Raze

I would say yes, however he discounts that men or the masculine is more evolved in its own opposite way. For example, while women seem more present and in flow naturally, men tend to be more minimalistic and focused than women and less wrapped in their thoughts.

No they didn’t. The UN said they confirmed 1.3K civilians killed but suspected thousands more were killed. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/high-commissioner-updates-human-rights-council-mariupol-ukraine And the count does include Russian occupied territories https://ukraine.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/Ukraine - protection of civilians in armed conflict (July 2025)_ENG.pdf Also, the Gaza death count is also an undercount by close to 40% according to independent analysis This is false and not the explanation for the high casualties. Israel isn’t targeting Hamas within civilian infrastructure, it is purposefully destroying civilian infrastructure. They destroyed 90% of residential buildings, that’s not “targeting Hamas”. Israel has provided no evidence hamas was forcing civilians to stay in war zones. We have seen clips of hamas fighting and they are usually hiding in tunnels and rubble. idf admitted they purposefully wait for Hamas to leave combat and use AI to strike them in civilian infrastructure. Infact IDF soldiers even testified to media they are being forced to use civilian Palestinians as human shields and are firing on unarmed civilians carrying white flags. Israel has also repeatedly dropped massive 2000 lb bombs where it told civilians to flee. One former US official admitted to 60 minutes israel dropped a bomb to destroy a tunnel killing 70 civilians when they weren’t even targeting a combatant. They also shot and killed nearly 2,000 unarmed civilians seeking aid This is false. The average civilian to combatant ratio is 1 to 1, in the US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq it was 3-5 combatants per civilian killed. For comparison, in Syria 70% of all killed were combat aged men, and it’s believed the ratio there was 2-3 civilians killed per combatant. Which was horrible and considered one of the worst in recent history. In Gaza, 45% of all killed were combat aged men, the majority killed are elderly men, women, and children. Israel’s ratio is much worse than the Syrian civil war ratio, which was already a crime against humanity. Israel is engaging in a campaign to eradicate the Palestinian people as seen by how they publicly declare they plan to make Gaza unlivable and expel them multiple times, and have used starvation as a weapon and destroyed every school and almost every hospital. Ethnic cleansing is part of an extermination of the population. Israels own former minister of defense and former prime minister have admitted they are doing ethnic cleansing and extermination.

Israel has killed more children in Gaza in 1.5 years than all Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia in 3 years. This is despite Ukraine having a population of 40 million compared to Gazas 2 million. I’m not saying Russia never targets civilians, but the difference is with Israel it is a matter of policy and far more wide spread. Russia isn’t exterminating Ukrainians, it does want to destroy Ukrainian identity, like I said they want to absorb Ukrainians into Russia and make them Russian. Israel wants to actually exterminate the Palestinians and either kill them all or make them all leave. As a comparison, Russia took in 1.3 million Ukrainians fleeing and is trying to get more, Israel has not taken in any Palestinians and is infact to expel others in the West Bank.

Yes, because it specifies women for womens issues. This is emblematic of their refusal to speak to men in a meaningful way as they won’t even acknowledge mens issues. They made ads for men and it was just about how men should vote for Kamala to help women.

And the problem is the word “or”, you can read that and mark you were simply because you were drunk or high.

It’s not right, but it is a lesser crime. Russia isn’t en masse targeting civilians like Israel, and Russia is trying to annex Ukraine and make Ukrainians Russian. Israel is trying to exterminate Palestinians.

You can be drunk or high and still be able to consent if you aren’t incapacitated.

The democrats had a page on who they serve and list every single demographic except for men. If you aren’t interested in telling men how you’ll help them, don’t be shocked when they don’t vote for you.

Completely reasonable point. This survey is biased to have many people who had consensual sex while drunk or high to mark themselves as being raped when they aren’t.

You were discussing Rogan. Also a tiktok account is not the same as a podcast. Theo has 7.8 million followers on Tiktok and 4.2 million on YouTube, and a similar amount of listeners on Spotify and apple podcasts. Refusing an opportunity to directly campaign to millions of men is an aspect of why they are alienated from the party. This is a very simple thing to understand and if you can’t comprehend it, it’s on you.

original authors admit it is misleading: https://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/ A debunking on how it’s actually still more misleading than even they claim: https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Also, Kamala dismissing someone for lack of integrity is priceless. She’s openly lied multiple times such as lying about Biden effecting her school to accuse him of being racist only to endorse him later, accepted campaign bribes, and campaigned with Liz Cheney. She has no integrity.

No. They don’t. It doesn’t matter what you consider legitimate, what matters is what people watch. Again, even her own campaign staff admitted not going on was a mistake. I don’t know why you are defending the failed moves of a failed campaign when even her own staff isn’t.

The 1 in 5 statistic was debunked long ago and even the original researchers backtracked on it and claimed it doesn’t represent 1 in 5 women are raped. Ironically this is an example of an actual attack on men from the same crowd pushing the toxic masculinity narrative, a misleading statistic used to spread panic and villanize men. What are you even saying? Stop making incoherent statements. It was already legitimized, they get hundreds of millions of views. Kamala not going on unlegitimized her for millions of peoplw who get news from them. She needed them, they didn’t need her. This is quite a silly argument. The point of a politician campaigning is to get your message heard particularly by people on the fence or those who disagree with you. Democrat candidates regularly do interviews at Fox News. It’s especially ridiculous to still say this after Kamala lost. This would be an example of why her campaign was bad. Maybe I can understand it if you’re well in the lead, but they were neck to neck according to polls yet she ignored an opportunity to get hours of interrupted campaigning in the eyes of literally hundreds of millions of people, mostly independent young men the demographic she struggled with. I believe even her own campaign staff admitted it was a mistake.

It’s still ridiculous to say young men shifting right had nothing to do with the absolute disaster of messaging from the left. Young men have been seeing a non stop stream of men suck and male shaming from the same crowd that then demanded they vote democrat while democrats consistently refuse to say they’ll do anything for young men. Obviously that will have an effect.

That’s ridiculously wrong. The podcasts were Theo Von, Lex Fridman, and Joe Rogan. They are extremely soft interviewers who rarely get aggressive with guests let alone grill them. They interviewed multiple democrats and didn’t do that. Kamala not going on was beyond stupid. She literally said no to hundreds of millions of views in free media primarily with a demographic that had seen her message the least, young men.

Every one of those podcasts said they invited Kamala and she refused. This is what I mean when I say they didn’t move because they were targeted, they moved because they were pushed away by democrats, Kamala not attempting to reach out isn’t trump targeting them. Other democrats did go on them later and it went fine. Bernie Sanders went on them.

That’s not a funding effort specifically targeting young men. That is a media outlet. If just having a media outlet is brainwashing young men you can say democrats are brainwashing young women through left wing outlets like MSNBC. There was a recent effort on the right to court young men but it was small relatively and only after young men already started shifting right. It was basically just Josh Hawley. Democrats courting young women however was a much larger campaign for longer. See the women’s march. BTW, the democrats also recently invested in a campaign to court young men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGom598qGrU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7BXI0odxP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LQLXt476o

Then why did young men vote democrat in 2020 at the margins young women voted democrat in 2024?

More billionaires backed Kamala Harris than Trump. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/ That is false, there is a large network of left and center left media outlets

That’s ridiculous as young men shifted to the right, they didn’t suddenly become less mature. They are also shifting away from the right now. What actually happened is democrats alienated them with rhetoric so they moved right, but the right didn’t really serve them so they moved back to dem or went undecided. No they didn’t, there was no large scale funded effort by republicans to try and court young men. Men shifted there as democrats alienated them with rhetoric and republicans became popular on some alt media platforms democrats (purposefully) avoided. The rest of your comment is so stupid it doesn’t merit a response.

- None of this conflicts with the idea the left is partially responsible for a radicalization of the right. You mention reactionaries, they are reacting to something. You may say that it’s just exposing the development that was already there, but it’s still a radicalization. One example is how some communities become more racist as they go from being racially homogenous to having a significant minority, because now they see them as a significant force of outsiders as opposed to not a big deal. - We can even see this in polls with how opinions on things like immigration or gay marriage shifted to the right. (Though I think immigration shifted back recently) - Maybe genuine Green doesn’t demonize masculinity, but large swaths of the left who are enabled by stage green people clearly do. Even some feminist authors have acknowledged the term toxic masculinity is used by many to insult men, even if they claim that wasn’t the original intention.

You’re ignoring multiple left leaning millionaires and billionaires. George Soros for example has given hundreds of millions to left wing causes. There are even democrat politicians in office with hundreds of millions or even billions in net worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4EX40al2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REiKHCZpU6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7ghrUIiyzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsFHvXk4w4E https://www.girlschase.com/content/how-make-friends-master-key-new-friendships