6
   

Incel - What should be done?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2018 01:02 am
@najmelliw,
Welcome to the Age of The Internet.

In the past, when a relatively small number of individuals came up with deranged and anti-social theories and demands they were less dangerous due to the fact that it was difficult for them to congregate, reinforce one another's paranoia, and share methodologies for realizing their deluded fantasies.

Today they can, with relative ease, find one another on the Internet and though they may each live thousands of miles away from any other fellow member of their bizarre club, encourage and collaborate in real time as if they had all met in a coffee shop or tavern. It is no longer necessary for people with extreme and/or perverse (and here is use the term in its broadest sense; not limiting to sexuality) mindsets to congregate in large cities in order to establish movements with the critical mass needed to present a danger to society.

There is a rapidly growing problem with young men in comparatively affluent, Western societies. The root causes are varied, numerous and complex, but tend to center on the loss of a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives, explosively mixed with a growing sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations. Whether these young men are themselves affluent or impoverished is immaterial

I agree completely with your view that regardless of how one feels about the propriety and/or morality of their worldviews, it is foolish to dismiss these individuals and the growing problem as the product of isolated mental illness or misogyny. The latter, BTW, is a symptom of the problem, not its cause. Not everyone caught up in it will end up driving vans, at top speed, down streets crowded with pedestrians. Waton murder is, by no means, the only way for a society to unravel, nor the only signs that rot has been spreading.

I certainly don't have any pat answers for how to address the issue either on a large scale or with individuals, but feel confident that a focus on the education and development of young boys is essential. Unfortunately, despite common protestations to the contrary, it doesn't appear that we are actually able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The focus, within Western societies, on broader options and opportunities for girls and young women that has been going on over the last four decades or so has been a good thing, and, I hasten to add, not a root cause of our problem with young men. Unfortunately, the notion that life is a zero-sum game is prevalent in our society and for some advocates of our increased focus on girls, a decreased focus on boys was considered necessary. This is, of course, absurd. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that males of our species have enjoyed the unfair advantages of male dominance within the so-called Patriarchy for thousands of years, these benefits are not automatically transferred to a boy upon the day of his birth. They are not advantages encoded in and passed along by genes, and it's certainly not the case that every individual young male is the beneficiary of banked male privilege. There isn't a surplus of developmental focus that young males can draw upon in their early years as the main cashflow is diverted to young females.

Before some of our more excitable members get worked up, I am not at all arguing that young males are deliberately being deprived of developmental attention as part of a twisted feminist plot to not only balance the scales, but to establish a reliable Matriarchal Advantage. I've no doubt that there are some among the feminst ranks who secretly or otherwise endorse such a leveling process, but they are themselves part of a relatively small fringe group of deranged and anti-social thinkers. I also don't think that there are a great many people out there who consciously recognize that there may be a problem in terms of the development of young males, but have concluded it's a temporary situation made necessary by the urgency of generations of gender inequity.

Instead, I believe the effects of an intentional program of diverting time, resources and priority from male development to that of females, are being consequently achieved by a pervasive societal response to any attempts to suggest that we have reached a time where the tables have turned and boys are being shortchanged. Clearly, the general response to the Incel Movement (if such a thing has even actually coagulated) is, at best, blanket dismissal. Such a reaction is not irrational, but it is also not reserved only for paranoid mindsets. Raise a concern,in a public forum, that the gains of girls are, to an important extent, being made on the backs of boys and you will surely be met with a barrage of unsympathetic responses that will run along a spectrum that includes, wrathful insults that label you a misogynist, scolding lectures on the history of gender bias and oppression, and what I call "Poor Baby Mockery:" Snarky comments about crying a river for all the poor oppressed men out there.

These are reflexive responses that focus on adult men and not young boys and thereby miss the nature of the problem entirely. In general, there is no question that men have it better than women in the same way that there is no question that whites have it better than blacks in America (and most of the rest of the West as well).

White males are not oppressed, and neither are boys as a group. The problem isn't oppression, it is neglect. Boys aren't born with the Orginal Sins of misogyny and male privilege, and individually and collectively they require the same level of developmental focus as do girls...again, there is no Bank of Male Advantages from which boys can make withdrawls in order to offset a diminished focus...just until the gender scales are recalibrated.

Properly raising our children is not, overall, a zero-sum proposition for societies, and the economic impact of enforcing gender equity through the mechanism of federal financial aide can and has bee managed without flipping have and have not statuses. Title IX has, over the years since it went into effect, resulted in rancor when it became necessary for a school to reduce funding of certain athletic programs for male students in order to provide roughly equal opportunities for female athletes within the setting of an educational institution. However, the rancor rose not because male athletes were (on any meaningful scale) being deprived of opportunities, but because sports that were popular to the community at large were not receiving the levels of funding believed to be necessary for the school to successfully compete. Over and over we heard or saw complaints about how the success of a college's male basketball, and male football teams were being jeopardized by the elimination of a couple of male athletic scholarships...just so the girls could play field hockey or softball! And guess what? Almost no one mocked or insulted those who complained.

No law if perfect in all its details or its enforcement, but Title IX was a good law that was very beneficial to girls but with very little corresponding harm to boys. The situation we are faced with today has been created by social dynamics and is not due to the existence or absence of any law. The causitive social dynamics are not limited to an unbalanced focus on early development and opportunities based on gender, but it is a major one and one that is easier to address than most of the others.

The very real benefits of focusing on the expansion of opportunities and options for girls is, however, not great enough to overcome the harm caused by diminshed focus on boys. All of our children need the proper degree of developmental focus, and not simply equal shares of an overall defficient level. Between the resources and good intentions of both our educational institutions and parents, we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and meet the needs of our sons and daughters.

Our kids also need development that reflects gender equity under the law, but recognizes inate gender differences where they exist. Nothing good will come from efforts to force boys into a profile that is optimum for girls (or visa versa) or to chase the fanciful notion that there is one optimum profile that can be entirely gender neutral.


hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2018 04:42 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I wonder how young Muslim men are doing in those countries where young people comprise 30 - 40% of the population? In Muslim communities where polygamy is practiced there's a numerical shortage of available wives. One response to a seemingly pointless existence has been to answer the call of the jihadists. I think the attraction to ideas like "incel" and the popularity of various Aryan nationalist groups stem from impulses similar to those of the young Muslims fighting for a caliphate.

I believe that an answer has to do with work and the self-respect it can generate — meaningful creative activity done towards an end and recognized as valuable. But I don't know how to get there.
najmelliw
 
  4  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2018 09:15 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Aye,

People of a similar mindset tend to find each other far more easily and more rapidly in the age of the internet. And they tend to reinforce and strengthen their own ideas and convictions, based on the feedback they receive from such groups. Coupled with the fact that modern western society seems to have far less societal control and influence on their individual citizens, which makes it especially hard to present a different POV to such people who isolate themselves behind their computers and browse the internet.

It's my hope that this misogyny is (one of) the final adverse reaction(s) to the redressing of the balance between girls and boys: throughout history, shifts in cultural norms and values have come with unrest and strife: I don't foresee this one would be any different.

I also agree about the fact that there is no profile that would be suitable for both girls and boys, but then again, I don't really believe that there's a profile that fits just girls or just boys either. Rather, we should make an effort as society to find out what the qualities and strengths of our children are on an individual basis, and nourish and strengthen those, rather than forcing them to act according to some preconceived role pattern that's based on something like their gender. If a girl has a talent and passion for a sport like, for instance, basketball, why shouldn't she be encouraged to focus on developing her basketball skills? Odds are the mental and physical discipline that such development will bring with it, will help her later in life, regardless of the fact that there are limited career options right now in that particular field. Same goes for boys with ballet, for instance.

As far as incel goes, the most effective solution should be sought long term: I think I concur. It's hard and probably ineffective to trace the incel members down and disband the group: it would probably pop up again with a different name and an even more askew world view. However, education would help for the next generation, hopefully, but it does little to stem this particular group. Actually, I'm afraid this attack and the following media attention for this group has grown its membership, if anything.

And yes, the misogyny they preach is only the symptom, whereas the prime cause of their discontent is probably a lack of purpose or identity in a society that seems to be in constant flux. The sense of entitlement this particular group has, might have grown out of the way their ideas receive positive feedback within the group itself: if all your friends agree you deserve to 'get laid', than surely, you are in your right when you demand it...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2018 01:30 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I wonder how young Muslim men are doing in those countries where young people comprise 30 - 40% of the population?

Traditionally, the answer to that question used to be: homosexuality and/or prostitutes. That's not very different from what other societies have used as "pressure valves", BTW. Not sure how it plays out nowadays, with Islamism on the rise.

You could find prostitutes in Peshawar back in my youth, in the same bazar street where the musicians and belly dancers would hang out. Homosexuality between young friends was also not uncommon.

In fact the belly dancers had a reputation for doing "extras".  Not that I tried my luck with any of them beyond the dancing -- the local taste was for very heavy women. But it was there, a red quarter in the middle of super-religious Peshawar. Musicians and belly dancers wouldn't perform on site: the street was the place to go to book them for private parties at home.

Nowadays I don't know, it might have been drawn underground by the mollahs, who hate sex and also music, those fools. But maybe it's still there.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 08:00 am
What do incels, fascists and terrorists have in common? Violent misogyny
Quote:
The apparent connection of recent murders in Toronto to the “incel” movement has led to a torrent of commentary. Too much of it has appeared to rationalise Alek Minassian’s actions. Just yesterday, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat made their major gripe – that the world denies them sex – into the basis of a kind of seminar room thought experiment, wondering whether a redistribution of sex might not be “entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life”.

But to accept this is to take their story of victimhood as read. We shouldn’t.

To get the measure of this movement, and its danger, we could turn to their sympathisers on Twitter, who have been busy blaming “‘empowered’ w*myn on oral contraceptives” and “anti-male culture” for the incel phenomenon, and warning of insurrection.

We could heed recent feminist work on incel ideology. Australian academics Lucy Nicholas and Christine Agius have written about how “involuntary celibates” and members of other, related subcultures find ways to “argue for men’s greater oppression, and justify male violence”. They show how contemporary “masculinism” is an explicit reaction to the gains of feminists, LGBTQ people, and others challenging white male supremacy, and how it is tied to right wing populism.

We could also turn to history, and see that radical misogyny is, and has always been the affective core of violent, reactionary political projects.

In 1977, Klaus Theweleit published a book in which he sought to understand the germination of fascism in interwar Germany. His method was to study the fantasy life of that era’s conservative revolutionaries, by reading the diaries, novels and letters of the men who joined the Freikorps militias, and fought against insurgent communists during the early days of the Weimar Republic.

Early on, the Freikorps – largely made up of the demobilised German soldiers who had lost the first world war – fought battles and carried out massacres of civilians in the Weimar Republic’s name. They also played a part in destabilising that same republic with assassinations, border skirmishes, and direct participation in attempted coups. The Freikorps are generally understood as a precursor to the Nazi party’s paramilitary force, the SA, which many of them would eventually join. Those who did aided the republic’s passage into a genocidal dictatorship.

Translated from German into English as “Male Fantasies”, Theweleit’s expansive book shows us how misogyny is at the root of fascism. In the writings of “soldier males”, as he calls them, we see women sorted into two types – the “white”, sexless, patriotic “sister” on the one hand, and the sexualised, threatening “red” woman on the other. In the latter category the young men put any women who they found discomfiting: prostitutes, the sexually active, proletarian women, the communist women who fought them, and Jewish women.

According to Theweleit, the reasons they wanted to destroy these women were not just, or not simply political. The women were understood as a threatening “other”, and they embodied the mens’ fears, including female sexuality, and the fecund multiplicity of life itself.

In the fantasies they committed to paper, the men associated the women they despised with floods of liquid and slime, and with dirt – substances that would threaten to overwhelm the defences of their ill-formed psyches. The solider male felt that he could only guarantee “his own survival, his self-preservation and self-regeneration”, through acts of violence against such women. (Another way of maintaining their fragile sense of self is by slotting themselves into enveloping external structures like the armed forces or fascist youth organisations.)
[... ... ...]
What distinguishes their subculture is that they have developed a new way of codifying, disseminating, and radicalising a particular expression of misogyny. But their beliefs, and even their behaviours, are an exaggerated version of the structures of thought and feeling that characterise patriarchy.

What puts them adjacent to fascism is not only the copious links between incels, the “manosphere”, and the alt right, but the way that their culture, and their forums, work to shape their resentment, and channel their desires towards violence. This violence may not yet be organised on a mass scale but it is celebrated as a natural end-point of their endeavours, and as a positive political value. This is a misogyny that desires the death of the other, and the chances are that we will look back on it as the harbinger, and the heart, of an even more extensive program of violence.

The Freikorps soldiers were conditioned and produced by the militarised world of the late 19th and early 20th century, drilled and subjected to physical punishment in schools, clubs, basic training and the trenches. Their misogyny was patterned by that world. A snaky interwar republic gave them space and opportunity to enact this violence in particular ways.

The world that shaped misogynist online subcultures is different, and so is the mayhem that their culture has produced. Their vision of a “sexual marketplace” could be an extrapolation, or a mimicry, of the market discipline now imposed in every sphere of life. The lone wolf attacks – with easily-acquired military grade weapons in the case of Elliot Rodger, or a rented van in the case of Minassian – reflect the tactics of the other murderous men involved in contemporary terrorism and insurgency. Their forums are full of what the researcher of the far right, Chip Berlet, calls “scripted violence”, where men exhort each other to such terrorism.

As Talia Levin remarked in response to Douthat’s column, incel forums feature “the worship of murderers, calls for mass rape and ‘female genocide’”.

David Futrelle, a long-time observer of the manosphere, put it best in the wake of the Toronto attacks: “misogyny kills, quite literally, and we need to shut it down”. But how?

The worst thing we could do is to play into the cliches surrounding these radical misogynists, and not take them seriously. We should not take them at their word about the reasons they have taken the path they are on, nor should we negotiate with them on their demands, which are an affront to justice.


maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 09:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
This is bullshit! It is a particular radical political ideology saying that anyone who disagrees with them is a Fascist.

1. You can disagree with any part feminist ideology without being a misogynist.

2. The Black Lives Matter movement is "masculinist" by the definition of this article, it points out ways that men have been oppressed; BLM highlights the abuse of mostly men at the hands of the police, and mass incarceration is a men's rights issue (the vast majority of people incarcerated are men).

3. The author (and many people of this particular ideology) want to suppress ideas from being expressed by demonizing anyone who expresses them. Look at the argument they are making

-- anyone who disagrees with my political ideology on gender is a misogynist.
-- some misogynists are violent, therefore misogyny is violent.
-- terrorists are violent, some terrorist a misogynist, therefore violent misogynists are terrorists.
-- everyone I don't like is a fascist. I don't like violent terrorist misogynists. So violent terrorist misogynists are fascists.

Quote:
Everyone who disagrees with my ideology is a violent, terrororist, mysogynist, incel fascist.


In truth this incel group is a small subculture that lives on the internet.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 01:00 pm
Incel is just Muslim Brotherhood for liberals.

The right justifies their prejudice against all Muslims in general based on the of a small group of Muslims that commits violent acts. Conservatives have built a set of conspiracy theories based on their made-up view of Islam and their fear of Sharia Law.

The left is doing the same thing here. This is a small group of men one of whom has committed a violent act. It fits into their prejudiced views of the "manosphere" and their theories about misogyny.

This is confirmation bias... people on both sides of the ideological divide get excited when a sensational story fits their narrative. It doesn't lead to rational thought, this only exacerbates the political extremism on both sides.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 11:22 am
@hightor,
I agree with you, but I tend to think that my very rough hypothesis stands.

Not every young man who joins the Jihad is disaffected and lonely, but a significant number of them are and where do those young men tend to come from? Affluent Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the middle to upper classes of semi-Westernized nations like Egypt generate a certain number but it seems like an increasing number have come from Europe and the US.

Not that it can be rectified, but I think we would be making a mistake if we assumed the problem is primarily due to a shortage of available wives. It's a cause but not, I think, due to frustrated sexual energy. Unless millions of men in the West are marrying frigid women, there has to be a reason other than sex for the, by historical standards, extremely high divorce rate. It's also not the case, I think, that the men who are unable to find female partners are simply the unfortunate victim of numbers. These men, for the most part, are meeting women (whether face to face or online) and are being rejected. They can't all be deformed, ugly or morbidly obese and while a great many of them may be without exciting prospects, plenty of women have partnered with losers in the past, and often because they see potential in them and/or feel they can transform them into winners.

A combination of factors that include, to one extent or another, physical attractiveness and economic prospects, keeps these men from important social bonds, but whatever they are the bottom line is that these men are damaged in some way. They are missing even the lowest level of traits that attract women and lead them to partner with them and if they do manage to find a woman willing to give them a chance, the partnership ends in a matter of a couple of years or even a few months. (Unfortunately, not without the production of offspring)

It's a problem that feeds on itself. Unable to establish the most basic of tethering social bonds, these men are adrift. I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that many of these men come from broken, single parent (mother) families. If they do manage to father children, the likelihood of them providing a guiding paternal relationship for their children is mimimal and so the seeds for the cycle are sown.

As children they live in a society that is increasingly becoming unable or unwilling to accomodate masculinity. Boys have been boys for hundreds of thousands of years. Doing so today is very likely to result in a prescription for meds that paradoxically treat hyperactivity with stimulation of the nervouse system. Somehow it works in the sense that the boy is drained of energy and left in a lethargic fog.

Organizations and activites that, in the past, have assisted parents is instilling a sense of community in their children (not just boys) are falling apart. Somewhere along the line, athletics were driven out of backyards and sandlots and became available only through organized sports. This might be fine except that the lessons that should be learned are being perverted. To a great extent, the successful teams exclude everyone but the gifted and winning (an essential goal of sports) has eclipsed teamwork (the most important lesson sports can teach). The less successful teams are not so because the coaches have chosen not to follow a win at all costs mentality, but becuause they simply don't have the same quality of players. Kids, without a lot of natural talent, who want to play or are forced to by their parents, receive very little if any coaching and only the amount of playing time required by league rules. Without a strong foundation of teamwork, every time one of these kids get's his turn, the rest of the team psychically or actually groans. Lacking confidence to begin with, the kid has even less when he is in the spotlight and most likely he fails which confirms his place as the team's lead weight. Before too long he quits which is what the coach and other players wanted to happen all along.

In an attempt to combat this dynamic some groups have created alternative models. The organizers are usually the grown version of the kid who loved baseball, but always struck out and eventually quit the team, and well-intentioned, over-protected mothers. In these leagues, everyone plays (good) and winning is sublimated to the point where no score is kept and no winner is declared (very bad). The coaches rarely know much at all about the sport and are unable to teach the kids even the fundamentals. If a boy's team is lucky enough to have a knowledgable athlete as a coach it's probably becuase the guy only has daughters, and with the advent of greater opportunities for girls in sports (good), these guys are now coaching elite girls' teams.

The Boy Scouts is only for kids deemed to be nerds (you know the ones who grow up to be CEOs and POTUS) which is completely ironic, because these nerds are engaging in physical activities that the cool kids can only simulate in virtual reality...of course the Boy Scouts aren't slaughtering hundred of opponents everytime they enter the woods. I can only imagine where the 4H Club resides on the Cool Meter.

Church which was once the center of a community is no longer and the notion of religion is under assault in the popular culture.

Things change, but there are certain, very important things that should and must be preserved, and if some institution, for whatever reason, can't be, then it must be replaced with something that will meet the needs left behind. We seem to be great at destroying instutions but not so much in creating new ones. This be our downfall





izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 12:04 pm
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31960283_2063125524008401_2335455425740144640_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f7b403673ab9f6ffd94b1fd314e16bb4&oe=5B93DED2
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2018 02:23 pm
@izzythepush,
The issue isn't Men's Rights versus Woman's Rights. In truth... there is no reason why you can't have both. The issue is pushing back against the extremes on both sides.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 11:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I wish that those who rightly concern themselves with the problems boys have been facing would recognize that all boys aren't the same. Different boys have different needs.

I don't believe sports are for everyone. Neither do I believe that a boy who has no interest in sports is a deficient "feminized male." Using sport as a phony yardstick of masculinity is ludicrous and dumb. As far as I'm concerned, parents who force their sons to play sports to the point of making their son's lives miserable are guilty of abuse.

The former NFL football player Joe Ehrmann, a minister and high-school coach who is one of the greatest moral leaders of our age, says that simply throwing a ball around doesn't build character, but good coaching does. There has been a problem in some school districts where school athletes are placed on pedestals and are not held accountable for abusing other students. It was certainly true in my district. Notice I did not say the majority of school athletes are abusive. Some are quite opposed to bullying. They're to be commended.

Historically the phys ed establishment has neglected and ignored the health and fitness needs of nonathletic students. Exercise is very important. It can literally save lives. In recent years there has been a movement to reform mandatory P.E. (the excellent program PE4Life, for example), but it seems most people don't care.

I know of what I speak from my own personal experience. I've taken up bodybuilding late in life and have worked with several personal trainers. The difference between my boyhood mandatory P.E. experience and my health club experience is amazing. None of my P.E. classes were taught how to throw a baseball, how to shoot a basketball, or how to toss a football. We weren't even taught the rules of the games. The coaches viewed nonathletic boys with either contempt or indifference. (Other men have told me the same about their own experiences.) When my very last P.E. class came to a merciful end, I was just as physically weak as I was when it started five years before. All I ever learned in mandatory phys ed was to fear athletes and coaches. I get more exercise in a single workout session than I ever did in a year of P.E.

The demeaning of "nerds" is ridiculous and bigoted. (For the record, I never qualified for the honor of being labeled a nerd.) One of the toughest, most resilient men I ever met was not an athlete. (I've been told he failed to make his high school's football team.) He was a white Southern WW2 veteran who became a civil rights attorney in Texas in the mid-1950s. He and members of his family received death threats, but he could not be intimidated. I wonder if Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet physicist who became a leading dissident, ever played sports when he was a boy. After all, he probably was a nerd. Then there's the inspiring example of the Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg, who left the safety of his country to rescue Hungarian Jews from the Holocaust. Repeatedly putting his own life at risk, he saved the lives of thousands of people. (When the Germans had been driven out of Hungary, Wallenburg was abducted by Soviet agents to the notorious Lubianka prison in Moscow, where he likely was tortured and executed on the false charge of being a spy.) Wallenburg had an unimpressive physical presence. He was a slightly built man who, in the words of his half-sister, "detested competitive team sports." His slight build and plain appearance in no way detract from his great courage. Needless to say, most of us (including myself, of course) could not have done what he accomplished. He might have qualified as a nerd. It's amazing to me that in our sports-crazed society, a nonathletic boy is likely to be bullied simply for not having an interest in sports
wmwcjr
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 11:13 am
@wmwcjr,
None of my comments in the post above are intended to be critical of anything Finn said.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 03:16 pm
@wmwcjr,
Strongly agree
wmwcjr
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 03:37 pm
@roger,
Thank you, Roger.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 03:56 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
The demeaning of "nerds" is ridiculous and bigoted. (For the record, I never qualified for the honor of being labeled a nerd.)


You are painting a very one sided story that isn't real. Life is complicated... people are rarely either all good or all bad.

Consider the people, mostly men, behind today's internet technology. These people are undeniably brilliant; they built languages, and platforms. Many of them huddled for years to build new technologies that have made social changes (including P2P, onion routing and bit coin).

These are the true nerds... and you can't argue with their technical success. They are also also prime targets of the current campaigns against misogyny. You hear the term "bro culture", you are likely hearing an attack on nerds.

Life isn't always so simple. And, feminism has not been very supportive of nerd culture.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 06:56 pm
@maxdancona,
I agree.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 07:20 pm
@maxdancona,
I should have known you would show up and post. I was foolish enough to override the ignore function. Not very smart of me, I must admit.

Frankly, I would prefer a visit to the dentist's office to putting up with your attitude of "I'm so wise and superior to everyone else. I can't possibly be wrong about anything."

Most of the comments in my post don't even mention nerds. but you don't address anything else I've said. Not that I'd be interested in what you have to say in your typically snooty, self-righteous manner. You think you know it all, that there isn't anything new you could possibly learn.

By the way, be sure to tell Roger he's wrong, too, for agreeing with me. You gotta be consistent.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 07:41 pm
@wmwcjr,
Really now, You agreed with my opinion until you realized it was from me. And now you are upset? That's kind of asinine. I have no problem with you putting me on ignore; I don't take it personally, But, it seems to me that getting upset based on the person, rather than the post is a little pigheaded.

I apologize if you agree with me sometimes.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 07:46 pm
@wmwcjr,
... and I don't know why you are dragging Roger into this. I like and respect Roger; one of the more thoughtful posters here.

Say what you have to say, but let other people speak for themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 02:27:33