Bombadil
1mo ago
This is a discussion about whether society has betrayed men. Talking about the majority of men then is the point.
Bombadil
1mo ago
You link to the middle of a dragonball Z clip that has nothing to do with the rest of your argument.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Regarding socioeconomic mobility, my point was that many structural barriers to social mobility have been removed. You are not going to be denied a job or degree based on family name, and if you don't have the money required to get an education you can borrow them. Just make sure that you get a degree that will enable you to pay it back.
There are absolutely psychological issues that make climbing hard. Your bad decisions can absolutely come back to haunt you too. And like your link to the Star Trek quote says, success is never guaranteed. But it is certainly more possible now than at most other times in recorded history.
Considering what I am arguing against is that society has betrayed men, I think the point that "structural barriers to social mobility for young men have been reduced drastically over time" is a good data point to support my point.
It is not just technological and economic advancement. Liberal democracy, belief in meritocracy, and free-market capitalism gives you opportunities that only people with preexisting wealth and influence would otherwise be able to attain.
The fact that these are under attack is a problem, but their advantages are very much not nullified yet.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Yeah, I would agree with this for any western country. Assuming you are an able-bodied citizen, while there may be unfair structural disadvantages against you, there is currently no structural oppression so bad that it is impossible for you to get ahead.
Bombadil
1mo ago
You are making a lot of assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with.
- That life on the frontier was freer than life today. That may have been true for some people in the sense that they were subject to fewer regulations than modern citizens. It does not seem true regarding how many different options people have in terms of lifestyle and career path today. You can specialize in so many different professions that just did not exist back then. Modern citizens also seem to have more opportunities to recover from mistakes. A lot of things that just killed you back then can be treated today, which gives modern men more opportunities to recover after making mistakes. This seems very significant to me.
- That the majority of people on the frontier lived under freedom from rules and regulations. Given that many people on the frontier were soldiers living under a strict hierarchy, this seems doubtful to me. You are also clearly not counting Native American tribes in with the free citizens, since they saw their freedoms vastly diminished as they were slowly conquered by the colonists.
- That for 300 years, the majority of Americans lived the frontier life. But by definition, the frontier is the edge of civilization where few people lived. this map shows the frontier line as the point where population density dramatically drops. Over time, areas that were once the frontier transformed into governed cities. So you are really pointing to a small minority of people when arguing about how society has betrayed the majority of men overall.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The frontier of exploring the US only happened for a very short time. Maybe if you go back to the times before agriculture, you will see men be mostly well respected as members of their tribes. But for most of recorded history it seems clear to me, that the majority of men lived under conditions that would be considered borderline slavery in today's terms, essentially being forced to fulfill whatever role they happened to be born into.
I do think it is important to have some perspective here. Individuals, men included, have never been freer. Mandatory conscription has declined since the cold war, education and knowledge is accessible to everyone, and outside of the big cities it is possible to live very cheaply as long as you don't mind having very few material possessions. No job can turn you into a wage slave. You are free to save up, quit, and live your life as you please. Wages are high enough that a single man with good financial sense can build savings over time.
Social mobility has never been easier. No longer are you bound to the same job that your father had. If you are born smart and driven, but low class, you are free to get an education, build connections at university and create a better life for yourself and your children. The social roles of gender and class have eroded, giving you more opportunities than ever before.
Male dominated jobs have never been safer. You are not going to die at 60 because your lungs were destroyed from inhaling dust at the factory. The western world has tons of regulations concerning ventilation, overtime, how much you are allowed to carry at once and so forth. If you do get an injury, modern medicine gives you better odds of recovery than your forefathers could have even dreamed of.
If you do initially fail to create a good life for yourself there are social safety nets that can catch you and potentially allow you to start over and learn from your mistakes. The strength of these depend on your country, but at the very least you are not going to starve.
A man who takes ownership of his life, builds an understanding of the world he lives in, and takes the initiative to improve his station has better chances than basically any man who came before him. The issue of course, is that young men are not raised to do this.
Where I agree with you is that society lies to young men. We are raised to be obedient and easy to manage, then bombarded with messages of how we are the cause of every problem in the world. We are taught to expend considerable effort on providing for minorities (anyone who isn't a white man) due to notions of guilt and fairness. Young men are taught to play it safe, avoid risks, and do only as others tell them. This completely fails to prepare them for a world that actually rewards risk taking, courage, independent thinking, and initiative.
Then, of course, there is the whole dating thing, where men are lied to about women want for their entire childhood, only to be ridiculed as adults for failing to attract any.
I do see problems, but overall I think your message can only hold true for men born into high social status. Historically, the majority of men have been largely considered as cheap disposable labor, and have led extremely harsh and thankless lives. For those, the current world by far outclasses what we had a hundred years ago. It isn't even close.
Bombadil
1mo ago
That, I suppose, is an issue I did not consider.
I don't see much point if age verification is only implemented on a country by country basis. That way we still get the foreign interference and inflammatory trolls that just spin up a new account. The worst of both worlds really.
Although if the argument for it is mainly "we need to protect the children against Andrew Tate", then I could maybe see European governments doing it this way regardless.
The push for ID verification does seem to be happening in every western country at basically the same time though. So if it does go through, I have some hope that it will at least be a global thing.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Moderators don't need to see the ID to ban it. Only the website does. Assuming ID is mandatory, then the website would have to be able to see it in order to verify the user is old enough. The moderators would send a request for the website to ban the ID of the user. The rest is automated.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Sure, I agree that the surveillance aspect is a major point against ID verification, but the poster I responded to was asking how this would help combat bots.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Last I checked, most moderators were volunteers. Even Reddit, huge as it is, is still largely community driven. If a moderation team has an anti-bot stance, then I would expect the place run by that team to contain significantly less bots once ID-bans become available.
Bombadil
1mo ago
If every user is tied to a real-person ID, then that would be true for bots as well. Since there is a finite amount of ID's, it would be impossible to just spin up a new bot once one gets banned; At some point you run out of ID's to use.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I tend to find lingerie to be much more sexualising than just complete nudity. A body is in the end just a body. But with the right clothes you signal that it is a sex object.
So I would oppose your statement and assert that 100% nudity is not the end point. Clothes and makeup that deliberately try to show off and sexualise are, and we still have a long way to go on that front.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The useful insight is that throwing money at parents clearly doesn't seem to work, so let us do something else. That starts by figuring out why people are actually not having kids. Whenever I speak to other young people about parenting, they usually give one of the following reasons:
- Lack of ability to raise a child. This is less related to money and more so to basic parental skills. Patience, the willingness to consistently prioritize the baby above yourself, the ability to keep your home clean and baby safe, and so on. Usually this is from people aged 22 and below.
- It will get in the way of my career or keep me from doing all the things I want to do when I am still young (travelling, partying, etc.). This one is usually from people in their mid twenties and above. They may want children, but not before at least finishing their studies and getting started on their careers. Of course, this just kicks the can down the road, as children are also detrimental to your career progression, and you probably won't have finished your bucket list upon hitting your thirties.
Clearly, these issues are not about money. The problem is that raising a child takes time and energy that could have otherwise been spent on living the young adult dream of getting a degree and otherwise living a carefree life in your twenties. Unless you want to give every young family a full-time maid, or have the government adopt the newborn baby in exchange for a pile of cash, then you are not going to solve this by throwing money at people.
When parenthood is seen as a side objective at best, and at worst a straight up hindrance to your own happiness/fulfillment, then of course birth rates are going to fall. I don't see a solution that doesn't involve changing the narrative.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The safety nets still exist. Maybe they do have some effect. It makes sense that people wouldn't want children without the means to properly care for them. However, if money was the main reason then fertility rates in Scandinavia would not be as low as they are since the safety nets still exist.
I don't believe economy is at all important regarding fertility rate compared to culture.
The Scandinavian countries generally do well on the economic side. Having a child is very doable for most couples and is not going to ruin your life. Provided that you are reasonably good with budgeting, even full-time students with no savings can provide a good childhood for their kids due to various government subsidies.
Yet looking at the stats, the Scandinavian fertility rates have declined alongside everyone else, never looking particularly impressive compared to others in the EU.. If it was true that people would be having kids if only they were not such an economic burden, then we might expect falling fertility rates in countries like the US and China. But Scandinavia, with their immense social safety nets, ought to be booming. Yet there is seemingly no effect.
What has spread basically all over the EU is a narrative of self-actualization and viewing children and family formation as something that keeps you from living your life to the fullest. If you want to travel or build a career you must do so before having kids. This is notably not actually true. As I wrote above, the Scandinavian nations are prime examples of career-building while having kids being possible. But it is what most students believe, and so is ultimately what guides their decision making.
Then you have dating norms on top. American norms have been successfully imported here, which means that long term relationships too are increasingly seen as sacrifices by young people that will prevent them from living the ideal lifestyle of partying, travelling, and hooking up. Dating is superficial, exclusivity cannot be assumed without explicit negotiation, people are increasingly scared of committing to a relationship, and gen Z spends less time in third spaces than any before generation prior, making it difficult to build organic connections.
So while it may well be true that money could be allocated more efficiently by giving a larger share to young parents, I doubt that it would help fertility much. What we need is to change the narratives around children, families, and growing up.
The hedonistic single lifestyle needs to be seen as an unfulfilling treadmill. Raising your children needs to be regarded as a path to self fulfillment on its own. Building a life with someone you love needs to be a goal that is prioritized by young people. The more these are seen as sacrifices that will limit your life, the less people are going to choose them. We need family-formation and child rearing to be perceived as viable paths towards happiness and fulfillment. Right now they just aren't, and so there is no way any government is willing (or capable) of paying enough money for young people to do what amounts to giving up on their dreams for the sake of society.
I wonder how rich Musk actually is compared to rich men of the past. His company is valued at a trillion dollars yes, but only for as long as there exists buyers for the shares at their current prices. If he attempted to liquidate everything, I highly doubt he would actually end up with a trillion dollars in his bank account. He could borrow against his shares, but good luck borrowing anywhere near a trillion dollars. In other words, I would argue that his ability to convert his valuation into actual goods and services is more limited than what one would expect upon hearing the headlines.
In terms of the resources he owns and controls, he is surely far wealthier than most, but I wonder how he actually stacks up. Does he own land? Private islands? Buildings?
He does own spacex of course. Multiple rockets, Twitter, Grok, and Starlink. Notably, these companies do not contain assets that are anywhere near being worth a trillion. That is what the IPO is for in the first place. To gather the capital necessary in order to expand and grow to the point where the valuation is justified. Besides, to what extent does he actually control the assets of these companies? He is subject to government regulation. He can't just launch satellites whenever he pleases. He changes Grok based on public backlash.
Certainly, the man is obscenely rich and powerful compared to the average person, but I don't believe that the trillionaire title matters as much as what people make it out to.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Something artistic is my first thought. Creative writing and painting soothes the soul, but is hard to justify doing as a job.
Professional athlete is good for the physical benefits while being fun and stimulating, although potentially dangerous depending on the sport.
Museum curator would also be really cool. That seems like a good way to be constantly learning new things and getting in touch with interesting people. I like learning and communicating, so I actually think that could suit me pretty well. Just a shame those jobs are so competitive and rare.
Bombadil
1mo ago
According to social media, it seems that several companies have ordered their employees to maximise token usage, thinking that this would launch their company into the future. I don't know about the $500M figure specifically, but it seems entirely plausible that this practice would lead to a ton of money being wasted.
This is a standard case of society having a different set of standards for men and women. Women are liberated beings and can have sex with who they want. Men are dangerous predators until proven otherwise, and must keep their desires in check.
Because women are free, liberated individuals who can choose to use their bodies however they please, sex work is a valid occupation that should not be shamed.
Because men are dangerous and predatory, any man who uses sex workers is the worst kind of person who sees women as merely objects with no agency or value besides the hole between their legs.
Thus, being a sex worker is perfectly valid, although dangerous. Buying the services of a sex worker is one of the worst thing a man can do.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Realpolitik is not the only argument for foreign aid though. There is also the progressive view that those who own a lot should use their possessions to help those who have less. Since the US is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, she has a duty to help poorer nations prosper. If that is the motivation for program, it seems natural that the charities used would mostly share a similar world view.
I think this kind of altruism is a way more common justification among leftist voters than realpolitik. The latter is really just a way to clown on Trump. They want to donate because they believe it is the right thing to do, and would do so even if the benefit to their home country is basically null. Unfortunately, this is easily weaponized by activists. "One dollar is nothing to you, but give it to a family in Africa, and it buys all of them enough water for the entire day". You also see this to a fairly extreme extent in immigration discourse in Europe, where many on the left are more concerned about doing the "right thing" by admitting refugees and immigrants, than they are about the effect this has on their culture and economy.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I'm particularly reminded of USAID disbursements to progressive NGO's worldwide
Regarding this point, I have always been under the impression that NGO's that try to help people in foreign countries receive education, medicine, and emergency aid are progressive in nature. Assuming part of the president's policy is to make the world outside the US a better place by providing foreign aid, it thus follows that most of that money would go to progressive groups. Because by and the majority of charities today lean left.
Is that wrong? Are there solid charities out there which are either apolitical or lean conservative which provide foreign aid, but were neglected by USAID in favor of some kind of nepotism?
Bombadil
2mo ago
My point was that watchers of modern movies and TV-series don't expect the to suspense their disbelief to the same extent as people who go to the theater. Thus, the same tricks that work in a physical theater are unlikely to achieve the same effect on a screen. But thinking about my phrasing, yeah you are right that "true to life" does not hold up to scrutiny.
That is one hell of a chainsmoker.
I consider this a sign of great progress personally. The fact that your trajectory in life is not determined by society the moment that you are born, but is largely down to the qualities you develop and the choices that you make throughout your life, is not something to be taken for granted.
Granted, there is still a strong correlation between lineage and life trajectory. Upbringing matters a lot. But the simple fact that society won't actively stop you from trying to break out of your social class is huge.
More options
Context Copy link