Crime Right Wing Extremist Kills 5 in Colorado Shooting Spree

[ReligiousDiscipline]

Are SNAGs and metrosexuals still a thing?
Older men complaining about the younger generations being effeminate is as old as time.

I'm getting embarrassed in this thread.

 

[Ruprecht]

I'm getting embarrassed in this thread.

Hah! Don't worry, seems the same to me. I'm just pretty sure it's the aging process.
A bit like the old...

I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies,

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

 

[TheGreatA]

Are SNAGs and metrosexuals still a thing?
Older men complaining about the younger generations being effeminate is as old as time.

Younger generations becoming more "effeminate" has always been a thing in developing civilizations. Success breeds complacency, no one strives to be "hard" when there's no visible need to be. Even the people who make being "hard" into their act, are mostly just a bluff, trying to market something unique to a generation of men who are devoid of legitimate "toughness" that is a result of endless trials brought about by unavoidable, involuntary circumstances.

The only way the subsequent generations become more "masculine" is if there's something that seriously compromises the society, a catastrophe, a war, or something else.

The one example in American history might have been the Roaring 20's generation compared to the subsequent generations of the Great Depression and World War 2, there was a very stark difference between them. Men and women became much less flamboyant, much more "humble" in their aspirations and ideology, unwilling to entertain any delusions of grandeur about the "American dream", in the light of how things were. A lot of the men who had grown up in the 20's, particularly the artists and writers (like F. Scott Fitzgerald for example) were ridiculed for their esteemed "foolishness" in thinking that there was anything more to life than just the struggle.

 

[SakurabasEar]

It's not my place to kink-shame, but Murphy's cuckold drama is kinda making him look a little less alpha.

Same here really. I don't judge but he's the one selling $100 a month manly man memberships, I'm sure his followers are questioning what exactly they are paying for at this point

 

[kahiljabroni]

Interesting the man's motivations are already being pinpointed


Hey anyone find out why that guy ran down all those people in Wisconsin?

 

[Scerpi]

Are SNAGs and metrosexuals still a thing?
Older men complaining about the younger generations being effeminate is as old as time.

“I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman, although I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man.” He added that an “openedhanded slap” is “justified” if “all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning,” and further said, “If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it.”

 

[Scerpi]

Interesting the man's motivations are already being pinpointed


Hey anyone find out why that guy ran down all those people in Wisconsin?

What guy?

That was a Red SUV that did that...

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Same here really. I don't judge but he's the one selling $100 a month manly man memberships, I'm sure his followers are questioning what exactly they are paying for at this point

Kinda similar to the guy in the OP, I think. He built an image of masculinity that he couldn't possibly live up to which meant having to bottle his shame and stow it away.
Eventually: pop!

 

[Pinyin]

McLeod, in 2020, ranted on Twitter about emasculated men, and praised boxer Mike Tyson as a role model.

Mike Tyson has a tattoo of Mao Se Tung on his shoulder, which would make him a devout communist.

So this guy McCloud was actually a socialist commie. Not buying the MSNPC narrative. They try to play it off as the opposite of what it really is.

 

[kahiljabroni]

What guy?

That was a Red SUV that did that...

My bad...carry on

 

[Ruprecht]

Younger generations becoming more "effeminate" has always been a thing in developing civilizations. Success breeds complacency, no one strives to be "hard" when there's no visible need to be.

The only way the subsequent generations become more "masculine" is if there's something that seriously compromises the society, a catastrophe, a war, or something else.

The one example in American history might have been the Roaring 20's generation compared to the subsequent generations of the Great Depression and World War 2, there was a very stark difference between them. Men and women became much less flamboyant, much more "humble" in their aspirations and ideology, unwilling to entertain any delusions of grandeur about the "American dream", in the light of how things were. A lot of the men who had grown up in the 20's were ridiculed for their esteemed "foolishness" in thinking that there was anything more to life than just the struggle.

It's not like there's ever been a lack of dandies, even when it was a luxury afforded to precious few.
For that matter it's not even lacking in tribes living on subsistence agriculture.
Beyond that it's simply a matter of the perspective resulting from getting old and environmental change resulting in new norms.
Living in large groups might be "effeminate" because of the compromises on individual freedom and independence, in the same way women are "more masculine" because they are getting an education and working.
To think that's a "weakening of men's spirit" or some other inherent deterioration is just age and perspective.
It's not like the teenagers of the roaring 20s didn't fight in WWII.

 

[TheGreatA]

It's not like there's ever been a lack of dandies, even when it was a luxury afforded to precious few.
For that matter it's not even lacking in tribes living on subsistence agriculture.
Beyond that it's simply a matter of the perspective resulting from getting old and environmental change resulting in new norms.
Living in large groups might be "effeminate" because of the compromises on individual freedom and independence, in the same way women are "more masculine" because they are getting an education and working.
To think that's a "weakening of men's spirit" or some other inherent deterioration involved in that is just age and perspective.

I think it's just a natural, biological thing. Humans, like animals, respond to threats that are visible and present in their lives. They're not going to prepare themselves for unlikely scenarios that are no longer primary concern in their lives.

Our mentality is going to be wholly different, living in the streets of Honduras, compared to living in the safety of a 1st world upper-class neighbourhood.

"Masculinity" of course is a rather abstract concept that can contain a multitude of ideas about its meaning at the same time, including overlapping ones, depending on one's perspective. But when speaking about "masculinity" in this context, I would imagine that it is a matter of contrasting the attitude of primitive survival and preparedness (which is why the jackass involved in this case was hiding out in the woods), compared to living in abundance, without care. For most of us, we're just going to have to accept that we're not going to be as "masculine" as the generations of men who dealt with war, poverty, abundant criminality, natural disasters, and other such problems. There are exceptions of course, not every corner in the world is witnessing a development for the better, some are witnessing a decline, and in those regions, men will likely end up being more "masculine" in response.

It is not something that we can truly wish to obtain by our individual selves, circumstances will decide in our stead, whether we are to be more or less "masculine" than the previous generations. Any conscious pursuit of "lost manhood" is likely to be inauthentic and fruitless, either it is there, or it is not, dictated by circumstances that are not under our control.

 

[Ruprecht]

“I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman, although I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man.” He added that an “openedhanded slap” is “justified” if “all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning,” and further said, “If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it.”

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of?

 

[12ga.]

We need UHC w/ mental health badly in this country. So many are afflicted. Most don't do things like this but self medicate with drugs and alcohol is not uncommon. I read that life expectancy is actually going down because of these diseases of despair.

 

[Ruprecht]

I think it's just a natural, biological thing. Humans, like animals, respond to threats that are visible and present in their lives. They're not going to prepare themselves for unlikely scenarios that are no longer primary concern in their lives.

Our mentality is going to be wholly different, living in the streets of Honduras, compared to living in the safety of a 1st world upper-class neighbourhood.

"Masculinity" of course is a rather abstract concept that can contain a multitude of ideas about its meaning at the same time, including overlapping ones, depending on one's perspective. But when speaking about "masculinity" in this context, I would imagine that it is a matter of contrasting the attitude of primitive survival and preparedness (which is why the jackass involved in this case was hiding out in the woods), compared to living in abundance, without care. For most of us, we're just going to have to accept that we're not going to be as "masculine" as the generations of men who dealt with war, poverty, abundant criminality, natural disasters, and other such problems. There are exceptions of course, not every corner in the world is witnessing a development for the better, some are witnessing a decline, and in those regions, men will likely end up being more "masculine" in response.

Sure, it's why even in PNG the coastal tribes are called "soft skins" by the highlanders. Because life is easier and less violent on the coast.
Not really something to lament, or try to compensate for with exaggerated machismo.

 

[AWilder]

Yikes, sounds a lot like recently banned amerikurikhaunika (sp?). But I don't think he lived in CO.

 

[TheGreatA]

Sure, it's why even in PNG the coastal tribes are called "soft skins" by the highlanders. Because life is easier and less violent on the coast.
Not really something to lament, or try to compensate for with exaggerated machismo.

It is a fool's errand, but on the other hand, I do understand its appeal, especially to those who do not feel like they fit in with mainstream culture.

I think H.P. Lovecraft put it best, about this endless chase for a past idealization of man and his way of living that probably never even existed.

As for your artificial conception of "splendid & traditional ways of life"—I feel quite confident that you are very largely constructing a mythological idealisation of something which never truly existed; a conventional picture based on the perusal of books which followed certain hackneyed lines in the matter of incidents, sentiments, & situations, & which never had a close relationship to the actual societies they professed to depict . . . In some ways the life of certain earlier periods had marked advantages over life today, but there were compensating disadvantages which would make many hesitate about a choice. Some of the most literarily attractive ages had a coarseness, stridency, & squalor which we would find insupportable . . . Modern neurotics, lolling in stuffed easy chairs, merely make a myth of these old periods & use them as the nuclei of escapist daydreams whose substance resembles but little the stern actualities of yesterday. That is undoubtedly the case with me—only I'm fully aware of it. Except in certain selected circles, I would undoubtedly find my own 18th century insufferably coarse, orthodox, arrogant, narrow, & artificial. What I look back upon nostalgically is a dream-world which I invented at the age of four from picture books & the Georgian hill streets of Old Providence. . . . There is something artificial & hollow & unconvincing about self-conscious intellectual traditionalism—this being, of course, the only valid objection against it. The best sort of traditionalism is that easy-going eclectic sort which indulges in no frenzied pulmotor stunts, but courses naturally down from generation to generation; bequeathing such elements as really are sound, losing such as have lost value, & adding any which new conditions may make necessary. . . . In short, young man, I have no quarrel with the principle of traditionalism as such, but I have a decided quarrel with everything that is insincere, inappropriate, & disproportionate; for these qualities mean ugliness & weakness in the most offensive degree. I object to the feigning of artificial moods on the part of literary moderns who cannot even begin to enter into the life & feelings of the past which they claim to represent . . . If there were any reality or depth of feeling involved, the case would be different; but almost invariably the neotraditionalists are sequestered persons remote from any real contacts or experience with life . . . For any person today to fancy he can truly enter into the life & feeling of another period is really nothing but a confession of ignorance of the depth & nature of life in its full sense. This is the case with myself. I feel I am living in the 18th century, though my objective judgment knows better, & realises the vast difference from the real thing. The one redeeming thing about my ignorance of life & remoteness from reality is that I am fully conscious of it, hence (in the last few years) make allowances for it, & do not pretend to an impossible ability to enter into the actual feelings of this or any other age. The emotions of the past were derived from experiences, beliefs, customs, living conditions, historic backgrounds, horizons, &c. &c. so different from our own, that it is simply silly to fancy we can duplicate them, or enter warmly & subjectively into all phases of their aesthetic expression.

 

[Ruprecht]

It is a fool's errand, but on the other hand, I do understand its appeal, especially to those who do not feel like they fit in with mainstream culture.

I think H.P. Lovecraft put it best, about this endless chase for a past idealization of man and his way of living that probably never even existed.

As for your artificial conception of "splendid & traditional ways of life"—I feel quite confident that you are very largely constructing a mythological idealisation of something which never truly existed; a conventional picture based on the perusal of books which followed certain hackneyed lines in the matter of incidents, sentiments, & situations, & which never had a close relationship to the actual societies they professed to depict . . . In some ways the life of certain earlier periods had marked advantages over life today, but there were compensating disadvantages which would make many hesitate about a choice. Some of the most literarily attractive ages had a coarseness, stridency, & squalor which we would find insupportable . . . Modern neurotics, lolling in stuffed easy chairs, merely make a myth of these old periods & use them as the nuclei of escapist daydreams whose substance resembles but little the stern actualities of yesterday. That is undoubtedly the case with me—only I'm fully aware of it. Except in certain selected circles, I would undoubtedly find my own 18th century insufferably coarse, orthodox, arrogant, narrow, & artificial. What I look back upon nostalgically is a dream-world which I invented at the age of four from picture books & the Georgian hill streets of Old Providence. . . . There is something artificial & hollow & unconvincing about self-conscious intellectual traditionalism—this being, of course, the only valid objection against it. The best sort of traditionalism is that easy-going eclectic sort which indulges in no frenzied pulmotor stunts, but courses naturally down from generation to generation; bequeathing such elements as really are sound, losing such as have lost value, & adding any which new conditions may make necessary. . . . In short, young man, I have no quarrel with the principle of traditionalism as such, but I have a decided quarrel with everything that is insincere, inappropriate, & disproportionate; for these qualities mean ugliness & weakness in the most offensive degree. I object to the feigning of artificial moods on the part of literary moderns who cannot even begin to enter into the life & feelings of the past which they claim to represent . . . If there were any reality or depth of feeling involved, the case would be different; but almost invariably the neotraditionalists are sequestered persons remote from any real contacts or experience with life . . . For any person today to fancy he can truly enter into the life & feeling of another period is really nothing but a confession of ignorance of the depth & nature of life in its full sense. This is the case with myself. I feel I am living in the 18th century, though my objective judgment knows better, & realises the vast difference from the real thing. The one redeeming thing about my ignorance of life & remoteness from reality is that I am fully conscious of it, hence (in the last few years) make allowances for it, & do not pretend to an impossible ability to enter into the actual feelings of this or any other age. The emotions of the past were derived from experiences, beliefs, customs, living conditions, historic backgrounds, horizons, &c. &c. so different from our own, that it is simply silly to fancy we can duplicate them, or enter warmly & subjectively into all phases of their aesthetic expression.

Pretty much the definition of a reactionary.
In terms of that "constructing a mythological idealisation of something which never truly existed", there's certainly a reason in genre fiction that scifi (this jerkoff not withstanding) has had a lot less reactionary authors than fantasy.
Even in popular historical comparisons, I'm not sure that the self conscious awkwardness of Victorian Masculinity was really any less masculine than that of the ancient Greeks who considered all non-Greeks effeminate. At least through a modern conception of masculinity. Certainly very different environments, concepts and activities though.

 

[My Spot]

I hope it wasn't NotARealFan.

 

[GolovKing]

Mike Tyson has a tattoo of Mao Se Tung on his shoulder, which would make him a devout communist.

So this guy McCloud was actually a socialist commie. Not buying the MSNPC narrative. They try to play it off as the opposite of what it really is.

Mike Tyson is a strange guy though, he also supported Trump. And he also has a lot of interactions with women in video where he puts women in their place in a way that someone like this McCloud fella would take a liking to