World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
As much as I'm glad that Andrew Tate is facing criminal charges, I think we need to address the root cause of our societal ills. Tate isn't the cause but rather a symtpom.
We really need to step back and ask ourselves why somebody so brazenly misogynistic has attracted a following of millions and has become a role model to teenage boys especially.
I can explain exactly why, because we've created a growing social underclass of men who cannot earn a living, cannot find a romantic partner, cannot live fulfilling lives, and anybody who they turn to either mocks them, fobs them off, or give them false platitudes, which is why they turn to toxic masculinity and the Manosphere for guidance.
The reality is that inceldom is largely an economic issue that has resulted from decades of stagnated wages which have disproportionately affected men, because despite our best efforts to create an egalitarian society, we still overwhelmingly find men unattractive if they are not the strong hunter-gatherers and providers that our biology has been conditioned over millions of years to find physically attractive. Our biology has not caught up to the millennia of societal progress we've made because evolution is a much slower process.
Hmm, I don't think I'm with you. You say men are incels because they're poor and can't find a girl. From what I've seen, they can't find a girl because of deeply rooted, misogynistic beliefs that turn people off. If also like to see your citation for wage stagnation affecting men more than women, because every study I've seen says the wage gap has stayed the same or widened in the last few years. I know many, many men who aren't the strong hunter gatherer type and have loving wives or girlfriends. The difference is those guys aren't assholes.
It goes far beyond just being poor. Wealth inequality is just one piece of the puzzle, albeit a massive one.
There are also a lot of other factors like how social media is poisoning mental health, physical and mental healthcare being expensive enough to outright bankrupt many families, the fact that rather than address these issues or limit gun ownership, American lawmakers instead think putting children through active shooter drills and locking down schools with more security than an international airport is the solution to deal with an epidemic of school shootings.
Even among nations with relatively lax gun laws, you almost never see public shootings, let alone ones on similar levels to Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc
These are all legitimate complaints.
People aren't born with misogynistic beliefs. They also aren't taught them in school.
I'm not going to google search for you, but it's pretty easy to see that wage stagnation affects men more because traditionally, men are expected to be the provider for the household and women have traditionally had the option of not starting a career and just finding a man instead. I'm not saying that women are not affected, but they have an economic "out" that men generally don't have.
I'm willing to bet that they also have stable jobs. Also, if you're one of them of course you'd know a bunch of other men who are similar; this says nothing about a large swath of men that the grandparent comment is referring to.
People aren't born with any beliefs. What's your explanation for racism, homophobia, fascism, and other hateful views and behavior? People learn that stuff by their environment growing up, and there's an awful lot of toxic masculinity.
And you're argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren't so many poor people in happy marriages.
No, I hear your argument, but it doesn't seem to hold water to me. The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them. The worst ones are the ones who believe men should be dominant over women, but are also timid or introverted, making them angry pressure cookers.
This doesn't invalidate the argument at all. Of course it's not a all-or-nothing situation. Elliot Rodger was from a wealthy family and had plenty of economic prospects.
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate's following is a relatively new phenomenon. People hear a LOT of things growing up; what sticks with them is a product of their environment. Something like this would not have caught on in the 80s or 90s, even if the zeitgeist was more misogynistic than it is today. I'd wager every man has some kind of misogynistic influence growing up, but what matters is whether they take that to heart. When the economic situation is dire (they know they will never attain the traditional ideal of a provider) it becomes really easy to blame the "other."
The age of social media influencers is also a relatively new phenomena. Tate realized he could tap into all those angry pressure cookers to make money. He posed as something he wasn't, renting cars and places to make him look rich and paying women to pretend to be infatuated with him to give credence that his brand of misogyny makes men successful with women. And it worked. How would one do that 50 years ago?
I'm an old guy, and I knew incel types when I was a kid, but there wasn't an easily accessible community of people telling them that their beliefs were valid. Instead of telling them that their trouble was that they weren't a big enough asshole, the people around them told them to tone it down.
I think his point was that it’s ok for a woman to not earn much without it impacting her attractiveness to men, while the reverse isn’t true. There is a reason why rich millionaire falling in love with poor woman is a romance novel trope while not so much the other way around.
Finances are part of the attraction in a male if looking for actual relationships. You ain’t gonna impress a woman flipping burgers at McD while men on the other hand don’t care what a woman’s job is if she’s pretty and fun to be around.
I understood the point, but my counter was that there are loads of poor people in living relationships. Are there women who aren't interested in a man who isn't "successful?" Absolutely, just like there are men who aren't interested in a woman who doesn't look like a supermodel. But is it too the point where, if you aren't a wealthy man, you can't get a date or find love? No, that's bullshit.
the "strong hunter gatherer type" of life died out centuries ago.
those who want to live as "strong hunter gatherer" due to their "because traditionally" mindset should either join https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Modern_hunter-gatherer_groups or give up civilization and live their life in the wild.
if "because traditonally" thinking is creating incels, then these men should choose to get professional therapy to change their mindset rather than choosing toxic masculinity and becoming incels.
I'd love to see a therapist about my mental health.
Unfortunately, I live in the UK, where there is a several-years-long waiting list to get help on the NHS, and where every private therapist is oversubscribed and not taking any bookings.
Literally the only option for people like me is BetterHelp, and they're basically the Uber/Lyft of mental healthcare, in the sense that they don't even bother to ensure that licensed and qualified individuals are on their service. They are such a shady and scandal-ridden company.
Imagine how it is in the United States where healthcare costs are prohibitively expensive and the mere thought of universal healthcare is anathema...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I am not defending the manosphere, and I think that the rampant misogyny you see in these online subcultures is downright alarming.
I'd say it gets passed around by word-of-mouth. A lot of the problematic stuff I was exposed to earlier in life definitely came from fellow pupils at school, who likely picked it up from their families. The rise of social media only makes it easier to find problematic stuff, especially since it's proliferated so much on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Social media companies are to blame for getting people hooked on this crap, and we are to blame for happily lapping it up and preaching the words of people like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Sneako, etc like they're gospel.
Tate is meant to be banned from mainstream social media, yet I see his videos all the freaking time on YouTube, Instagram, etc. And that's because these media giants cannot be bothered to purge the thousands of affiliate accounts (linked to his MLM) that are regurgitating his content.
That, and women are generally treated more favourably in cases of family/divorce law, are able to far more easily go into modelling/adult entertainment, get far greater maternity leave rights (at least in the UK), etc.
Online dating (I am referring exclusively to the heterosexual experience and cannot speak for other experiences) is also a very good example of this. Men struggle to even get any matches or replies that aren't from scammers, spam bots or people on the other side of the world unless they look like Ryan Gosling or Josh Hartnett, while women are inundated with matches and have to be far more selective.
Okcupid did a trend analysis of their user data and found that women rated 80% of men below-average in terms of attractiveness. This link is obviously archived, because after Okcupid got acquired by Match Group (same people who own Tinder, Match.com, Hinge, POF and a lot of other dating apps), they deleted the blog post because these kinds of statistics hurt their bottom-line.
Then again, I also subscribe to the theory that online dating is designed to be such a soul-crushing experience because how else are Match Group going to lull you into spending over triple the price of a WoW subscription on a premium account?
"we"? no, not "we". men who feel entitled to being treated like they're god's gift to life by virtue of having a dick have created it for themselves.
These men choose to turn to toxic masculinity and to the manosphere (an echo chamber of toxic masculinity) rather than choose therapy and self-improvement because they are too selfish and lazy to work on improving themselves and their lives. They want a rich fulfilling life handed to them on a platter and fawned on by adoring slaves who they should be free to abuse at will.
They choose to be incels because they feel they can get away with treating women as lesser beings. And when they face any consequence for their actions they paint themelves as victims belonging to a social underclass, when they're anything but.
It's an economic issue in as much as this is what capitalism promotes and exemplifies. Psychopaths and sociopaths rise to the top. And all the other haters fangirl over them for doing it.
Some of the happiest most satisfied people I know are poor. They just don't have the massive entitlement to other people's things.
that's such a reach. women are lagrely more economically disadvantaged, specially when you consider that men are paid more, are not straved off of promotions due to their gender, are not discriminated because they are women. rich/well-off incels exist, they are and will remain incels despite their financial status or attractiveness. they are incels because of their misogynistic beliefs (among other horrible traits).
the internet and tate has amplified the voices of this community since they are able to congregate anonymously and with no repercussions.
I can't agree with that. Being poor is not an excuse to be a shitbag. A lot of those guys aren't even trying to change anything, they put all the blame on corporations as if it somehow makes their behavior justified, and then spend their days on incel forums.
They didn't say it was an excuse. They didn't defend being a shitbag. They offered an explanation. You may disagree with it, but you're not talking about the same thing here.
That's what I meant, I can't agree with this explanation. Economic disadvantages don't create incels.
This sounds like a list of excuses to be a fucking shitbag. You can't make money? Don't be a bitch and get a job. IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT YOURSELF that is not a woman's problem. That is your problem. Is modern society too hard for you? Pretty sure humans have thousands of years of evolution dealing with actual existential threats of starvation and surviving the elements that most of humanity overcame. Now your bills are too much and it's driving you to beating the fuck out of women? Fuck off with that shit.
Fuck yeah we can do a lot better as a species, but with some actual perspective of the majority of humans time on earth we have it pretty damn peachy. Sure as fuck aren't victims of some atrocious shit that justifies any of that redpill bullshit, at least on a systemic level.
People are becoming incels because a bunch of idiots got ahold of the internet and gave themselves a name and a platform to echochamber in. That is it. It would have happened, much worse, in any other time in history if they were able to organize.
Nah man incels are just losers and Tate is just the same. I talk to my male friends all the time about difficulties I'm having I don't need to blame women for them. We haven't created s growing social underclass of men, some men are just bitching and thinking this is targetted when everyone is struggling.
This reaks of manosphere bullshit.
Oh yeah, they absolutely are losers and the manosphere is not to be trusted. Incel, red pill, MGTOW, etc rhetoric is dangerous.
Some don't even have that support group.
Not having that group is a different issue, that these types blame on others. They don't look to fix they look for who to blame. It can be difficult to make friends, but it's nigh impossible if you're not trying. Addressing a negative attitude and trying something new is the way to go. Join a gym, a book club or an anything else. Socialise and adapt.
I absolutely hate the grip these losers have on these people.
I don't think brushing away the issue like this is particularly helpful. It's a statistical truth that men are over-represented in a long list of bad settings, from victims of violence, to drug abuse, suicide, homelessness, unemployment etc. Additionally, the past ≈30 years there has been a trend of a decreasing proportion of men having several partners throughout their life, and an increasing proportion of men never finding a long-time partner. And men are to a larger and larger degree under-performing in education compared to women.
Furthermore, like you say: Everyone is struggling. The struggling disproportionally is disproportionally difficult to handle for those that are over-represented in the statistics mentioned above.
I definitely think we have a societal issue where certain men are being marginalised, or at least put in a position where it is understandable that they feel marginalised. We know very well that humans in general, when they feel pushed into a corner, tend to lash out in some way.
What I'm saying doesn't defend their actions, but provides an explanatory model for why they are acting the way they are. Because if nothing else, we as a society need to do something about the increasing number of men acting that way.
This does not serve as an explanation for why these people are acting as losers, or what we can do about it, and is thus not a very constructive standpoint to take.
Sorry, I'm currently one of those dudes who doesn't have a romantic partner and doesn't live what others would call a "fulfilling life". I haven't fucking decided that Andrew Tate or any of a thousand others are the guiding star of my life, nor do I feel I ever will. This idea of "society's to blame for incels" is pretty bad even on its face - most of these guys are told by these influencers (or their cultists) that they deserve not only a happy, prosperous life, but they shouldn't even have to actively work for it. According to this philosophy, they shouldn't have to go out and actively seek romance, women should be flocking to them in droves. As this does not happen, something must be fundamentally wrong with society - which is why a lot of these types also wind up spouting fascist rhetoric, and eventually fall into white supremacist pablum.
This is a good take. There are many men who are stuck and undersupported so they are turning to dark places. That is the issue. This was just a jackass using them for fame.
Unfortunately it's a take that I've been shadowbanned from posting on Reddit.
Someone probably put an automoderator filter that automatically removes my comment if it contains the word 'incel', or any other word they think is problematic.
It's actually fucking liberating that I can more freely speak my mind on Lemmy... And this isn't even a free speech platform.
Goes to show what a clown fiesta Reddit has become.