LogFAQs > #977147374

Gladius_ posted...

Some men have been poor at adapting. Either because they're too shy to make an effort to approach a woman, too beaten down on rhetoric telling them it "isn't manly" to seek help, support networks, etc or are too set in old fashioned thinking that women by and large want nothing to do with other than move away from.

I imagine modern teachings are contributing to making more men too shy to approach women. Hence why the red pill is promoted as a course correction.

Gladius_ posted...

That's why you try to de-platform and discredit the groups that are advocating people to give up. Regardless, so long as we eliminate the right wing groups long enough, the situation will balance itself out. Why? Those who can adapt and reproduce? Are going to create the next generation. Those that can't? Are going to move out of the gene pool.

But again that's the just world fallacy at work. The men failing to reproduce are not any more likely to be morally negative than the men who do. Studies have found that bullies and sociopaths actually have more sex. Dominant, aggressive men are still out getting laid, as shown by rising domestic abuse rates.

People are assuming nature's working as intended and that the decrease in men having sex is just liberated women rightfully shunning terrible men at rates they once couldn't afford to. But that's just not reflected in the statistics. The reality is that many decent men are also falling through the cracks. They get taught all sorts of stories about creepiness and etiquette and lose the confidence to approach at all because they don't want to bother women. And of the men still willing to pursue women, a higher percentage of them than previously are selfish and inconsiderate in nature.

Gladius_ posted...

There you go defending the right again. Didn't take long for that to happen.

I'm just saying I've seen it happen before to the benefit of the right. There was Gamergate, which was created by misogynistic culture warriors, but ended up exposing legitimate ethical concerns in gaming journalism that drew normal hardcore gamers into the fight. But liberal/feminist media treated the latter the same as the former and dismissed it all as misogyny, even the valid complaints. Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopolous opportunistically used the dispute to funnel these otherwise non-partisan gamers into the alt-right and eventually to Trump, simply by providing the only major media outlet willing to platform the more legitimate complaints (even if it was alongside the misogyny).

Likewise with the men's rights, it started as and for decades was purely a reactionary anti-woman movement, but as society grew more progressive lured in men who genuinely just wanted to shine a spotlight on how men are penalized by outdated gender expectations. But many feminists treat the latter the same as the former, simply for identifying with the MRM, risking making those men direct enemies of feminism when they may not have otherwise been.

And everyone's seen the Trump voter - non-voter debate play out. I just don't believe in absolutism. I don't think everyone not on my side is equally opposed to my side. And I try to find the validity if any behind what they're saying before deciding how I respond to them, unless they've made civil discourse impossible.