You must log in or # to comment.
Unfortunately the saying refers to soft men like Trump et. al., not femboys.
God I wish we had a femboy president and cabinet… I’m not even attracted to them. I just know they’d be infinitely better than the fucking fascist cheeto et. al…
no its about femboys. read history
can confirm I lived in the Roman empire 👍
You’d be surprised by the amount of nazi femboys there are…
Eh… I’m aware how insufferably ‘bottom’ many of them are. To want to be a nazi whilst being a type of person they would likely dislike is … pretty strong bottom energy.
pretty strong bottom energy.
It’s not only about bottoms tho
There a lot of people in LGBT+ community that supports islam\sharia law. Amount of people that are simultaneously in those two circles is surprisingly high. Same with women and sharia law actually. You would think they understand that it basically a suicide - but here we are. Sadly, don’t have exact numbers, maybe that just vocal minority, who knows.
I mean, even if we talking about politics - there a lot of people who supported Trump for example. Same people then complained, that their group (LGBT+, farmers, etc) was negatively affected by his politics. Leopards do what leopards do.
Also, in my birth country russia (I hope it cease to exist), all that fascist “z” movement rise so high, that many communities like furry, anime, mlp, etc. became toxic waste. Sad thing really, you see how people support same regime, that prosecute them.
Yea, it was partly a joke. I will never understand how people, especially minorities, can look themselves in the mirror after voting against their own interest. Not even in a greedy way, but in a, “what the fuck did you think would happen?” sort of way.
This is still not the criteria to decide who decides…
… Nor correct reasoning. Femboys can be fascist too. These are not mutually exclusive sets. So no, you are in error asserting you know they’d be better, if you’re saying they’d not be fascist. Power corrupts, and corrupted feboys may be a devil we don’t know. I’d rather not have a devil making machine. No matter which flavour of devils. I do not want a devil making machine. Putting women in power, did not mend it. Putting “black faces in high places”, did not mend it. But putting femboys in the power structure shaped for fascism, is going to mend it? May be yet missing the lesson to learn here. ~ Sorry Martin Luther King. I’m tryin.
I’m absolutely positive there are fewer femboy fascists than Republican fascists.
My comment is not about the most ideal government, nor about power structures, but a direct comparison of two specific things.
fewer
So your “know” is just a gamble.
A gamble with better odds than the 100% chance we currently have… How fucking dense can you be?
It shouldn’t be fucking difficult to understand that a gamble is better than a guarantee.
Your aggressive ad-hominem, and moved goal posts, is uncompelling. Sorry I’ve failed to help elucidate the epistemics here for you, past your apparent identity attachment with this that’s causing such a social-dominance limbic-reaction occluding critical thinking, but given that reaction, I’m losing confidence in my abilities to cut through the emotion to get this correspondence back to the simple logic, and shan’t even try. Hoping you find the way to feel better.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
Bro made a casual joke and you took it too seriously. YTA.
Those two aren’t men, they’re an enby and a trans woman.
Yet they still make me hard. Curious
Well that means you’re bi
t’aint nothin wrong with it though
everybody’s bi.
I’ve heard this random theory that everyone is naturally pansexual (or asexual of course, though this not specified in the original theory (the original theory was a short Discord message, I’m expanding on it massively)), and that attraction only to particular sexes/genders/presentations etc. is a social construct, and that preference for particular traits or presentations is what being “straight” or “gay” or “bi” or “pan” acually is. I think this is reasonable and likely be true, but of course it could also not be.
The “but reproduction instinct” counterpoint doesn’t actually hold up against actual nature. There are many instances of same sex attraction in animals. I wonder, are the animals “gay” (same sex attraction only), are they “bi” (attraction to males and attraction to females), or are they “pan” (attraction does not take sex into account or has some but little regard for it). Probably some of each, I wonder what the proportions are. Telling between bi and pan may be difficult in this case.
This definitely needs research.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/resources/explainers/are-there-queer-animals/ https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/can-animals-be-gay
Why does asexuality not count as a learned preference in this theory?
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?According to this theory those are some of the stronger cases of preference. This theory does not dismiss preference, it just dismisses it being inherently determined (that you’re not “assigned gay at birth” just like how you’re not “assigned liking apples over pears at birth”).
Growing up on a farm, I for sure saw a lot of eunuch on eunuch action. Circumstance, survival (including psychological), physiology & biology (especially hormones (like if gonads have been removed)), opportunity, and more, all play into sexual expression.
It certainly helps put aside cultural indoctrinations to reductive certain absolutes, growing up seeing that.
Which in turn helps avert getting tied up in neurotic knots about it all.
So I continue to fall back on “everybody’s bi”, rather than pondering about straight or gay, seeing the apparent of either just as temporal-circumstantial leanings within “everybody’s bi”. … I could probably expand that asserted hypothesis as “everybody’s pan”, but I’m not sure how helpful or harmful that could be. Found peace enough in “everybody’s bi” for myself.
Are ace people bi?
Soft men make me hard.
IS THAT A RAINBOW IN THEIR PFP? DID GRINDR GO WOKE???
How shocking!
Equal opportunity sodomy imposed.
This whole thing never made much sense. It’s just a poorly thought out version of the passage of trauma, one that fails to account for systemization of classism, bigotry, and the like. If this were the case, things should swing wildly every 40 years, but that hasn’t been my observation.
No, it makes perfect sense if you treat it like the metaphorical expression it is and not a literal description of reality…
Or are you the kind of person to think, “measure twice, cut once” literally means you need to measure things twice and not that it’s about being careful?
I’d give it respect as a saying if it hadn’t been adopted by republicans as a means of putting down society at large. The Apple doesn’t fall across the bridge when it gets to it.
Also, I do measure twice. But I also cut three times because I’m terrible with electric saws and I need the practice.
That’s stupid. Republicans will miscontrue and torture any expression if it lets them shit on others.
Just look at “right to work”, or all the BS they’ve spouted against universal healthcare since long before Trump et. al…
If you let lying cheating monsters define everything, OFC most of it isn’t going to be true.
You’re welcome to fight the treadmill of American language and associations to attempt to reclaim a saying that I personally view as limiting. Sounds like a huge undertaking, but it seems like it really matters to you. I’m rooting for you.
I’ll never cede ymca as a straight song, but a poorly thought out saying, I can’t care.
Then keep allowing shitty people to ruin things like you seem to want to do. It’s the American way, after all.
Nah, metaphors can be wrong. Even things that “feel true” can be wrong.
It’s not wrong when viewed as a metaphor.
Entire generations aren’t comprised of weak or strong men. It’s fucking stupid to think it means the world works in predictable cycles.
What it actually means is, don’t put weak men in charge.
How is this a metaphor for “don’t put weak men in charge”??
Because they create bad times? How is this a fucking difficult concept?
Bad people create bad times, it’s pretty simple.
People might consider Jimmy Carter a “soft man,” but did he “create bad times”?
Those people are not defining ‘soft’ correctly, then. Also the original expression isn’t “soft”, it’s “weak”.
Sure, Carter might not have had muscles, but only a vile piece of trash would call him weak.
Edit: Interesting how you edited your post to read very different after my response… Almost like you realize you were spouting shit at first.
So you think saying “x causes y” directly is a metaphor for “x causes y, so dont do x”. Huh. What do you think a metaphor is?
“GrindrUK” “@GrindrUS”
Easy for you to say when you’ve got a prescription which ensures that for hours at a time.
is that prescription dancing?
Stupid men like oversimplified phrases that make themselves think they’re better than others.
are they even better than others, by their own logic? they make it sound like a natural cycle, where the hard/softness of people is a natural consequence of the times which made them. the times are just a natural consequence of the hardness of the people.
with this framework, if times are bad right now, that can’t be some great moral failing, after all the people allegedly responsible, did not chose to make them so, and anyway, the times will get good again soon enough, … and then go bad again. it might just suck to live through the hard times.
Yeah. Gotta wonder what all their fuss is about.
smart tech makes dumb people, dumb people make dumb tech, dumb tech makes smart people, smart people make smart tech.
… i like this oversimplification, and can contrive calling myself smart from it.
so i must be a stupid.
wise tech makes wise people, wise people make wise tech.
Ignoring for a moment that apparently women don’t exist in that world, even the premise doesn’t hold: Bad times don’t make hard people, bad times make sick, malnourished, badly educated and/or desperate people, none of which is conductive to making the proposed following of the good times.
If any of that were true, the good times in the so called first world should’ve made their peoples so soft compared to the hard peoples that should’ve been created literally everywhere else that the last 300 years of war or so should’ve ended very differently.
It’s a racist propaganda trope that harkens back to ancient Rome where senators decried the “soft” Roman lifestyle compared to the “hard” germanic tribes and has gathered connotations of blood-and-earth (“Blut und Boden”, no idea how thats translated) and other unsavory shit in the meantime.
I like to call it the “Fremen Mirage” after the awesome blog collection of a historian I very much like: https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/
Props to grindr for judo-ing this pile of worms to a place the original poster presumably wouldn’t have liked very much
I love that blog. It’s written in such a thorough yet accessible manner that I’ve actually sent that particular post to a friend with whom I was arguing about this with
Most of what makes these “bad times”, involves the existence of massive dickheads like Laurence Fox, who think that strength is the same as bigotry.
Bad men good times make hard men. Good times make men hard make soft men. Soft good men make men man men.
Time good bad times. We need men men men.
make men man men
That’s a good one 🤣
So… we are in bad times… and bad times make hard men… and “we need MEN”… and grindr’s going to make men hard…
Just trying to follow the logic…
This is patently inaccurate. If anything, bad times make soft men, in many of us desperate crave someone to protect us, with whom we feel safe to be soft with. And then, of course, soft men makes hard men
Reminder that Laurence Fox is a classist, racist, Covid-denying, bigoted, moron that even the majority of the British right wing ignore as too far gone.
Is there an echo in here??
The whole cyclical thing is bullshit and has been for thousands of years. Good times make for a surplus in food and other products, which can feed a warrior caste to pillage more prosperity from the unfortunate.
Dr. Devereaux explores this myth in his series dubbed “The Fremen Mirage” (named such after the fictional people of Dune, both to provide an example of its “distilled” portrayal in fiction and to avoid linking it to any specific real culture he’d step on the toes of).
And we do need men. Men whose identity isn’t defined by supremacy or dominance, but by the courage to step up, the strength to help carry the weaker members of society, the honour to protect the vulnerable and the confidence to not feel emasculated by conceding error or showing tenderness or loving other men.
Most of that is applicable to humans in general, regardless of gender, biology, sexuality, ethnicity or whether they like soy-based foods, but if we’re gonna lean into masculine stereotypes, let it be the healthy, beneficial ones.
And if we’re gonna lean into men, have fun!
TIL that Lemmy has <hr/>
<hr/>
I never actually tried HTML tags (and I’d be surprised if they work, given the vulnerabilities that would introduce), but Lemmy (or at least most clients) supports Markdown, where
achieves the same effect.Actually, let me try the HTML tag.
<hr/>
Doesn’t look like it on my end. Shame.
While we’re at it, it does support HTML entities like ü ∈ or ⥱ (
ü∈or&respectively).You can also use
for larger paragraphs breaks like the one above:text textOh,… of course. I kinda forgot that there is a vanilla markdown language.
Got used too much to html/xml
Got used too much to html/xml
Condolences, hope you recover soon
Yeah. Does seem rather like weak men of all types (perhaps most especially the try-hard covering up their errors, tenderness and love) contribute to bad times. Does seem like the exit route out of the cyclical thing (the delusion thereof) is to keep on generating good times that create strong good men, not hard strong men… because history shows us hard strong men at the fore of worst times. ~ (Or at least that type of weak men who try to appear as hard strong men to compensate for, rather than admit and correct their errors; to deny their tenderness; to pervert their love (e.g. for domination rather than each other))
And better nettle tea, than soy, if we’re looking after men’s health like hormonal influences on how beneficially they purport themselves.
… Just realised… Also, lets all drop all the times stuff like its the same for everyone. Always more variety of experience no matter the times. Always a variety of men of whatever reductive judgement anyone may want to put on each. We got interesting times, now and ahead. Buckle up, everybody. Much to mend. We’ll need the rich variety of aptitudes in each, not the wrong criteria of pass/fail individuals on the colour of their skin, or their preference of this or that.
Ever hard work picking out the insidious little psyops the foxes plop into our brains. As we keep doing that hard work, from these bad times, we’ll become hard men, and then fox can get his narcissistic fuel, like he’s the father of salvation, instead of the rotter making things bad. It’s same old “conservative” con, they keep your head under water, drowning you, and when you finally manage to rise up for air, they take credit for making you strong enough to.
Why is GrinderUS named GrinderUK?
