It’s more complicated than that I think.

Like “being nice to people” is transactional. It doesn’t really look at emotional needs. The so called neckbeards think they are being nice… But the issue is that nice is superficial. Nice will get you promotions at your customer service job but it ignores emotional need.

The fact so a contingent is so poisoned by so called “benevolent” sexism is a feature not a bug.

I mean the premise is flawed. The “neckbeards” are not intrinsically unlovable but they are getting duped into being annoying and problematic to people.

When you treat the attention of any kind of people as a status symbol or a commodity to use for bragging rights or prestige for others it’s not exactly fair to the people whom you are essentially using. You see the same principle with famous people. Being in any kind of relationship with someone, even friends, soley because you like what their association does for your image is a jerk thing to do

The people who do the mocking are every bit at fault for being assholes. Only when the person being mocked accepts the assholes premise as true and care about their acceptance do they also become an asshole in turn.

Had an older co-worker who kept saying that Andrew Tate had some real gems and that he was just telling young men to give up videogames and hit the gym if they wanted some self worth.

So one day I looked him dead in the eye and gave him my best impersonation of a 1950’s radio voice and said. " Young ladies if you don’t work on refining and improving your womanly figure with clean living and labourous exercise and not stop wasting your time reading novels then how will you ever expect to catch a husband?!"

I would like to say that I scored a point but he just sputtered and went on being horrible.

I doubt capitalism is quite so dramatically responsible for the specific developments mentioned. While it does create incentives to develop certain technologies faster there were other structures that were developing things like medicines, sciences and so on before capitalism really took off and things like clean drinking water wasn’t really attached to capitalism except for supplying water company data that showed different companies having different death tolls to the people they serviced.

It’s important to put capitalism into context. There are a lot of ills but it’s a beast of different degrees. Someone running a business where they own the factory and equipment and pay employees for labor can be an efficient practice that can exist harmoniously in a fairly stable system and variations of capitalism are actually very old as it doesn’t strictly apply to all privately held property - just off of how labor and investment is structured in some instances. Unchecked it can be a beast that creates abuses.

False dichotomies are currently rampant with things like the philosophy of socialism being seen as anti-capitalist. It’s more accurate to say that socialism is a spectrum of interfacing with capitalism that offers a mixed system. It very rarely and only at it’s farthest end seeks to stamp out every single instance of private business ownership or investment banking. A lot of thought written aince it’s inception shows it’s more dynamic in the variable ways it puts checks on what can be considered privately owned resources. Things like offering protections of varying degrees for labour and managing resources to create public wealth are very much throughlines but total dissolution of private property isn’t really a given of the philosophy. The capitalism/libralism and socialism are often veiwed as diametrically opposed but its more useful to think of them as demi-linked on a scale that can tip from a fairly medium degree of regulated private ownership and capitalist tolerance to very public property and social ownership based structures. But basically it all still looks at resources through the lens of money and statehood existing.

Communism is more strictly anti-capitalist as it veiws all aspects of private property rights, businesses ownership, investment banking and even currency as things to move beyond. Things capitalism requires to function.

Individual property rights aren’t strictly capitalism based. A lot of our modern issues are bases around free market ideas but that is more traceable to the ideas of high individual property focused libralism… Which also isn’t historically all bad. At one point libralism was key to creating a more secular society based less off of privileges of patrelinieal titles… But left unchecked it creates a very misanthropic society that keeps claiming things as personal property which were once collective resources, pushing colonialism and creating new power structures just based off different metrics.

It’s important I think to retain a good solid idea of where the boundaries of different ideological sources and their historical precedents actually are and not nessisarily be too quick to state one or the other is all bad. The tendency has become that to be considered that ideology every example must be stretched to it’s utter extremes to be considered that ideology. There are shallow ends and deep ends of individual systems.

The history of capitalism in a more general sense is often more responsible for creating incentive to hurrying people to an early grave in the history of predatory patent medicine than it strictly is saving people. A lot of the history of scientific and technological development wasn’t and still isn’t driven strictly by capitalism from a funding and motive standpoint. Public money actually underlies a lot more of the significant developments… But capitalism does have a habit of driving underlying resource chains and more or less the profit driven arm of distribution - which while efficient generally causes a lot of social problems and damages.

Religion also is also not really connected directly with capitalism any more than anything else is. You can very easily have a theocratic capitalist society and generally speaking that was the norm for the early history of capitalism.

Not the op but a medieval history nerd all the same.

Monasteries actually were kind of technological powerhouses in their day. Cistercians for instance transmitted technologies, forging techniques, farming and cultivation advances and medical knowledge across Europe because basically you had a sort of “franchise” where every church they made was built and run to a regimented standard. They had the study of latin and a sort of sign language that meant travelling monks could all understand each other and since travel was fairly dangerous and rare it facilitated the transmission of scientific and philosophical thought.

It was fairly common for monasteries to provide state of the art medical care for their time which was actually fairly sophisticated in basic exchange for experimentation, the honing and propagating the research. You see the lingering effect of this in our languages. Clock comes from the word for “bells” because the mechanisms were developed originally to automatically ring the tower bells at the monestaries. Gutenberg likely got his early education in the hopes of pursuing a religious career and yhe printing press was originally to copy bibles. Latin is so entangled with modern science because those systems have their origins in monastic studies that veiwed the study of “natural philosophy” as a sort of religious observance of God’s creation.

Similar situations were actually happening in parallel in other places. Religions of various sorts held a very “glue of logistical and technological ties” role in the past. Like the Muslim faith was very key in the developments of maths. Astronomy, medicine, metalworking, farming, the skills required to produce art…you track these developments in the religious temple structures of the Aztecs, Buddhists , Taoists, the Babaloynians, Greek and Romans, Egyptians and so on. Secularism taking over that role is actually all told a very new development in the grand scheme.

Have you ever tried to create an event that competes with the structures of other established events? Because it is exhausting and more likely to fail than succeed. People who compete in competition level events have to meter what money they spend to travel and a lot of the rigid rules of competition sport means of you don’t make one event you basically lose your ability to compete.

This whole “uh but it’s your problem to solve” attitude ignores the fact that to run and set up a competitive league you need a lot of people to sacrifice all the time they would be competing and participating to become full time event organizers and just hope against hope that other athletes will potentially sacrifice a portion of their travel funds and squeeze time out of their schedules to participate in a league that will offer no widespread accepted accolades for decades after it’s establishment.

And no, there isn’t that many events where trans people can participate. Even a lot of sports that do not have a sex based advantage have exclusive policies or total bans. Even in the ones that nominally allow trans people to participate there’s catch 22 clauses that place limitations that the organizations know sound inclusive on their face but make it nigh impossible for all but the athletes with extreme mental fortitude and can check a very narrow window of boxes to theoretically participate. Particularly in amateur and community and school related competition spaces oftentimes trans people are just seen as a logistical problem that it’s easier to just create bans for or allow other participants to drive them forcefully out by offering offer no protections against transphobic complaints.

What a lot of the problem is is that trans issues are not very well understood by the cis population at large. It’s very easy to dupe cis people into thinking something that isn’t explicitly a total ban because when you do not understand the actual psychological challenges of being trans you do not really understand when the barriers are solid. Like if you think “oh a trans person being forced to complete in the category of their birth sex until the age of 18” isn’t basically a complete way to eliminate participation of trans people in the sport - then you are missing some key knowledge about the intersection of transition physiology or key psychological and social factors.

A rule like that means first damn near no athlete will have the mental fortitude to make it that far and no scout will ever select them because either an early transition required for them to continue as an adult will eliminate them from competition between the ages of 16-18 or in the case of a masculinizing transition make it seem as though their advantage is unfair driving them to be eliminated via social prejudice.

“Oh just make your own competitions” ignores that sport is regimented as fuck and people who do sport do so at personal cost. People who do sport don’t do so out of the generosity of their own hearts. It just isn’t that easy. It’s literally easier to change the regulations of what pre-exista because otherwise you basically are just in exile from the community of the wider sport.

Problem being is currently transgender people have less formalized options to participate in the field of sport than people with disabilities at this point where body types are way more variable. Imagine if you will a situation where no Smash competition, will allow you to ever pick up a controller because you are you… and you are getting closer to the issue as it exists.

At some point there exists a civil rights case that asks if a class of people are being allowed to reasonably participate in an aspect of society. Sports governing bodies at a National level require the sign on of a lot of people and it requires a lot of money to create a National level federation from scratch.

To believe “conservative” branded political parties are conflated with the English connotations of the word is quite frankly falling for propaganda at this point. Politically speaking “conservative” has a unique meaning that has nothing really to do with financial prudence or slow and measured progress. What they seek to “conserve” is old power structures. Heirachies founded on intergenerational wealth or old exclusionary policy that created privileged citizen classes. Sometimes they dress it up in the mask of “traditional values” but it’s all basically just smoke and mirrors. It’s why they attack inclusive policy, civil rights fights including education policies, social safety nets and tax policies that target wealthier citizens. They have to “conserve” the pecking order where old money remains uncontested power, new money casts the illusion that upward mobility it possible and nobody is allowed to mention that they are being treated as a second class citizen.

The idea of self branding yourself a “conservative” serves by flattering ones own ego because as a label it’s primed to make one feel reasonable and measured… But. It’s just fluff.

Yeah… Is pushing 40 considered young now or do I have to be fucking senile before I count? Take your paternalistic shit and cram it right back up your ass where it came from.

Point of clarification. 2S is “Two Spirit” not “two soul” I think your autocorrect got away from you.

Honey. We know our shit and we often know it young. I had to go through puberty knowing as I was experiencing it every moment was taking me further and further into a body horror I knew I would never come to terms with. Other trans people my age are very much the same and you know what? A lot of us live with deep lifelong regrets knowing that we have less options to travel the world or exist comfortably in public because of that puberty we knew bone deep right from the get go we never wanted.

Being trans isn’t subtle. It screams at you, gnaws at your insides how wrong everything is. Particularly when pre-puberty you are able to perfectly pass… And then every minute puberty slowly takes that away from you by inches like a slow bleeding wound until you ache to have what you know you will never effortlessly experience again.

Ignorance fucking doomed me. Yours will do nothing but doom others.

Dude, you want to know what’s it’s like to be a woman or a gender non-conforming person in trades lemme tell you. It doesn’t matter how good you are at your job 3/4 of the crews out there won’t hire you because they are afraid the other guys on site are gunna cause a sexual harassment claim so instead of them dealing with the potential of you pursuing mediation for harassment or heaven forbid acting like a boss and telling people to fix their shit attitudes they just don’t hire you. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never even filed a claim.

Yup “mens” jobs are more dangerous and “men” are expendable… Because when you don’t fucking fix your shit they stay “mens” jobs. You wanna whine about something whine about how so many bosses take the path of least resistance and don’t make things better long term.

I have been privy to people’s reactions to watching videos, even grainy distorted ones of executions or accidental death. While adults are generally fairly innocculated against depictions of death that are known to be fictional the same is not true of the real thing. There is good reason why even barely legible death caught on film is aired on news broadcasts with warnings and particularly graphic ones are not broadcast at all. While I think I sit somewhere on the less effected side (effected but very good at compartmentalization) a lot of the people I have personally witnessed veiw footage have been generally very perturbed to the point where the mental disquiet lingers for days after the fact.

Young children are generally perturbed by depictions of theatrical or even loosely conceptualized death in print. While some might seem brave in the face of fictional gore it’s basically just playing brave and flouting their idea of being tough when what they are being tough against is a safe little fiction. People who like slasher movies aren’t immune to being traumatically impacted when exposed to real death on film.

I find it very telling that there is this mental disconnect that children being “exposed” to the depictions of same sex relationships which are often depicted in the same chaste presentation heterosexual relationships are for age appropriate audiences is somehow “disturbing” while something legitimately traumatizing to the average adult is somehow something kids should be exposed to in the most graphic way possible.

I don’t think this man should be permitted to be around children much less advocate for what constitutes an initiation into adulthood.