I keep seeing posts mentioning this phenomenon more and more often.
For instance:
‘Andrew Tate phenomena’ surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
Like, why? Why now? Why even? I really wish I had a time machine where I could go to the future and ask them what the general reasons were for this social development. But I feel like I’m looking for the specific thorn on a cactus that popped my balloon.
I think the answer is obvious: Tate tells them “you’re awesome”. No one else is doing that. People seek validation.
This is the short of it. Tate explains in no uncertain terms that society is to blame for the insecurities they feel, and provides an easy answer on how to fix it that kind of works, because it emulates self-confidence.
I mean it’s right wing politics in a nutshell
Dupe fools with simple, comforting lies over complicated, uncomfortable truth. If people don’t understand reality they can’t change it.
That was a conversation I just had with someone today. They did not appreciate my saying so.
And organized religion, as well.
they’rethesamepicture.jpeg
I think it’s another message. Tate says “The world is fucked up” and then proceeds to say “I have the secret, if you want to make it in this fucked up world you have to be tough, uncompromising, domineering, cheat, and act like me” and “you’re a sucker and a cuck if you don’t do what I say”. First message sets up the world, 2nd sets up a “”“”“solution”“”“” to success that only a “few” people know, and the final thing is him attempting to make anyone who believes otherwise look weak which gives any of his followers the ability to a) feel a sense of superiority and b) make fun of others for being “weak” or “cucks” or “betas” or whatever.
To me his message is closer to “you’re a useless piece of shit, but i will help you become the strong man that women love. If you listen to me and work hard you will have a family and be happy. Fuck the world and society they lie about what you need to do to keep you docile and weak.”
He also has a lot of stuff about embracing all the masculine traits that society hates like aggression and psychopathy. Then just general unhinged statements that contradict his core message and no one notices because cult
I feel like the contradictions are the point. The most desirable trait of people like Tate or Trump is their impunity. They keep getting away with heinous shit, it’s the one thing that makes them demonstrably powerful, despite being disgusting, unimpressive scumbags.
A lot of young men frustrated with the lack of community, the fleeting chance of making good money, buying a home, etc. are looking for something/someone to blame. Misogyny and xenophobia are easy escape hatches for difficult times.
This is pretty much the most accurate response here. People like Andrew Tate are a symptom of a problem we have in society as a whole. The cure isn’t to block the symptom, because the disease is still there. The solution involves hard work & holding our own politicians accountable.
Social atomization is another huge aspect of this.
A lot of young people.
I mean, yeah. Young people of both genders are doing really poorly. Some people want to really naval gaze it and throw pity parties about how men are just so put upon and lonely, but so are the gals and theys.
It’s just that the boys are being offered a solution of basically a heirarchy-cult (read: fascism) where instead of being shat on like the rest of us, they are—in this narrative—meant to be elevated above us.
It’s the same bullshit that got the white poor rednecks voting for billionaire grifters.
Part of it is that women have achieved an educational level as a group that allows them to make better choices. They no longer have to choose which is the nicer wife beater in their town.
The incels seem to have a problem with this. The idea of having to compete based upon personality, likability and in general the ability to treat another person as a human being bothers them.
And if we let this follow the path it’s on, they’ll try to put us in burqas rather than working to become better people.
Referring to men in general as “wife beaters” is exactly the kind of rhetoric that fuels Tate’s popularity.
It’s also pretty dishonest to lump his followers in with incels. Tate openly despises incels - he sees them as quitters. His whole message is about power, self-discipline, and taking control of your life. Incels, on the other hand, are rooted in despair and nihilism. They believe the game is rigged, that the problem is in their genes, and that there’s nothing they can do to change it. It’s a fundamentally different mindset.
Referring to men in general as “wife beaters” is exactly the kind of rhetoric that fuels Tate’s popularity.
They are referring to the fact that it was common in the past for society to force women to get married so strongly that at least some of them had to put up with the wife beaters just to exist. They didn’t mean men in general.
Also. When a legal system, religion, and political parties undermine women’s humanity, domestic violence in a population goes up.
The incels
Weaponizing shaming like this is part of the issue. Young boys and men are bullied and called incels because they don’t conform to whatever BTS image girls and women fantasize about these days. They’re not given a chance to come out of their shells, and being shamed, won’t ever try to.
It’s a shame that body shaming boys is in vogue and perpetrated by those who support big models and HAES.
I think you have incel confused with something completely different.
It’s musk’s used melon, what do you expect?
I’ve heard young women call men “incels” as an insult, what are you talking about?
An incel is someone wbo claims ro be involuntarily incelibate, as in no one wants to fuck them. The incels claim it is based on looks, but it is because they have shitty, hate filled personalities where they blame women for their problems.
It doesn’t have anything to do with looks. It might have something to do with dressing like an Tate fanboy though.
I’ve been incel for years and never hated or blamed women. I was aware of hateful incels but I avoided them.
I wish people would stop generalizing.
Incel has never been a label without the part about hating and blaming women, although it has expanded to hating men too over time. It has always been about not getting laid and expressing frustration and anger. There isn’t some neutral meaning to reclaim or anything like that.
If you don’t blame the gender(s) that isn’t having sex with, you are not an incel. That just means you haven’t successfully found someone which can be for a wide variety of reasons, most of which can be addressed by changing behavior and how one tries to connect with the desired group.
Yes that is the definition.
However, it’s now being used as an insult as well. I’ve been called this even though I’ve been married 20 years with children, by a 40 year old spinster.
Calling someone a spinster in that context gives off incel vibes.
And you don’t think it may have had more to do with what you were saying / the way you were behaving than your looks? I don’t doubt that incel may be thrown around more as a basic insult these days - it’s just reaching that level of ubiquity in everyday speech - but I have more often heard it used towards men who are saying or doing things that are misogynistic. The same kind of misogyny that betrays a deeper insecurity has long been common in adolescent boys who are going through puberty and dealing with feelings they don’t know how to deal with yet, and the word incel has become a convenient way to call it out, but I do feel that when it comes to adolescents there should be some charitability and understanding. Andrew Tate and the rest of the Manosphere are giving these kids the opposite of what they need, though.
Oh it wasn’t used aptly which pissed me off even more.
Being called an incel to an awkward teenage boy has an equal but opposite effect to an innocent teenage girl being called a slut.
I’m advocating neither term should be used to either of them.
Young men are struggling badly, and almost no one seems to take it seriously. A lot of them want to man up - but the message they get from much of the media is to man down. I saw a Reddit thread asking who young boys could look up to as a role model, and the top answer was Aragorn. You literally have to turn to fictional characters to find someone broadly seen as decent.
They gravitate toward people like Andrew Tate (and Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willink, David Goggins, etc.) because those are some of the only public voices telling them it’s okay to be a man - and to embrace masculine traits - without apology.
Nick Offerman is right there!
I mean, the problem is that Nick Offerman is too wholesome. Young guys are horny. They need role models who are also horny. But the message that is sent is “it is good to be a man, but only once you are 40 with a pot belly and a wife and kids and no sex drive.” Or “it is okay to be a man, but if you want to be horny, you have to be gay”. Or “it is okay to be a horny straight man, but only if you are so dumb and mockable as to be harmless.”
Show me the man, fictional or not, who is straight, sexual, and not constantly the butt of the joke. Show me an example of where a man wanting to have sex for the sake of having sex - not to get a girlfriend or live happily ever after - is framed as a legitimate goal which should be supported by the people around him, and which is not seen as a farce.
Show me the man, fictional or not, who is straight, sexual, and not constantly the butt of the joke.
That is literally Nick Offerman. Not his character from Parks and Rec, but him personally and especially his stand up act.
Show me an example of where a man wanting to have sex for the sake of having sex - not to get a girlfriend or live happily ever after - is framed as a legitimate goal which should be supported by the people around him, and which is not seen as a farce.
Rock stars.
Show me an example of where a man wanting to have sex for the sake of having sex - not to get a girlfriend or live happily ever after - is framed as a legitimate goal which should be supported by the people around him, and which is not seen as a farce.
Why?
Why do we have to endorse this as a positive model?
When I was a boy a lot of boys liked to torture animals for fun, I don’t understand why we don’t endorse that as role model behavior either?!?!
The two issues are out of scale.
Causing intentional harm to innocents is psychotic and a fairly clear indicator that there is something deeply wrong with the person doing the harm. Having a consensual sexual encounter with a fellow adult is not (intended to be) harmful. If anything, we should be making it clear to both young men and young women that it is absolutely fine to fool around, if both parties are adults, give consent, and use protections appropriate to their shared goal (kids/no kids, LTR/one-night-stand, etc.). Yes, it’s something that should take a little forethought, but it shouldn’t be inherently taboo or shameful.
Actual answer is too far down.
Also innocent boys doing nothing wrong being told they are the cause of all the problems in the world while they struggle and see everyone else get help they are excluded from.
To add to that, men were also turned to anime male figures like Kenshiro from the Fist of North Star as a key example that it is okay for men to cry. When for a long ass time, it was frowned upon for men to cry or show emotion.
There are enough voices and role models, there are books on how bad men have it, there are podcasts (Diary of the CEO) and philosophers talking about it. I stumble upon the topic at least every week. For example there is a great video of Mathew Hussey on the dating crisis and how troublesome it is for men. He is a dating coach for women and still making good content for men. It doesn’t seem to reach those who need it most, though. Could be trough algorithms, could be because they choose the hateful content with the “easy” solution (women are bad and need to be treated so) over the complex truth… That men had a privileged life for the last few hundred years, and now that women earn their own money they probably need to offer more than finance. By the way it is crazy how the world developed. Every household basically needs to double earn to survive so… yes. Financing is not the thing most women are looking for anymore and men are not even being able to give it. There are political and social problems we all have to fight (together we could even do it but it is easier if we fight each other for those in power). Men suffer from patriarchy the same as women do. The difference is that now the privilege is gone and the gameplay changed, while some wealthy and reckless men pretend that it’s about “them not trying hard enough”. It’s like people in America still believing they could become a millionaire if they try hard enough and trump is a “financial genius” for being rich… Instead of just being a lucky son of a rich man. It seems to be a tradition to step down on others instead of facing the truth… Some wealthy idiots are ruining our world for all of us. Instead of feeling helpless about this fact it’s “the immigrants”, “the feminists”, or what else…
Just as many women are struggling badly. There is no male loneliness epidemic, there is human loneliness epidemic.
Those so-called “male traits” seem to be being a violent thug and being shit to women.
ofc anytime a man talks their issues are downplayed because woman go through the same stuff or have it even harder so just be quiet or deal with it or turn to tate and feel good about yourself because that man is supplying them dopamine while yall try to make them feel bad or like their feeling dont matter lol, guess which one wins lol
“All loneliness matters!”
Young men have problems in their lives, like everyone else does, maybe less, maybe more than other groups in society but that does not matter because for them it’s the most vivid problems. He talks to specifically them and their problems.
I don’t know how the media in your country sounds*, but here every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
If the mainstream does not talk about young men’s issues, you will hand over the attention of young men to someone who does.
*In a news article, or a political speech try switching the word man/woman black/white immigrant etc for their opposite. Some of them sound absolutely absurd when you do.
every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
This can’t be overstated. There are a lot of loud misandrists posing as feminists, broadly painting men as The Problem just for being men. Speaking up is automatically condemned as condescension, sitting comfortably is encroaching on women’s space, striking up conversation is harassment, glancing at someone in the gym is sexual assault, a drunk hookup is rape.
Of course, there are problematic men who are guilty of these accusations, but the majority are normal people being baselessly lumped in with actual offenders for no other reason than being male. Women get unwavering support for just being women, men get trashed for just being men. That by itself is demoralizing.
Then you combine that with the fact that a large percentage of women want an assertive “manly” man. The boys who err on the side of respectfulness watch the aggressive dudebros succeed sexually and romantically where they fail.
If respect loses to toxic masculinity so often, then it’s only reasonable to think that maybe the guys pushing toxic masculinity know what they’re talking about. And if they’re going to be demonized for being men anyway, they might as well live up to the condemnation and at least get something out of it.
Edit: let me specify, I don’t find Tate compelling, I’m only speaking of the mental state that would bring young men into his influence.
“women minorities whatever” ???
did you not know that racial minorities can be men or is this a dog whistle for “white male persecution”?
why not just say “women have a problem, men are a problem”? too on the nose, too obvious? yes misogyny is a problem. but if you’re trying to speak to the importance of male issues, you gotta stay focused
I feel like there’s always been a culture of boys and young men who didn’t respect women, there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
The internet allows idiots to broadcast their message worldwide and social media promotes the most controversial stuff in order to drive engagement and, more recently, to promote a culture war that keeps the populus divided.
there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
Before podcasts, we had a bunch of AM radio, grindhouse movies, pulp fiction, skin mags, and incel blogs. Joe Rogan is an archtype that echoes through the ages.
I remember when every friend group had a stoned uncle who lived in Grandma’s basement and would spout alien hotep lost city of z under water bullshit.
Some asshole at Spotify gave one a podcast and here we are.
From around 2022 until just recently YouTube Shorts was heavily pushing Tate on me (an almost 50 year old man).
No matter how many times I disliked and/or blocked the poster, the YouTube algorithm just kept throwing more Tate at me. I don’t know what I did to make YouTube think I’d be interested in that clown.
On the plus side, it made me a lot more aware of what’s going on, hence my efforts to get Google out of my life. I can spot someone trying to manipulate me, but I have young sons who might not.
Thanks for protecting your sons from that shit
This needs much more attention. I had the same impression, especially also about Tate. Why can google push topics without the general public feeling the threat for democracy? Who decides which topics are pushed and what is their agenda?
Google and every other tech company say they keep their algorithms secret for commercial purposes, but that’s a bit convenient isn’t it? I certainly don’t trust any capitalist to be responsible with that much unchecked power.
Because young men have problems that aren’t taken seriously. Then someone like Tate comes along and (quite literally) sells the “solution.”
If a cult leader can swoop in and radicalise a whole lot of people, then there is an unaddressed or ignored problem going on. This is the kind of way someone like Hitler got so much support.
People who are educated, and live secure, fulfilling lives would be able to see Tate for the twat he is.
This is probably not the whole reason but in my opinion it is the primary one. Young men are indirectly being told their problems don’t matter because when they are raised they get slapped down for trying to take attention away from women’s issues, and that leaves a very sour taste in their mouths that makes it easy for charlatans like Tate to take advantage of. Especially low-status white men getting hit with the double whammy of being assumed to be just fine because everyone knows how easy it is to be a white man, right? Thanks, apex fallacy.
The times where men have tried to form positive social support structures like the MRA/MGTOW movement, they are derided as being misogynistic, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as the outside attacks reinforce those assumptions. If you look at these groups today, they are absolutely infiltrated by misogynist and racist voices, but that’s not how they started. Gamergate is another example of this phenomenon.
I’m not trying to invalidate the issues women face or trying to claim that men have it worse. It seems we collectively treat this as a zero sum game instead of getting folks the help they need for the specific problems they face, and it creates a situation where people who could otherwise be saved are radicalized by assholes who are all too willing to capitalize on that and radicalize them. Worse, the continuing polarization makes it very difficult for anyone left of center to walk back and try to address men’s issues without immediately being beset upon by a mercilessly vocal minority of feminists who see any attempt to help men as a distraction from their own issues.
Remember that each person parroting Tate’s rhetoric isn’t some hyper-privileged fratboy who is looking for an excuse to do violence to women. Some of them certainly are, but I would bet that a majority of them are low-status men who don’t see any other options.
One thing that I really wonder is if things have at all improved amongst men. It’s gone downhill with any Andrew Tate fans but like, if a group of 18 year olds watched Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds today, how many would be outright appalled?
They were popular in the day. Specifically among men. I just feel like it would be a fascinating experiment that could demonstrate some progress is being made. Perhaps people can breathe a bit easier.
It used to be that women couldn’t open their own bank accounts. Depending on how far back you go, they couldn’t even own property. In this context, women really needed to get married if they wanted to do anything. For this and many other reasons, the bar was lower, men could get married with less effort. Nowadays women can do anything and the only reason for them to want a man is if they want to, so you actually have to put in effort now.
Also, gender roles are changing and there’s no clarity as to what being a man is supposed to mean in 2025. If it’s not protecting and providing, if it’s not dying in war, then the purpose of men is undefined as of now, and there’s a tendency to want to return to the older gender roles.
And late capitalism is stressful, and men aren’t going to college as much these days. There’s lots of reasons but this is what i can remember in five minutes
To add to this: The internet has increased the reach of propaganda to heights it could only dream of. It used to be that you could just stop your kid from hanging out with the local neonazi group, now they can reach them right in their bedroom.
it’s so weird that people find life purpose in their gender… like I really dont get it…
Not really plenty of tradwife woman still exist, id say 50/50 wanna just find someone decent and setltle down so they can pop out kids becuase god wants them to, athiesm isnt as popular as yall think ppl are still religious and get arranged marriages (or basically the equivalent) You gotta be ugly, no money, just give up on life to be alone. Or insanely picky.
Now if you’re a liberal man who wants an independent woman, your pool of potential partners is way lower and they have standards like you said, good luck finding that
It’s not just women having the choice to marry. Women are flooded with choice through dating apps. It puts men in competition, costs money, and is overall a humbling experience. The amount of effort (and money) an average looking average height man has to expend pushes men to stop trying and focus on bettering oneself. This is where the Rogans and the Tates come in. The left isn’t speaking to these boys so the right wins by default.
So are men. Flooded with choices on dating apps and otherwise. It also puts women in competition. And others. It’s not a gendered problem. It’s an attitude problem.
The amount of effort is very likely way more equal to that of those “others” have to expend than most would concede, it’s just that some of the young boys aren’t taught to have a spine and as such expect everything to be easy, then get majorly disappointed when that isn’t the case. World is tough, life is hard, you have to actually fight along the way and struggle to get to places. Just about everyone else already knows this by heart, but some men are barely starting catching up.
Patriarchy isn’t as alive as it was, though very much alive still, so their expectations just no longer match the reality. And that’s a bummer. Boo hoo. Makes them commit mass murder, school shootings, but more widely, outside of those extremes, just fall in love with toxic men with a platform that actually do speak of things that better match their expectations.
It’s simply that some young men are pampered little babies that aren’t adapting to a less powerful patriarchy and have zero idea how to actually live in this world as a normal person without an excess of privileges.
And that’s often just an upbringing thing. And a complex one at that, with not just the parents at fault. Society was, and still is, patriarchal and unequal in so many ways, but slowly gets better at least in west. It’s not the fault of the young men that get sucked into this, they never were taught better. That’s the problem more than anything.
And before anyone comes in pointing fingers, I was assigned man at birth and am still an enby in part presenting as masculine. I know the privilege, and I do also know how hard it is to accept the fact that everything’s easier for us, when your heart feels like everything is hard. That’s just a bummer, but everyone has got it hard. More hard than me. A tough thing to see and recognize, because suddenly my struggle isn’t special. But really, it isn’t though. But that’s not the expectation young men have for some reason… Not always anyway.
The toxic young men still are the minority, it’s worth recognizing that too. But they are very loud and very hurt little babies :-( we have to suffer through their incapability to adapt to reality by possibly even just dying in one of their mass shootings.
It’s fucked up, and I’m not sure if there’s anything or anyone we can easily blame. And no easy answers either. I hate this part of reality.
The left isn’t speaking to these boys so the right wins by default.
probably it does, but the algorithms don’t pick it up because it’s not controversial
So much more social, educational and financial support for girls’ development and nothing for boys except for sports. If you’re not into sports, you’re out of luck.
Band, theater club, math club, chess club, computer club, to just name a few. Outside of school there’s Kiwanis, boyscouts, YMCA, big brother program, there is no shortage of programs directed at boys. They’re all underfunded in the inner city and rural ag counties. But the Tate heads mostly live in the safe suburbs. They’re usually white and those programs tend to be better funded in those places.
The US government is defunding all research and programmes that include the word “female” and “women”. No more research into uterine cancer. No more including women in studies (and they were badly represented already).
When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.
This is a stupid and shitty decision.
You seem to mistake that I meant the women’s rights should be negated. I never said that. I said that development of boys should be encouraged the same way that girls are. I’m totally against taking women’s rights away.
I feel like there is also a pathologization of being single. I was a teenager in the late 90s/early 2000s, so before most of social media. I’m also from a village where most people knew each other.
There were a couple of nerdy, shy guys who never had a girlfriend by the time of graduation. I only had one boyfriend at 16 for 2 month before his friend told me he was only dating me as a dare. I was “ugly” and “not a real girl” because I didn’t wear makeup and mostly wore jeans and Tshirts. Stupid village kids.
Anyway, similar things happened to the nerdy guys. But no one started crying about all men/women being awful and no one became an incel. Several girls and boys in my class never dated by the time we graduated and that just wasn’t a big deal. Nowadays everybody’s being told there’s something wrong with them if they’ve never had a partner by age 17.
I always have to push back against this pathologization narrative. The very obvious alternatives are:
(1) that these guys you are talking about would have easily fallen into the trap of the right wing manosphere if it had been available, because being unable to find a parter when your hormones are urging you to and when everyone else around you seems able to find one is intensely painful. But you wouldn’t hear about it, since no one talks about it, because the least attractive thing you can do is talk about how you are frustrated by your lack of romantic success.
(2) the nerdy guys might just accept their lack of partners, but these days the demographic of unpartnered young men is significantly more diverse, and more likely to contain, let’s say… less discerning thinkers…
It’s kind of like saying “back in my day, no one really cared about getting kicked in the head by a horse. Yeah, it happened, and it sucked, but it just wasn’t a big deal. There wasn’t the social stigma that getting kicked in the head by a horse was bad, or that you shouldn’t get kicked in the head by a horse.”
while I agree, I think there are people who ended up choosing (1) because of pathologization, because they were ridiculed and the increased stress made them decide it’s easier to hate women
Lol…
Looks away
Lots of stuff. One has to do with modern feminism that has attempted to redefine the female gender role to become more independent and to adopt some traits that were traditionally masculine. This leaves some men clueless in their own identity, as traditional gender roles are a crutch for both women and men to kinda know their place in society. Now women refuse to fit their traditional role, so men have to redefine themselves too instead of relying on how it’s been done in previous generations.
This cluelessness is frustrating and we’ve seen it pop up in different ways in the last decades. However with a more modern image of a woman manifesting, teens who have to figure out anyway who they are in society are affected more, especially young boys who are welcomed to society with no clear “default instructions” because the old gender role is demonized by a society that has largely accepted the new gender role for women, but is still clueless what men are.
Men may be the provider, but women now must be able to work too. Men could be more emotional and may take caregiver jobs, but women are considered better at them anyway and men are not trusted with kids or not taken seriously as caregivers. This is also not easy on women who now have children and need to care about a career. No wonder we have fewer children. And this also gets confusing for young men who go on dates, when they still need to pay for the bill at dates, their income still plays a role, even though women may make a lot of money (or even more than them) too now.
I hope this doesn’t read as a rant, because I see feminism as a positive development even though I acknowledge the new challenges it provides.
Based on this background young, impressionable boys are sucked in by social media algorithms and confronted with the frustration and backlash of these men like Tate, that promote a return to the old gender roles. Many things he says could be something they said to your great granddad. Social media also leads to content and community bubbles, which are harder to penetrate for alternative ideas, so once you are “red pilled” you won’t get off your track.
Additionally social media is not just content, it also publicizes and quantifies your social status and connections with followers and likes. Social status is hugely important for teens who are looking for their place in society. Even when you move, you don’t have a chance to try again with a new group of mates: you still have your account and your status follows you everywhere. This increases the stakes and leads to more extreme behaviors.
I think that’s all the reasons I can think off. Sorry it’s so long.
I love this deconstruction, it captures quite a few of my own thoughts. Thank you!
I still don’t think the argument has ripened fully in my head yet. I’m glad I read “The Game” in my 20s and not earlier and that nobody asked about my Insta in highschool. I had the chance to move and leave some social dynamics in the past with several fresh starts.
Do we have a best of lemmy community yet?
A lot of young men are lacking role models and community these days.
More kids are growing up without fathers around now (single parenthood is up from 9% in the 1960s to about 25% today).
Most people’s source of community used to be church, but since the advent of the internet, people are rapidly moving away from organized religion. I think this has disproportionately impacted men, who tend to be less social on average.
And I think in general, a lot of young men feel like nobody cares about their personal struggles.
So, even some toxic dude like Andrew Tate can show up and say “Hey, you’re great. Here are the reasons why things are bad for you and what you should do, and here’s a community of like-minded people to interact with.” and these guys are going to dive in head first.
The right wing has easy answers for complex problems, so it’s easier for them to recruit frustrated, average people.
And the left is often paralyzed by the “complexity” of a solution and offers little no refuge for those in need. Sadly making those half baked ignorant simple solutions the only thing offered.
And the left is often paralyzed by the “complexity” of a solution and offers little no refuge for those in need
Always, because they’re not stupid, if they were, they’d be Conservatives … and the answer to complex problems are not simple. That can’t change.
Alas, with Tate etal,
It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.” - Franz Kafka
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. . - John Stuart Mill
You have missed the point entirely. It’s not that complex problems can be solved by “one simple trick that conservatives hate.” It’s that the complexity of the problem often prevents the left from even taking the first step to any solution.
Solving complex problems often requires multiple steps towards to mitigation. But, one needs to take that first step. And there needs to be dirt under those fingernails at the end of the day as a reminder of the work actually done.
Part of it is that propaganda works. A lot of people are trying to make fascism happen and this type of content fits right in.
But also, there’s a growing issue of men not knowing how to act around women, and there isn’t much non-misogynist competition for Tate. It seems like for a lot of people (both men and women) it’s harder to make personal connections these days than it used to be, and apps like Tinder exarcerbate the issue.
That’s what happen when identity politics mark a group as less important and the enemy.
It happens when right wing do identity politics an the marginalized minorities group together against it.
Left wing for some reason decided to use exactly the same strategy as the right wing and took identity politics as a way to do politics and they are having exactly the same result. The “marginalized” identity turned against them.
Surprised Pikachu face.
Yep…
