direct itself.
offers something closer to permission: the freedom to pursue goals without endless self-qualification, to value discipline without shame, and to move forward without first turning every impulse into a diagnosis.
Young men are asking a basic question: What should I aim for? If mainstream culture refuses to answer it, the loudest and most extreme voices online will.
Show ambition and risk being labeled toxic. Hold back and risk becoming invisible. Assertiveness is suspect, but passivity is miserable.
that last one is a real treat. fraiche platitudes, bro. in the article, a litany of assertions are made without any basis: the opening argument is “young men lack direction,” the closing argument is “young men lack direction,” the supporting evidence is “young men lack direction…”
so in short, this article is trash. the topic is vapid. the author sounds like a fuckwit trying to sell a book. i wonder if his book is just going to be a hundred pages of him repeating “YOUNG MEN LACK DIRECTION.”
- Comment on omg hes just like me 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on omg hes just like me 2 weeks ago:
a fanciful answer i heard was that “humans are how the universe perceives itself,” and a person could be forgiven for thinking that the point of humans is to do science. closer to the ground, the point of humans seems to be to alter our surroundings to suit our society: kind of like ants. we build, we live, we reproduce, we spread. it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is what it is.
- Comment on omg hes just like me 2 weeks ago:
utility has several virtues, but i agree that it’s not the end-all/be-all. strictly speaking the “point” of any living thing is to pass it’s genes by reproduction, but in a complex and evolving world there are lots of animals that have a “point” in existing. oysters filter water, worms enrich soil, birds spread seeds, bees pollinate flowers, there are primary decomposers and secondary decomposers and tertiary decomposers and some birds build nests in trees and squirrels hide nuts and, you get the picture?
then there are other animals that we have changed for their utility. cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep are delicious and they would not make up such a share of modern biomass if we didn’t industrialize their slaughter. in some cases the point of an animal is that we’re gonna eat it.
if you’re an emotion-forward person you might think “oh, no, that’s terrible!” and you’re allowed to feel that way but usually things are the way they are for a bunch of reasons. feelings are great but food security is better. utility also has a role to play in conservation: we’re having a great time with industry but if the earth suffers catastrophic ecological collapse, the whole party stops.
