this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
684 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4899 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Nothing helps stop Trump bleeding support from the senior woman demographic quite like a young whippersnapper punching a 70-year-old woman to the ground for her support of Harris.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 99 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Little dummy must’ve been watching Andrew Tate.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 106 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Oh, 100%, society is underestimating the terrible influence Tate, Peterson, and similar grifters are having on men (especially younger men).

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jordan Peterson is really bad because the carnivore diet he promotes would starve the chud’s brain of nutrients.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Peterson is bad because he appeals to lonely blue collar millennial men who, if they had positive male role models or better friends, would have a real chance of being actual decent people.

Tate is bad because he appeals to young men and boys who lack the life experience to know the guy is a loser and a grifter.

My opinion anyway.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The harm I notice Peterson doing is setting back men's mental health movements. A big barrier I run into working in mental health is not having enough male role models either locally in my area or public personalities online who are willing to discuss things like medication and therapy, but also to discuss the important lifestyle changes that have to be made, particularly in terms of healthy relationships. A big part of men's mental health needs to be men supporting men instead of competing for women to then use as their sole emotional support. In addition to placing an unfair burden on women, it's just frankly a burden that can't and ultimately won't be carried, leaving men with inadequate support when there's a better solution to be had. Instead you have peterson (and others, but Peterson has a fancy psych degree to hide his bullshit behind) perpetuating these antiquated ideas that men should be competing with each other. Men deserve better.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

You know what there's no one really doing, or not anyone that young men are following?

Someone telling them they'll have more prospects if they just make female friends. Not friends that they expect to one day fuck, just friends that are women. So they know how to talk to women and treat them like human beings.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 8 points 21 hours ago

I run into troubled young men a lot, unfortunately. I was raised female so I often lack the context to truly empathize with their life experiences, and I'm really hurting for coworkers to consult who can.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

They should be watching/listening to Healthy Gamer