If you’re in a swing state. You vote for Biden.

If you’re not in a swing state, you vote third party.

Don’t not vote, by voting you make your intention and commitment very clear. Even if your third party candidate never has a chance, mainstream politicians may notice the interest in that third party candidates platform and adopt some of his/her policies.

Participate in your state’s primary elections. There’s a lot more diversity of policies there and you can make your voice heard there as well.

Participate in your city and state elections, the amount of money effort and attention placed on federal elections (especially presidential) is completely outsized compared to local elections. Which means the amount of influence that you can have as an individual relative to amount of power the offices that you have influence over is huge compared to the same calculation at the federal level.

Many politicians start at the state and municipal level. So your influence there can be very helpful. Also if Trumps gets some success at creating a authoritarian dystopia at the federal level, it can be mitigated at the state and municipal level. Just like how each state can make sure to protect the right of abortion despite the supreme court flip on the subject.

If what you’re looking for is a decentralized pseudonymous system. Then this is absolutely possible with today’s cryptography.

It’s called public-private keys. You create a private key that you can use to “sign” your messages. And people can verify that is was you that wrote the message by using the public key.

No one can pretend to be you because only you have access to your private key and the public key can’t be used to find out what the private key is.

It’s still anonymous because you don’t have to say who you are when you create the private key.

It’s not perfect because the same person can create as many different keys as they want. So you can’t really “ban” someone. They’ll just create a new key and pretend to be someone new.

Fully decentralized, no censorship at the core of the system.

You pay a moderator to send you a filtered feed that filters out illegal content.

Then you upvote/downvote what you like and don’t like. A local system looks at what other people upvoted and downvoted. People who upvoted/downvoted like you gain credibility people who upvoted/downvoted opposite you gain negative credibility. Then you get shown the content with the most credibility. And a little like pagerank, the credibility propagates, so people upvoted by others with high credibility will also have high credibility.

So, anyone can post anything to any subforum.

But in principle if you upvote/downvote posts based on whether they are appropriate to that subforum, then you’ll only see posts that are appropriate for every subforum, because other users who upvote/downvote like you will also downvote off topic posts.

So you end up with the internet you vote for. If you downvote everyone that disagrees with you, you’ll be in an echochamber. If you upvote does who disagree with you while making a good faith effort to bring up solid points, and you’ll find yourself in an internet full of interesting and varied viewpoints.

You could also create different profile depending on what mood you’re in.

Maybe you feel like reading meme so you use your memes profile where you only upvote funny memes and downvote everything else.

Or you’re more feeling like serious discussions and you don’t want to see meme so you use your serious discussions profile.

This is just completely wrong. If you read past the misleading headline here:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/facebook-reads-and-shares-whatsapp-private-messages-report/

You’ll see that Facebook cannot, in fact, give logs to law enforcement. If you choose to report a message you’ve received and send it to Facebook, then obviously then they can read it.

Also, your claim in another comment that Facebook does not have private keys to decrypt your encrypted messages is just fantasy.

Honestly, 2024 seems more like an attempt to return to sanity while the elites are trying to learn how to use their new toys. 2026 midterms will be the beta test and 2028 is going to be the real shit show.

There a ton of different ways to get laid. And depending on what your looking for, there are different requirements.

Most commonly people who don’t get laid are looking for some level of intimacy with someone that actually finds them attractive. Which means that hookers are not an option.

Commonly people in this category have two issues (I’m probably projecting :P, but I don’t have much to work on):

1. Standards too high. Just like poor people try to become billionaires. Sexless people wish for a harem of super models. Practice flirting with less attractive women until you learn to connect with women on a deeper level which will make lowering your standards to reasonable levels easier.

2. You’re unattractive. A bit similarly to #1, influencers and your own expectations for a partner are warping your perception of how attractive you need to be. Seeing as the level of attractiveness you wish you had is completely unattainable, you give up or you look for ineffective shortcuts.
   Don’t worry so much, work on the basics: good hygiene, not terrible clothes, some level of social competence, a minimal amount of confidence. The minimum requirements are far lower than what you’d expect or what most people would think.

(Note being financially stable also helps in terms of minimum requirements for attractiveness, but it’s not like you need the incentive of getting laid to want to be financially stable).

Keep working on both #1 and #2 and eventually they meet and you get laid and have a good time!

1. I’ll sneak in a third point here. If you’re a man, your relative attractiveness automatically goes up until your 40s vs women of the same age. But the change is most noticeable when you hit your early 30s. So, worst case scenario, after a few years, the odds shift in your favor.

If by “debts and obligations” you mean nukes. That makes total sense.

I don’t know how to reach these people or whether they’re reachable at all. Yes, my main motivation by a very long shot was to correct absurd levels of misinformation in a community where I believe most members care about not spreading misinformation.

What worries me is that so many people seem to be living in an echo bubble that’s radicalizing them to hate people they shouldn’t be hating.

So yes, there’s a lot of not so great things about Jordan Peterson. But all things considered he’s not that bad. And I haven’t paid attention closely for the last few years, but I wouldn’t be characterizing him as a piece of shit.

The author of the article is a worse piece of shit than Jordan Peterson. People who seem to take pleasure out of Jordan’s suffering due to his Benzodiazepine addiction are even worse.

But, looking at some of Jordan’s twitter comment, he’s definitely a bit of an asshole. But 95% of people seem to be assholes when they go on twitter.

The only really bad thing about him is his political views. But even there, there seems to be less malice and less self serving talk than most right wingers (other than the apparent or effective grifting). But even the grifting, in my opinion, is not as bad as most people (both on the left and on the right). Still, right wing ideology is a very problematic from a liberal perspective (which is my perspective). But at the same time today’s mainstream and increasingly radical left ideology is also problematic from a liberal perspective. Regardless, I still don’t think that someone’s anti-liberal social views necessarily makes them a piece of shit regardless of if they’re on the left or on the right. But it does make it easy to become one.

Maybe, I don’t know. How do you know? You seem so eager to believe lies. How do you know that everything you think you know about Jordan Peterson isn’t all lies?

Good article?

The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”

This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I’ve seen in a long time.

I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he’s a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.

The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of “The Joe Rogan Experience” start from about 15:30. He’s the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn’t believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying “Well, it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway…”

It’s such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can’t take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.

Done. It’s over here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/15z820r/on_the_link_between_egalitarian_ideology_feminist/

Why is it that practically everyone I interact with on kbin is basically an irony machine. Are you at least self aware of the irony. Or is it just something you do instinctively?

One of my points is that all of these things are things that SHOULD bother you but men tend to downplay or refuse to let it bother them out of some sort of bravado.

So saying that this doesn’t bother you makes it seem to me like you didn’t understand what I said or didn’t make it clear enough.

If you disagree with my point that this is something that should bother you, then please explain why.

Because if you’re not going to be constructively contributing to the conversation then why are you even saying anything?

Edit: changed machismo to bravado. It’s more accurate.

Also. PS:

I change my mind, it’s not something that should bother you. You’re perfectly entitled to be bothered or not bothered by whatever it is you damn well please.

But it is something that bothers many men. It is something that I believe many men are bothered by without being particularly self aware of. And insist that it is something that needs to be addressed to help society move forwards to more egalitarian outcomes and hopefully just generally more harmonious relationships between different people.

I suggest you use the terminology “harmful gender expectations” it’s a bit more of a mouthful and it’s less catchy. But then again the reason “toxic masculinity” is catchy is because it creates a strong negative emotional reaction in a discussion that should be intellectual or empathetic.

The concept of patriarchy refers to a social system in which men hold primary power and women are marginalized. While the degree and manifestation of patriarchy may vary across cultures and societies, if you examine a list of presidents, CEOs, top academics, and billionaires it’s difficult to conclude women are given equal treatment-unless you genuinely believe women are inferior, and so have achieved less.

Ugh, new forum, same old story. And I just don’t have the patience of go through yet another rabbit whole with yet another pseudo-academic online feminist.

I’ve done it enough that I’ve given up hope on breaking through all that brainwashing. I reply to you, but not for you. This reply is for anyone else reading this who still has the capability of independent thought.

“men hold primary power”: There’s multiple interpretation of that phrase, and feminists leverage this to both claim that patriarchy is everywhere and imply that it creates inequality in favor of men. Once you disambiguate the phrase, you quickly find out that both are rarely true at the same time.

Specifically:
A) “men hold primary power” means that men as a class wield the power of how society function. They, as a class, make the rules. And they do so only understanding their own needs and desires and as a result, they rule to the benefit of men at the expense of women.

The opposite interpretation is:
B) The positions of authority are held by men, but they do not wield this authority on their own behalf, they wield it on behalf of stakeholders where one the most important of which is women. As a result the authorities create a society that primarily oppresses men to the benefit of women.

So feminists like GravyMan like to go around claiming that we live in a patriarchy by mentioning male billionaires, top politicians etc… And then usually they imply that this means that there is inequality that favors men and oppresses women. They usually only imply it because this gives them wiggle room to wiggle out of the claim. Here he didn’t straight out claim a direct link of inequality he just said “it’s difficult to conclude [the opposite]”, but that’s a difficult one to wiggle out of.

So yes, obviously, the prevalence of men in positions of power implies that we live in some kind of patriarchy for some definition of patriarchy. But the question is: which definition is the one that applies to our society?

And if you look at the rates of completed suicide, the rates of homelessness, the rates of homicide victims and more recently post secondary education. Then contrast this with social efforts to help victims of violence, suicide risks, education opportunities that are gendered for the benefit of women. It becomes quite clear that we’re far closer to definition B) than we are to definition A).

Furthermore, people like me, who are concerned with the general trend of callousness towards men and accompanying misleading ideology that takes away empathy and aid resources from those men, we don’t like the term “Patriarchy”. We see how it is misused to imply things that are not true about the way society function. And we see how it’s definition is so malleable and routinely exploited to the detriment of men. So we try to condemn its use wherever we see it.

While I agree with OPs three other points. I don’t generally like to spend much time on them. I think ideas are more important than labels.

And at the end of the day there is just one core concept that can unravel all of the misandry found within feminism. And I can summarize it in a simple question:

What happened to your empathy and compassion for men?

I was there for the migration from kbin to reddit and I’m here for the migration from reddit to kbin. There’s no need to prove anything to spez. Reddit is already in the past.