@Tintin's banner p

Tintin


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 February 15 14:38:09 UTC

				

User ID: 3536

Tintin


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 February 15 14:38:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3536

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but I seem to remember either you being part russian, or else you have a chomskyite view of russia as soviet union which you fondly remember as a noble altruistic project that was sadly misunderstood by the ungrateful eastern europeans who didn‘t like it.

I don‘t see how anyone else in europe can look at russia‘s behaviour these past 5 years, nay 20, nay 100, nay 300 years, and not see a threat. The unhelpful behaviour of ukraine and the baltics towards germany you highlight is motivated by one thing only : an extreme fear of russia (shared by finland, and every close neighbour of russia).

Germany, being too far away and too strong, has for now avoided russia‘s threats, but it still has eyes and ears, and it has no desire to become russia‘s neighbour and feel what those countries feel.

I don't see the Russians having done anything that could be fairly interpreted as rejecting a German offer to be Germany's gas station

I was expecting russia to stop warring against its neighbours. It‘s not some obscure demand russia inadvertently missed. Russia keeps acting against Germany‘s expressed will. No argument can be construed where those wars are in line with germany‘s interests. Even a 19th century diplomat would have threatened war in retaliation: ‚you want abkhazia/donbas. What do we get for staying neutral?‘.

The shared interest is an anti-russian alliance. Assuming americans withdraw from europe, why would western europe give up eastern europe to russia? It would be feeding the bear. Germany gave russia the chance to be a gas station, and they threw our generous offer in our face. So cold war it is. Obviously poland et al are very eager for the alliance because only we offer sovereignty. And for us, an excellent meat shield against russian aggression, should it come to that.

From an extreme minority position like Men‘s rights, which I think you and I share, I am wary of declaring anyone an enemy who has not made his position crystal clear. For example, naive, ill-informed feminists who think feminism just means equality. It‘s only after they‘ve understood the tension, the tradeoff between academic feminism and fairness for men, that they can be separated into our opponents and our allies.

The defining feature of feminism is its inability to blame women for anything, even 1% of what they blame men for. It‘s 0%, always. Husband cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Wife cheats: it‘s because he‘s an asshole. Etc. Drinker does sometimes criticize female behaviour, female characters, like the admiral holdo video. So he at least avoids the worst in female hypoagency (hyper-hypoagency?).

I don‘t think there is enough evidence to say he supports the unilateral upholding of gender roles. Despite being critical of gender roles, especially the way they are performed now, I‘m quite fond of masculinity myself, and I sometimes criticize men for their lack of courage in gendered terms. But then I also criticize women. Frankly, much more.

Why do you default to ‚admonish everyone‘ when ‚no one‚ is the much more logical choice? Moderation is more likely to hit the left-wing minority. Not because of mod bias, but because the mob will :

  • pick dozens of high hostility fights

  • report any opposing comment when the fight inevitably devolves

  • mass complain and argue against mod action against their side, and for banning the other guy

Then they both get banned, fair enough. So no more left-wingers left, but for the mob, plenty more where their guy came from.

As to the original beef, „Source?“ demands should be protected as always legitimate. „Source?“ is what keeps discussions casual and factual. Without „Source?“, we‘d have to provide sources all the time for everything.

In drinker‘s defense, he‘s a film critic, not a political analyst, and sometimes you don‘t like a character. You can think that an irritating, sniveling, weak man is responsible for his wife‘s infidelity and his family‘s downfall without making it about all men.

I‘d go further: as a film critic, you have to go along with the world presented in the film, especially if it conforms to reality: and the husband would indeed be expected to be the protector of the family. It‘s not drinker‘s role to go MRA SJW and rant against the ways of the world.

Additionally, he notes that the assertiveness the husband lacks has been ‚bred out‘ of men – imo he is more highlighting the contradictory demands society places on men, than blaming them for their failure to fulfill them.