something_else

I usually agree with your points, but I think this one is being overthought a bit. It very clearly is a pipeline, and it disproportionately affects vulnerable kids. In particular, I think this is where the framing goes off: I don’t think that implication is there at all. What’s actually happening is much simpler. Young boys, often in the 8–16 range, are being pulled into algorithm-driven content loops that progressively normalise these ideas. At that age, their ability to critically evaluate what they’re seeing is limited. It’s not that they have zero agency, but their ability to make an informed choice is heavily constrained. It’s very similar to how young girls are influenced into makeup and beauty standards early on. We don’t describe that as a fully independent “choice” because it clearly isn’t. The same dynamic exists here, just in a different direction. As they get older, I agree more with your point. At some stage, people are responsible for their views and actions. But early exposure matters, and it’s exactly why this content targets younger audiences so aggressively. Not directly, but it plays a role. Isolation reduces social feedback, which makes it harder to develop empathy and calibrate behaviour. That doesn’t excuse anything, but it does increase the risk of someone adopting unhealthy views. Because, in many cases, it’s upstream of the problem. A lot of harm towards women ultimately comes from men who have developed unhealthy views early on. If the goal is to reduce that harm, then creating healthier men isn’t excusing behaviour, it’s addressing the root cause.

Yea, exactly.

People here are being harsh on you. You do not need to completely sacrifice your authentic sensitive self to be attractive to woman. I actually respect how open you are about yourself, it is a very masculine trait to fully express yourself as you are without hiding anything and without giving much of a fuck about what people think. Being sensitive and emotionally aware is a massive asset when combined with other indicators of masculine strength. This BS that no women like sensitive men is an idea you have been programmed with by pickup. Many women like sensitive and emotionally intelligent men (just look at the lead male characters in romcoms, usually they are very emotionally intelligent) but you do also need to be confident, strong, and socially capable on top of that as well. Emotionally aware but shy/awkward dude < Confident asshole < Confident emotionally aware dude But also be selective about the woman you go after as well. The (for lack of a better term) basic girls are more likely to go after the asshole archetypes. Smarter girls with a bit more depth, college educated women etc. will all absolutely love you for being in touch with your emotional side.

Yea, it's pretty insane how good it is at coding. It does still make incredibly stupid decisions sometimes and definitely still needs human direction and oversight. But overall it has completely changed how I work as a software engineer.

Pretty scary. Seems Anthropic are going about it the right way though.

I'm painfully sensitive to weed, to the point where I simply don't understand how people smoke it and go about their normal lives. When I've been out partying on nights out and somebody offers me some, if I have even a tiny draw I will be completely fucked for the rest of the night. Yet some people seem to smoke an entire joint and have a great time. It just makes me go completely non-verbal. It's great as a psychedelic taken on my own at home, but the way I see most people use it does not work for me at all.

The counter-example is that there are some butt-fuck ugly billionaires out there. In fact none of the world's top 10 richest people are particularly good looking. I don't think anybody denies that being good looking helps you a lot in life, but stating that success in life is entirely dependent on how you look is categorically wrong.

Go to South East Asia without much of a plan and just wing it. It's hard to get it wrong. Stay in hostels, and make sure you go to at least Thailand and Vietnam. But every country there is amazing.

Yea, I do get that. It helps if you get into the habit of taking photos of your life a bit more regularly, not just specifically for online dating

I've posted this in a few online dating threads, but if you need a rough template to follow for a solid dating profile here is my advice for building a solid profile:

I don’t think the redpill vs incel distinction really ultimately matters here. That 'redpill' framing seems to come more from the guy in the video than the actual legislation. From what I’ve seen, the law is aimed at content that’s explicitly misogynistic, promotes male superiority, or incites harm towards women, which is a much more reasonable and enforceable target. I also don’t think this is some conspiracy against men from the Brazilian government. There are legitimate concerns about what happens when large numbers of young boys are exposed to and shaped by these kinds of ideas. We’re probably still early in terms of seeing the long-term effects. Even when it doesn’t lead directly to violence, it can still drive more hostility and resentment towards women, which isn’t exactly a desirable outcome. Again, I don't think this is actually what the brazillian govt. did. It seems like their goal was preventing the spread of violent / misogynistic content. Yeah, different orgs use different definitions. I don’t really see it as a big deal though. We already break homicide down into categories when there are clear patterns (gang violence, terrorism, domestic abuse etc), this is just another example of that. From what I can see, the term is mainly used in two ways: women killed by partners or family women killed explicitly because they’re women The second one is obviously a distinct category. The first also makes sense to track, because even if men are killed more overall, women’s risk is much more concentrated in intimate and family contexts (around 50–60% vs ~15% for men).

I'm not 100% sure that's the case, but even assuming that it is, at a bear minimum it fosters hostility between the genders. Especially when consumed by 12 year old boys in school who don't have the critical thinking or life experience to question the content they consume online. It isn't a huge leap to see how that could lead to women being hurt or even killed in extreme cases, especially as this kind of content gets more prevalent. In the context of this video about criminalising redpill, I suspect 'redpill' is being used as an umbrella term for all of the manosphere content including incel / blackpill. Differentiating between all of these terms is hard, the lines are blurry. At a high level they are all in the same vein and produce similar end results. It has an objectively distinct meaning, which is killing of a woman specifically because she is a woman. I think that is a distinction worth making. We do similar things with racially motivated killing (hate crime). Somebody being killed because they are black is something notably distinct from a black person being killed for revenge, money or any of the standard motives for murder.

This is true for lots of things that are fine in moderation. Beyond spreading awareness of that, it's not really clear what else you can do. Banning porn or sugary sweets is extreme and impractical

All valid points, I did mention earlier that I don't think it's healthy when used as a coping mechanism to avoid actually finding a partner or having sex.

You say it isn't healthy, but can you point to anything concretely unhealthy about it?