view the rest of the comments
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
I think part of why she didn't seen men fighting some of the shitty stuff online is due to the echochamber effect of those communities. Any resistance is downvoted, dogpiled with hateful comments, and maybe even removed by a biased mod. A lot of the good men who would defend in those comments don't even browse those specific forums because of how toxic and shitty they can be.
The good men aren't there and don't even know what's going on. I've used Reddit and Lemmy but have blocked the NSFW/NSFL stuff. There is no opportunity to denounce or report because I remain deliberately blissfully ignorant.
Also why would I ever recognize a space like that and not run away. "Calling out" is still participation, and why would I want to participate (incl. from the legal perspective). I have the moral obligation to do that because...I am man? As if being a man was being part of a club.
I believe we (as in, people) all have a responsibility to hold each other accountable. But we can also only do so much, and inserting yourself into a toxic community founded for the sole goal of normalizing that toxicity in some misguided attempt to reform such people is beyond what any one person can be expected to engage with.
Me too, both. That we have responsibility for others and that we are not obliged to put ourselves at harms risk.
But this is a particularly shitty, maybe wicked problem. There are three groups: A bullies B, and C could stop A, but isn't bothered by anyone. Now, is C obliged to pick a fight with A, or is B just in bad luck to be born as a B?
I think here, it is very easy to have strong opinions, while very hard to formulate a concise moral argument. Things get muddier/harder the more we factor reality in.
Precisely. It's completely different from doing that in your group of friends, where confrontation is a way to establish common values, and in an internet cesspool where anyway I am going to be moderated out.
Just yesterday I was reading a great article about how social medias compare to TV when it comes to feeling part of a group. "Calling out" people in such places wouldn't be anything else that virtue signaling (to yourself) to reaffirm your own identity (I stand up to sexism), and at the same time allow those people to reaffirm themselves (I get confronted because I am speaking truth).
Basically it would be at most a performance.
IDK, instead of picking fights with random fucks in their own echo chambers where I'd just get banned anyway, I strive to be a positive example for the youngins around me in real life.
Additionally, those kinds of shitbags routinely get tossed out of respectable places. What brings the manosphere, and things like it, together is usually a shared experience of rejection and isolation.
You're absolutely right, but haven't I read that they're learning to lie about their presence in the manophere? So if it's, say 10% who actively think and act that way, plus 15% passively subject themselves to it without going all in, but who aren't really judging, that's 1/4 guys who I wouldn't risk a relationship with, many of whom are actively hiding their positions. I can see why it wouldn't be worth it to date any man. Especially for someone with her experiences.
And my IRL impression is that it's way more guys than 15% who intentionally expose themselves to it, and slightly more than 10% who fully buy into the misogyny.
I agree, and in my opinion, women and partners in general need to get better at leaving piece of shit men (or shitty partners in general). Many of them keep acting like this cause they get away with it after some small talk and a nice dinner just to be a piece of shit again next week. I've known girls who date men who genuinely claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote and all i can think is "why is this girl staying with someone who hates them?"
I understand you’re being well-intentioned but this is such a great example of how society has failed to recognize these partners as victims as it continues to put the onus on the victim to deal with the abuser.
TL;DR: Victims of abuse are victims who need external assistance. The abuser needs to be dealt with. You are putting too much of the onus on the victims (and in some ways the blame as well though I highly doubt that’s your intention) when you say “they need to take responsibility and leave.”
The fact that you know someone who stays with someone who thinks she shouldn’t vote should tell you how seriously difficult this all is.
Agreed. Assistance, implementation of which requires understanding of why they're not leaving those assholes, worse, returning to them, or fall into the same pattern with a different asshole, all on their ostensibly free will.
The question is "how can the capability to leave the abuser be built". It involves, in one way or the other, a change in the victim. Getting better at leaving pieces of shit.
Seriously I have difficulty, and this might be male perspective, to equate "need to get better at" with the frame "you're at fault". At some point, I needed to get good at cooking. Was it my fault that I couldn't cook? Nope. It's not like I didn't show interest as a kid, it's that noone ever bothered to actually teach me anything, so I didn't know anything. Still had to get good at it. It's a problem so you solve it. Why would I care wasting my breath blaming my upbringing it only distracts from learning. It can provide an excuse, but excuses don't make dinner.
Ah, fuck it, let's risk it. My edgetake on why some women end up again and again with assholes: Because noone told them (early enough?) that they can go to a kind guy, start a tickle fight, and get all the thrill they'll ever want. It's a function of attraction to the capability to throw down.
Unfortunately this is a very gendered/male take, I agree with that. You’re falling into the same pits I described above. You’re essentially saying “just nut up and do it.” Comparing it to overcoming the inertia of not cooking for yourself is, frankly, bizarre to me. That isn’t the same situation at all. Your kitchen isn’t some force conspiring against you. Your cookware isn’t changing tactics and emotionally manipulating you or taking away your phone.
No. I said that the question is:
I didn't ever compare what's necessary for that with learning to cook. The cooking thing was about how it's silly to go from "doesn't know how to" to "you're at fault". I used, specifically, an example far enough from abuse so it could be a general point, not tangled up with the dating assholes bit.
Where I did get into "How can it be built" was my edgetake later: Figure out why assclowns are so damn attractive that some women go back to them, put up with them, and then don't blame the woman for having that attraction, but find a safe outlet. I'm sure that's not the whole of the solution but I do think that it's a necessary component.
Steven Hassan's BITE model is a good start for that kind of information, the interesting thing being that a lot of those cult-manipulation techniques are visible in anything from individual relationships (not just romantic ones either, parent/child in either direction, "friends",...) over cults and religions to workplaces and political movements.
Fear.
We should have social systems to help people over come those fears and protect them from threats, both physical and financial. No one should be forced to be with someone they fear because of finances, childcare, safety, or loneliness.
Not all shitty partners induce fear. I've known some girls who are just head over heels due to how attractive, wealthy, or mostly sweet a guy is. The good times outshine the bad times and they get into the "i can fix him" mentality. My brother is like that where he has gotten away with cheating with nearly every partner he has had. It usually takes the girl months to finally leave him and say its been enough. Hes the chad gym type and genuinely doesn't have to try to pull women. Any time they threaten to leave he gets all sweet, shows up with gifts and acts romantic and sexy just to get caught cheating again next week.
We need to be hard on ourselves sometimes and push manipulative people out of our lives. I think an erosion of IRL friendships has influenced this trend as well. I used to know girls who would band together to help a girl get rid of a shitty guy they were infatuated with but that is much harder to do online than in person.
I don't disagree with that. I would support that in a heartbeat if I had the funds to do so.
Sure, not all shitty partners, but there is often more going on behind closed doors than many people realize.
That's called "love bombing" and is a common part of the cycle of abuse.
I don't disagree with that, however, people like this tend to worm their way into positions of authority like a parasite that you can't get rid of. The fact that they often have zero issues lying through their teeth to get you on "their side" is a massive issue that many of the general public simply cannot grasp ("why would my wife/husband/preacher/friend/etc lie to me?" etc...).
It gets even worse when someone like that gets their hands on the very methods used to build those organizations and tears them all down. See the current state of the USA for example. I lived with an abusive partner for 11 years, and there is an unbelievable amount of parallels between them and the current US administration. What they are doing right now is incredibly triggering, knowing that I essentially have no escape from it.
These women don’t leave because these men are narcissistic assholes who have destroyed their self-esteem and made them think they are worthless and won’t find anything better and can’t live on their own.
Yup. I’m not going to actively hang out with shitheads just to try and change them. I will however steamroll over them if they come into MY space and do it.
Guys seem to like going into a game together and fighting against overwhelming odds, working together to shoot down the enemy. Even if they "die" several times.
Maybe it would be interesting to get together and make a raid/foray into one of these manosphere forums, supporting each other's arguments and shooting down sexist crap.
We should weaponize bots to do this. With AI it doesn't even need to be real people anymore.
They're using them against us and it's long past time we responded in kind.
Then good news! There are people doing this. I'm in a discord where some people work on a bot that basically calls out that stuff on reddit. Making the bot is straightforward, the problem is it keeps getting banned for arguing. The hardest part is keeping the reddit account alive.
r/conservative has already disproven that experiment, no matter how much opposition, they will spin a million excuses and point out how their echo chamber is being "brigaded" by bots or whatever
Several studies also describe the backfire effect, I.e., people getting more entrenched in their position when confronted with opposing arguments. I doubt I can ever succeed where a decade+ of education system failed.
By yourself probably not. But a battalion of opposing arguments could possibly turn the tide. These guys have already demonstrated how susceptible they are to peer pressure, after all. And they're not all online at once, so if they're suddenly in the minority in their usually toxic forum...
So you need a coordinated effort of thousands of people who will get continuously moderated, banned or censored. OK, I admit that it's possible, but I think I'd rather invest my time in other ways...
Well, if you have some to invest, could you see about getting "i.e." into the default autocorrect database so we don't have to go back and force it every time?
I explicitly stay away from such groups. I call it out in person, and politely check my friends when they say something that they might not realize is harmful, exactly the same way I expect them to check me, but that's just it. That kind of discourse isn't welcome in these groups because they were created with one explicit purpose: to justify and normalize the absolute shittiest behavioursof the most sexiest of male culture.
She's right, it isn't a small amount of men. But it's a supermajority in certain circles, and a tiny, neglible minority in others. She, unfortunately, exposed herself to the worst of men enmasse. We should instead go to those latter circles, and avoid/ostracize those former circles, until they realize if their only goal is sex, they'll have to figure out how to be a decent person first. And men, choose to be better.