A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
Wealth inequality is the cause of almost every single economic and social issue in existence.
If young men had the money to have agency in their lives they would be living life instead of living with their parents to save money while seeking validation through internet fascists.
If school wasn't desigend to be a day care service for Capitalists our children would be properly socialized with the different sexes/genders before getting the chance to grow up into incels.
I call it economic infantilization.
Back in 1960 US minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the average US home was $11,000.00 A brand new car was around $2,500.00 A teenager could move out of the house and be self supporting and grade school kid could work hard and pay for a car on their 18th birthday.
It's hard to feel like an independent adult when you can't afford anything.
Seems like a huge part of the problem is equating "self-worth" to "getting laid".
Putting your dick in a woman doesn't make you any more of a man / successful / worth more than anyone else.
Societal expectations need to be rejected. Oh, success is measured by your ability to get married, have a house, and raise your 2.5 children? For a vast majority, NONE OF THAT IS CURRENTLY SUSTAINABLE AND/OR OBTAINABLE. So why bother? Right?
I get it. It ain't right, but I get it.
Putting your dick in a woman doesn’t make you any more of a man
Yeah, puting a man's dick in you makes you more of a man.
Assuming a penis weighs about 0.1 kilograms^1, and the average weight of a man is around 90 kilograms[^2], we can assume that you will be roughly 0.11% more man!!!
(BY MASS)The measure may be different if we calculate by a change in volume.
[^2]: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320917 ; https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/average-weight-for-men
It's simple math, really.
It's literally the most natural thing in the world to equate reproductive effectiveness to worth. All life is "worth" their reproductive effectiveness. So not having sex is very relevant to our entire existence as a species.
As such, our mental faculties put a heavy punishment in the form of mental pain, i.e. "self-worth attached to getting laid", on this whole thing.
This has very little to do with societal expectations. It's simple biology. Not getting laid is supposed to be one of the worst things for an organism.
You're rationally right with what you say, but it's simply not very relevant. Rationality does not help with our most deeply rooted biological desires. The only thing that helps is getting them fulfilled, i.e. having sex.
Everything you wrote is nonsense. Pointing at a process that often occurs - evolution - and then working backwards to claim that organisms must feel pain when they don't reproduce is completely antilogical. Evolution may be caused by feelings of pain or suffering when otganisms don't reproduce, or it could be something completely different. You are putting the effect before the cause.
Trying to do evolutionary psychoanalysis on something as cognitively complex as a human is practically guaranteed to give you wrong conclusions. What's more, this sort of bullshit is part and parcel of a lot of bioessentialist rhetoric, so if I were you I would definitely consider revaluating a few things.
Yeah sure, but it's also one of the most natural things in the world to bite people
I'm asexual. Can't relate, I guess.
EDIT: Wait, that's even shittier!! People unable or have difficulty reproducing are worth less to society?? I may be a bit naïve, but I don't believe that's a majority of society believes something like that. That's disgusting.
Yeah i have sad it before. Many young men belive that to be a good person they must me the manlyest man to have manned in the history of manhood. Anything else and they a moral failure.
And you believe that men are fuck machines, fuck beasts, that to be a man is to fuck. Well thrn a man that is not having sex is failure of a man.
Changing their. Minda is not just a changing some view it is changing their whole world view. It is the sane as convincing the pope to convert to Buddhism. It is way more then facts or some conversations ot converting a whole generation.
Aren't these guys misusing blackpilled? I thought it was specifically for suicide not just going NEET? Which like we should talk about but not through this corporate productivity-washed drivel.
If you also didn't know
"Not in Education, Employment or Training", its an acronym for people that don't go to school, don't work and are mot looking for work.
Valid point, as well, given that part way through the article she says she's watching a guy who is working, he's just doing what would be considered frontline labor and I guess that underemployment is what's qualifying that guy as a NEET? At least that's how I understood her take, which, as we've said, is not what this acronym is supposed to mean.
Also it's a backronym from the similar Japanese term which refers to a growing number of people there who have abandoned society and hole themselves up in their room literally never going outside.
Wictionary says it went the other way from NEET to ニート(nīto): https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88
You're probably thinking of 引きこもり(hikikomori): https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BC%95%E3%81%8D%E3%81%93%E3%82%82%E3%82%8A#Japanese
Reading these comments makes understanding why the world is in its current state, extremely easy
Keep preaching and applying that brand of empathy guys, it will surely pay off eventually
The simple fact is no one really cares about the plight of men, and this is obvious when you look at social service funding and especially homeless shelters.
We are in a 'bare branch' crisis, and back when this happened in medieval China, whole gangs of angry unmarriable men would form raider bands and just pillage and rape until they were put down by the military. It happened so often that warring states would purposely stage useless battles with massive losses on both sides to keep down the 'bare branch' population so they didn't get to rioting levels.
Maybe the fact that warfare is no longer culling the most desperate, lonely, and impressionable men has let to such a large population of unfocused, angry, lonely, and fundamentally unlikeable males.
It's mainly because biologically we evolved to have kids and die on a hunt, our evolution pressures just aren't capable of handling a male population without a certain degree of unnatural casualty.
What a terrible article. NEETS and lie flat movement has almost no overlap with incels.
Ostensibly the whole world has been online for enough time now. Yet everyone continues to demonstrate a remarkable lack of ability to grasp internet cultures.
It makes no sense. Like trying to explain technology to my elderly grandma. Except she knows she's very old and out of touch. What's everyone elses excuse. It's made even worse because everyone else thinks they are digitial culture savvy.
It's intentional to cause infighting and and to help build the association between neets and incels.
Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast media conglomerate, which is owned by Advanced Publications, which is owned and controlled by the billionaire Newhouse Family.
That's why Steve Newhouse wants these types of articles to be written, because it obfuscates truth and pushes division.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
As always nothing will be done on a public level.
US version of Japan's Hikikomori?
I thought school was for basic education, not getting ready for the labor market.
The point of school is to churn out workers. The government didn't throw money into education because it felt generous.