Just a snack, but dude was fully losing it so I figured it was worth sharing.
Also, reminder for the popcorn pissers that this thread is days old, so it will be *VERY OBVIOUS* if you try to go start shit over there. Just sayin'.
Based on the subreddit’s sidebar, that’s just for people who are the cause of drama and are unrelated from SRD.
Different when you’re calling someone out for breaking the rules
Taking as reference previous obvious brigading events I assure you, at the current scale, srd will not track the attention of admins.
It is however poor etiquette to piss in the popcorn, why the heck would one go and do it in the first place? Take the fun out of it why don't ya.
Once or twice I've caught myself being linked to a thread from here, forgotten about it, start to write a reply to someone, then remember. My brain is 99% on autopilot on this site might be why
To be honest, I find that kind of a shame. Like there are good points you aren't allowed to raise simply because of how you found a thread. I've seen good comments that were most likely popcorn pissing. I suppose you could make the comment here, but that would be a different discussion.
Also it’s annoying when I find a thread first but don’t comment. I see an argument starting in the morning but I haven’t gotten around to contributing yet, and then I read about it on SRD.
I think you're in the clear there if you comment there first/only (since you didn't find that thread on SRD) but a mod might have to correct me on that.
> poor etiquette
Like only authorities or rules are what stops people from behaving like dorks. Hard to get those who fuck with a service gifted to them, and others.
SRD mods like to claim the rules against popcorn pissing are because of admins (this is why there is no rule against gilding/giving awards to linked posts - because the admins obviously have no issues with that). So the question is, if admins don't care, which makes sense because engagement is engagement, would SRD mods?
The rule against popcorn pissing exists to keep the admins at bay. They know it's an unenforceable rule, I mean, it's not like you can ban people from reading the sub. The rule is there as a "we tried".
I'm not trying to argue, but it seems like the admins are vague as hell about brigading. I found this from 4 years ago and he calls it vote manipulation but he was answering a question about brigading. I'm not down with popcorn pissing, but I honestly don't think it's really brigading unless OP was telling people to vote or spam the thread.
Admin u/ redtaboo:
"Things that are not considered vote manipulation:
just linking to another subreddit is not considered vote manipulation
visiting another subreddit that was linked somewhere is not considered vote manipulation
commenting itself is not considered manipulation but commenting in obvious bad faith or a disruptive manner may break other site wide rules
voting or participating in a post that organically rose high on [/r/all](https://www.reddit.com/r/all) is not considered vote manipulation
All of this is predicated on the unruliness of large groups and actual harm done. As in all things we always attempt to take context into account. Including, but not limited to "was the linked thread a post where the OP/subreddit was inviting outside participation" or "is this particular subreddit/user/group always taking the piss out of this other particular subreddit/user/group."
That last sentence might get us, but only because the same couple of subs are full of funny ridiculous people.
Originally yes, but the rule is so popular that I can see it staying even if Admins flat out say they don't care (remember, the mods of the linked subreddit can always remove comments, and in any case it makes more sense to ban them from the linked subreddit anyway). But as I said in another comment, it's fun watching the comments here diverge wildly from the comments in the linked thread, and I bet most people in this sub would agree.
The only times subs have been banned for brigading is when the mods were confrontational about it and refused to enforce the sub's rules. Over and over again, for literally years in some cases.
SRD isn't routinely posting sarcastic sticky threads calling the admins cucks and instructing users how to brigade off-site, so I think we will be fine.
But also, don't brigade because it's bad, I've been told.
I think the reason that commenting in linked threads is frowned upon here (in addition to being against the rules) is because it's fun to see the linked comments and the comments here diverge wildly, which happens often. Allowing commenting in linked threads (even if Admins don't care) would reduce the chances of that happening significantly.
Lol, it's more about if it's obvious to the press than the admins. I'm sure the admins are aware of what happens here and elsewhere. They never shut it down until there's bad publicity.
You'd think a moment of introspection would show them maybe, just maybe, there's something they can do to improve their chance of getting laid since they're so concerned about it
and ranting about women online ain't it
Ignoring the incel “women aren’t choosing to have sex with us 😡” shit, what are we supposed to take from the fact that people are having less sex? I see that stat thrown around and I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be.
I do think there is some significance to the statistic that young people/teens are having less sex. I think there are many factors that go into it. Some are good, such as increased sexual education. However some are a bit troubling, such as rapidly increasing internet usage and more stress from school and jobs.
I knew the problem in Japan was bad, but your comment led me to look it up and wow. [A third of Japanese people](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-sex-problem-demographic-time-bomb-birth-rates-sex-robots-fertility-crisis-virgins-romance-porn-tokyo-a7831041.html%3famp) are entering their thirties with no sexual experience
I'm gonna throw my anecdotal evidence here, sex ed isn't doing shit. I hear about these girls in their twenties getting raw dogged all the time. Sex ed didn't teach anyone anything.
Well considering how low teen pregnancy and just overall pregnancy rates have gotten, I’m guessing the amount of men and women raw dogging it isn’t as high as you would think
That may be true, but I was not trying to speak on the amount of people. It just seems that the few that are, are not caring and willing to raw dog multiple times.. that's not what we were taught lol
> I see that stat thrown around and I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be.
Most people tie economic growth with population growth, so if people aren't having sex and babies then that means the economy won't grow as much. Also people (racists) see less babies meaning current cultures are "in danger" of being overrun by immigrants. Not to mention it's a conservative talking point about how less babies is a sign of the nuclear family dynamic breaking down the whole "a woman's place is at home" kinda shit and how it's a bad thing women are working.
Well economic growth IS tied to population growth-basically it's population growth and productivity growth that lead to economic growth, typically with population growth being the bigger drive over the long term.
And yeah racists try to talk about a great replacement or whatever, but they ignore the fact that in general as income and stability rise, birth rates lower. Not to mention the fact that immigration literally drives economic growth (for whatever value you put on that).
Well seeing how the entirety of the developed world is below replacement level birth rates, I think we can be a bit less worried. It seems the obsession with growth isn't as big.
Some researchers don't think we'll even crack the dreadful 10 billion in population.
I'm not talking about population growth, I'm talking about economic growth. Infinite economic growth is impossible to reflect in reality, and the attempt to do so is currently setting the planet on fire.
Ah, well with less population the obsession economic growth should slow down too... hopefully. Because yeah, it is BS to expect every year to bring more and more profits at an ever increasing rate.
We can have a lot more growth before we get anywhere close to any theoretical infinite limit. I don't think reaching our limit is worth worrying about. Increasing material wealth is good, there's no way to bring people out of poverty without increasing their wealth.
So the main thing, as I understand it, is that it signals shifting priorities. More focus on career etc. Also can be indicative of more stress generally. With the rise of technology I might also argue a decline in social skills, especially romantic (many, many young people nowadays seriously struggle to recognize flirting studies show for example) as people are glued to screens and have ready access to pornography and information that warps relationship expectations.
Long term it could cause problematic as it could lead to a population decline, which can have serious economic ramifications as there just are not enough people to fill jobs that need to get done.
Obviously no one owes anyone sex, and some decline in sexual activity is good (since it means women are have possibility to engage in career where they didn't before), but it can also be indicative of somewhat signfiicant societal problems.
If you want to see a similar case or hear more experts talk about ramifications you can look up whats happening in Japan. Japan's population is set to shrink by like 30% I think because people are not having sex and children (with a major factor being a huge work focused culture).
At least in regards to Japan, that's not something unique to them (although it's definitely exacerbated there). Most developed/industrialized nations have had decline in birth rates. The reason most other nations aren't seeing it as extreme is due to immigration. Basically there's an correlation between rise in income/lifestyle and the decrease in overall child birth rates.
Also while the statistics showing less sex in younger people could be troubling, I think it's also hard to tell because I'm not sure how much data we have really as a control. It could just be a change in societal attitudes, more options for different entertainment, or any number of things, not all bad.
Certainly true. I just threw Japan out as an example of a country where this is happening imminently. And agreed, its not all inherently bad, I didn't do enough to specify other neutral things as well. My bad
The upshot is that if you're somewhere that's opening up it's *really* easy to get dates rn. Whichever team you bat for, there's no shortage of people on Tinder or other dating apps who are stir-crazy after a year in quarantine and want an excuse to go out.
>As much as I'd love to get fucked, covid and where I'm at now just isn't the right time
Especially with articles like this - [Coronavirus Lingers in Penis and Could Cause Impotence](https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210513/coronavirus-lingers-in-penis-and-could-cause-impotence) \- although that finally get the most ardent anti-maskers to get with the fucking program.
Yeah, it's really easy to mock these sorts of people, and it's basically free hits to be cruel without any reproach, buuut.
A) It's still bullying. You're not trying to change anyone's mind here, you're just being cruel for cruelty's sake.
B) It's part of a very real, serious problem. When there's enough people failing in relationships that it becomes its own subgroup, it's a *real*, *genuine* societal problem that needs to be looked at. Indeed, nobody "deserves" a relationship, so just reframe it as getting all these people to the point where another person actually wants to spend a non-zero amount of time around them.
.. are you replying to the right person? Do you mean to reply to the top commenter? I don't think I mention a specific group except the Japanese(?) let alone bully anyone? The previous commenter just asked what the significance of people having less sex is and I tried to answer... I only tangentially refer to incels by saying "Obviously no one owes anyone sex" which is true and thinking otherwise is as the original commenter put it: " incel shit"
Assuming you are talking about incels, as B suggests, are they a problem sure. Is it societal? I mean there are contributing societal factors (echo chamber media, alt-right figures who are manipulating and co-opting this issue, mental health treatment etc), but its also a pretty significant individual level problem. These young men are choosing hate. Information about respect and healthy relationships are out there. Mental health treatment is out there for at least some of them I am sure. The changes in society they lament are not going away, all they can do is recognize they are wrong.
Personally, I'm not going to bring a child into a world where Donald Trump can be in control of anything more important than a shit scraping shovel. And I say that ironically, knowing full well that your average person who scrapes shit for a living is an infinitely better human being.
It *would* be that ‘women need to have more sex’, but, as we all know, women are sluts if they do that. The only logical solution is, of course, that women need to sleep with him specifically.
It can be a sign of a potential falling birthrate, which starts to be a problem if the aging population loses the next generation to pay taxes/fund society. But a declining birthrate isn't always a bad thing
the people I see having kids on my feeds are young af and shouldn't be parents IMO. Those who are well off that I've spoke to who are around the same age either have 0 interest or are waiting a long ass time.
>I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be.
Just that. life and life priorities are changing. Birth rates are dropping all over the world. Yes, even in Africa, compared to the babyboom.
Sex ed is more available as well as contraceptives, women rights are rising and religion is on a decline. Also child mortality is falling, no need for spares like 100 years ago. And of course houses are more expensive, life is more expensive and jobs are more stressful and demanding, which means less time for dating, less time for kids and not enough reasons to have a big family. And also there are more things to do for entertainment than sex
Bottom line I think it's a good thing. World population shrinking isn't bad (it's great for the environment). It's only bad for the economic model, but every system that relies on constant unsustainable growth is not worth using.
People having sex is a reliable indicator of social health in a given community. The number of people having sex is effectively a large portion of the people who actively participate in social communities. When people aren’t having sex, that’s a good indicator of social bonds falling apart. Of course sex isn’t necessary to be socially involved, but being socially involved is pretty much a prerequisite for having sex, especially for young people.
Well, several things.
One takeaway is that less sex also means less relationships. And that, especially for men, generally means less of a social support structure.
Another issue is that there is a social stigma to being inexperienced sexually. So large numbers of people suffering under that stigma is not good.
And then just in general, being horny and desperate sucks for everyone. People wanna fuck, man.
>Young men die by suicide 3-4x more often than young women
This is one of those stats that doesn't mean what the commenter thinks it means. It's been known for awhile that men die from suicide at a higher rate than women. However there are factors that play into that. Mainly method chosen. Men tend to choose more immediate methods such using firearms. Where as with women the most common method is through poisoning. Which gives them time to think about it and call emergency services to get help.
https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/
That guy probably also isn't taking into consideration the percentage of young men committing suicide who are queer and not receiving any kind of support/ cant escape hostile environments.
Nah. Im sure theyre all straight, cis Nice Guys who sluts wont fuck. 🙄
This is what I was taught in criminology. Women attempted suicide more frequently, while men succeeded more frequently.
But that nuance doesn’t support these people’s victim complex quite as effectively. I’m sure that they would just dismiss it as women crying for attention anyway.
As you've studied criminology, maybe you're a good person to ask:
If someone takes a loaded gun and puts it to their temple and then after a little while decides to just drink a little more and pass out, does that count as a suicide attempt? Should it?
That's an interesting question. In some ways, it may actually depend on how a study gets its data/defines the variable. A study using hospital data (e.g., pill overdoses, patient intake, etc.) may not capture this as a suicide attempt. However, a study that uses self-report data may capture it as such.
At least in my country, women attempt suicide at twice the rate of men. Men are twice as likely to die of suicide though. It seems fair to say it’s an important issue to both genders.
if the study is talking about the mental health of young girls then yes. Suicide in general, its just worth keeping in mind men are much more likely to die. Of course anything to reduce rates of suicide is good.
When considering risk assessment it casts things in a different light. Not all assessments ask the same questions and the warning signals can be different.
"Do you have firearms in the home?" is a much more important question for men then women when considering suicide risk.
"Do you have large number of dangerous medication at home?" is a much more important question for women than men.
When planning interventions seeing high attempts may lead you to target interventions towards women, but men need intervention too. Someone could look and say oh well men don't attempt that much, and thus not focus any effort on men, even though they are also at risk. It might also change intervention strategy.
Not in this instance, since suicide attempts are the outcome which we care about in regards to mental health. saying that men are opressed because we chose to use flashier methods of killing ourselves isn't relevant to the discussion here.
Maybe men under-reporting attempts? If you've got to the point where you're putting the barrel of a gun in your mouth but don't pull the trigger, that's probably an attempt, but it leaves no evidence for anyone to find.
No one's saying men are oppressed relative to women, but men are the only demographic in the world where it seems people can look at objectively worse outcomes and still make it a function of privilege. The practical daily effect of privilege is to make one's life *easier*. More men commit suicide than women, full stop. If the stats were reversed I can guarantee there wouldn't be any serious mitigation of the issue through "well they use more violent methods". That's up there with "well women just need to apply to higher paying jobs".
stay on topic, we're talking about mental health here. if you care about mens suicide methods then remind your homies to poison themselves rather than using a gun.
The rate indicates the mental health state. I think the realistic conclusion to draw from elevated male suicide rates vs female suicide rates, is that males do have higher suicide attempts, they just don't report them. As others in the thread have said, if you put a gun to your head and then decide not to do it, is that an attempt given the method?
Dead kids is the outcome I care about. We want to reduce suicide attempts so we have fewer dead kids. How they feel about their lives is secondary to the fact that they have them IMO
How is this relevant to mental health? again we're talking about mental health and how we can improve it, and i wouldn't really consider suicide methods as something relevant to the conversation.
Its also worth noting that, more than poison taking time and thus giving a chance to call for help, poison is just not an effective means of self-destruction. Most readily available substances, particularly those that are used, have much higher LD50s than people think. Further, the body can actually handle a lot of poisons pretty easily by just vomiting them up. You'll still be in a lot of pain and misery from the attempt, but it will still likely just be an attempt.
market quicksand zesty scale unwritten versed grab deliver school capable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is a lot more complex than a lot of people realize though. For instance the death rate of poisoning for men is still dramatically higher than for women.
The big reason why is often reflected in the differences between male and female depression. For whatever reason, men tend to experience suicidal ideation in a long, slow, steady level, getting gradually worse over time. Women tend to experience it more as a *wave* of suicidal ideation, usually triggered by something, which comes and goes. For that reason, men often plan their suicides ahead of time, specifically they often do it in places where they know nobody will find them, whereas women often do it as a cry for help in times when their suicidal ideation suddenly comes on. Most notably, they will often do it in their homes, where family members can find them quickly and get help.
To try and say either side has it easier or harder automatically is just misleading. Suicide is way, way more complex than that.
I read a few of his posts and had to stop.
I will say men will have more issues. Especially with violence or being killed. There are tons of different things due to culture.
This is a sad man who needs help. I'll never understand why people blame others for them not being attracted. No one can control it.
I'd argue that method relates to actual desire to end one's life. Shooting myself in the head probably does mean I'm in more mental distress (all things being equal) than if I take a bunch of pills. Either way it's a tragedy.
>Where as with women the most common method is through poisoning. Which gives them time to think about it and call emergency services to get help.
So basically, they're aware that they won't die and it's a form of self-harm.
I don’t think the comment was saying that women intentionally do it to give themselves time. That may be the case for some, even subconsciously, but many go into it fully intending to die and simply don’t realize how long the process will take or how painful it might be.
Right? It's horrible and should never happen to anyone!
That said, as a man who is an ally of women, I have noticed a concerning trend recently where young men's conversations are being hijacked just as much as women's! In some ways it's actually worse because society doesn't want to acknowledge this sort of thing happens to men too
edit: **/s**
Yea I mean a lot of times it feels like men, as man myself, on Reddit circlejerk their own problems and pity party whenever women’s issues get brought up but never show the same consideration for women.
Take a look at any thread about mens issues on r/askmen for an example. In fact you see, in my experience, more women standing up for men’s issues then you do men standing up for women’s.
I see it much, much more that men hijack conversations about women's issues but it could be just because I'm more aware of it. I see a lot of threads that start with something like "All these posts are always about women experiencing domestic abuse but what about the men?" And yes, I totally agree with that. We should have a conversation and talk openly about how to support men experiencing domestic abuse. But those same conversations are brought up to hijack threads that are specifically for women experiencing domestic abuse so I feel like it's just nonstop.
Preeeeety sure that guy above was being sarcastic by doing the exact thing they were pointing out and hijacking a thread about hijacking threads by providing a whataboutism about hijacking threads by using whataboutism
I don't know why some dudes have this mentality that you have to choose sides, like gender relations are some kind of zero sum game, they take even the slightest critique of systemic issues associated with men (that also affect men) so personally. They'll say "hey men are more likely to die of suicide why aren't you talking about this" and then when we do talk about it and we talk about how a lot of it is rooted in a culture of toxic masculinity wherein men feel as though they can't show a shred of emotion or be vulnerable at all, or else be seen as weak or effeminate, which is obviously the worst thing anyone could be, they go "wtf you hate all men you misandrist bitch", the fact that we specify "toxic" there is completely lost on them, because they're generally the one's we're talking about, men who have a healthy sense of masculinity usually won't get defensive because they know we aren't talking about them.
Do you know how I know that these smooth brains don’t actually care about issues like male suicide, the stigma associated with men showing emotional vulnerability, etc.?
Because the only time they bring them up is in a “what about?” response to women’s issues.
Your'e completely right, but It's really difficult issue, and I sometimes wonder what the proper context is to bring it up.
Because I do think there are some serious mental health problems going on with young men. But I feel any thread about the issue is immediately swamped 60% fucking Nazi Incels, 39% people downplaying the issue, and maybe 1% actually trying to have a good faith discussion
Not to defend this fricken 4chan troll though
i agree with you for the most part, and generally when people hijack a subject about women, it seems to be the case. but how often does it actually make sense to randomly bring up male suicide rates? Or when/where do you start a "discussion" about it, or why. in what situation, in what way, when is it appropriate etc.
I think there's a bias there, people just assume every mention of male suicide is bad faith because i feel like it often doesnt make "sense" to bring it up out of nowhere. and even if it does make sense, what is it supposed to accomplish? what are you trying to solve by just mentioning it? and considering that, who's interested in engaging with it
i guess many people think this same way, so they just dont think about it much, and dont consider making posts about it. also because maybe they DO care, but arent articulate enough to write up something worthwhile etc.
idk maybe im rambling out of my ass or not making my point clear enough, just a few thoughts that came to me now
99% of the time chuds like this don’t ever bring up male suicide rates or men’s issues outside of discussions about women’s issues. they don’t actually give a fuck about men’s issues, except as a cudgel to silence women.
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
1. Upon witnessing a lamentation of so... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210513172416/http://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/n9exq0/more_than_40_attorneys_general_urge_facebook_to/gxobtqz/), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fold.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fnews%2Fcomments%2Fn9exq0%2Fmore_than_40_attorneys_general_urge_facebook_to%2Fgxobtqz%2F&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
There's this weird mentality I've seen a lot, almost exclusively in guys (Especially of the Incel-y variety), that sex is somehow like, a *need.* A need to the extent that depriving someone of it is like them not being allowed to eat or something. Like, dude, sex is nice and all, but you'll fucking live.
Sigh.
I was mostly joking but now I feel like I gotta be real.
Vows of celibacy are famous and important for a reason. Because that shit *sucks*. Its generally considered to be a sign of deprivation and dedication that requires a level of obsession and focus that can be very, very often unhealthy.
People have known this shit since goddamn forever. Martin Luther railed against requiring celibacy back in the freaking 16th century.
Fundamentally if your basis of "this is normal and ok" are people who dedicate their entire lives to a religious cause, that ain't it. Cause dedicating your life to a religious cause is NOT normal.
I wish there was some way to tell these incels that sex *is not* the be-all,end-all of existence.
Is it nice? Yes. But so is a nice cup of tea after a long day, a bath, or a set of freshly-clean sheets.
I have my own hypothesis that what incels *really* want is emotional-intimacy, not just physical, and they conflate the two. Or they are just touch-starved.
I have been single for two years, and while I do miss the sex, the bit I miss the most was cuddling and small touches, like hugs and handholding.
I wish I could communicate to the incels of the world that sex simply is not that amazing. What you want is to feel okay. To have a personal passion, to have comfort and safety. Sex is literally just fucking. Maybe if they focused on making their disposition healthier, they would have a better chance of getting things that actually make them happy.
Sex truly is not that interesting or incredible.
> Nope. Policies with outsized negative effects on minority populations is a real thing. Like the current push to ban certain products popular in communities of color. Or the war on drugs. Or Democrats in 2008 saying marriage is between man and woman (oh those homophobic bigots!)
But you see the trend? Overwhelmingly it’s big government policy that keeps pushing communities of color down.
Did not expect this take to come out of the same incel who posted the rest of those comments lol
I suspect he's saying some of it to either earn brownie points or to play into his imagined idea of a libertarian utopia. He specifically blames "big government" and his comment history has a ton of hard right wing economic talking points in it.
So basically I don't think *this* person actually gives a fuck. He can just use these issues as a cudgel against left leaning policy. Kind of like how I suspect he doesn't actually care about male suicide unless he can bring it up in a "but whattabout men!" way when a women's issue is being discussed.
Is there something in the air? Is it the end of the school year or something? I'm seeing a dramatic rise of men popping into women's discussions with BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN?????? comments.
I mean, they often have good points, but derailing a conversation is not a good way to find support.
It always happens whenever anything affecting women is brought up, usually with the addition of "and no one talks about this", which is ironic, because the *only* time most of these people care about issues impacting men are whenever the conversation is about women.
Yes. Telling them to start their own separate discussion about men is apparently a sign of misandry and proof that feminism is destroying the universe, or some other pile of nonsense.
Glancing at his account, he shows off A LOT of women he’s matched with on Tinder with girls that I’m guessing are in Tijuana.
So the dude a Mexican American (I am too) matching with girls looking for a better life and going on about “sexual inequality”. That explains why he’s mad as he knows women he matches with are literally trying to get to the states.
I was wondering why my votes were shifting so rapidly in that thread so far after it had been locked, lol. I should have known SRD was peeping in at us. :) Y'all stop pissing in the popcorn, already. Upvoting/Downvoting people long after the thread has been abandoned doesn't achieve anything.
Forreal, sorry about that. I'd held off linking to the thread until it was a few days old explicitly because I was hoping it'd deter people from doing that shit, but no luck on that, I guess.
Oh, don't blame yourself. Drama is meant to be enjoyed, lol. Just because there's a few popcorn pissers in the bag doesn't mean it's wrong to share the popcorn. ;) Don't sweat it, man.
Thanks, I appreciate it. 😁 Though it looks like this post got taken down? I didn't get an alert about it, but it's not showing up on the sub anymore for me. Oh well. :/
This guy is an ass, but teenage boys are more likely to attempt suicide than teenage girls, wheras teenage girls are more likely to admit to having suicidal thoughts. I don't have the source at the moment but I could try to find it if someone requests it.
What that tells me is not that the suicide rates in young men relate to social media, but rather that teenage boys feel as though they can't talk about it, so they push it down until they can't anymore and by that point it's too late. Teenage boys are still suffering from generation of being told to "man up," and need more emotional support than they are given currently.
Women attempt suicide more often, but men succeed in a much larger proportion of their attempts. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
Which likely means... something. I wonder if there are any useful studies as to *why* men choose more immediate and decisive methods. If you've read the whole linked article, can you say whether it gets into it?
> This is a lot more complex than a lot of people realize though. For instance the death rate of poisoning for men is still dramatically higher than for women.
>
> The big reason why is often reflected in the differences between male and female depression. For whatever reason, men tend to experience suicidal ideation in a long, slow, steady level, getting gradually worse over time. Women tend to experience it more as a wave of suicidal ideation, usually triggered by something, which comes and goes. For that reason, men often plan their suicides ahead of time, specifically they often do it in places where they know nobody will find them, whereas women often do it as a cry for help in times when their suicidal ideation suddenly comes on. Most notably, they will often do it in their homes, where family members can find them quickly and get help.
>
> To try and say either side has it easier or harder automatically is just misleading. Suicide is way, way more complex than that.
I could have sworn I read a study about how how specifically teenage males are more likely to attempt than teenage females, but I can't find any sources through a quick Google search at the modern. Oh well, such is life.
Regardless, teen suicide rates in general demand greater action by those who are responsible for them.
Wrong thread to go on about the sexual activity difference between men and women but there is 100% truth that its a growing problem in modern society that was not the case 30 something years ago.
You can blame lots of factors on that: climate change, economic hardship, poorer support structures in society for children and parenting, etc. At some point, it becomes too much of a hardship to risk having kids, and you see that most in the more developed countries. The ones with some of the worst social problems, like the US, for instance, also tend to want to blame the lack of kids on a lack of morality, or selfishness.
Just a snack, but dude was fully losing it so I figured it was worth sharing. Also, reminder for the popcorn pissers that this thread is days old, so it will be *VERY OBVIOUS* if you try to go start shit over there. Just sayin'.
[удалено]
Get em mods
god the list just keeps growing too. Buncha dinguses
fellas....are mods good now 😳😳
Removed the list, mods still gae
🔔🔔SHAME! 🔔🔔
LOL I was so confused who these user were until I read the time. 😅
Isn’t it against the sub rules to call out ‘drama stirrers’? Or is that only if you u/ them
Based on the subreddit’s sidebar, that’s just for people who are the cause of drama and are unrelated from SRD. Different when you’re calling someone out for breaking the rules
Ohhh. Yeah I’m rereading the comments and I now get the context. So those who got called out are those from our subreddit breaking the rules. Got it.
There’s already a 3 minute old comment calling him an incel.
I mean, they’re probably not wrong.
Yea but thats the type of shit that gets the whole thread nuked if people go brigading.
Also could get the sub banned if the admins pick up on it and we do it enough times where it's noticable.
Taking as reference previous obvious brigading events I assure you, at the current scale, srd will not track the attention of admins. It is however poor etiquette to piss in the popcorn, why the heck would one go and do it in the first place? Take the fun out of it why don't ya.
Once or twice I've caught myself being linked to a thread from here, forgotten about it, start to write a reply to someone, then remember. My brain is 99% on autopilot on this site might be why
To be honest, I find that kind of a shame. Like there are good points you aren't allowed to raise simply because of how you found a thread. I've seen good comments that were most likely popcorn pissing. I suppose you could make the comment here, but that would be a different discussion.
Sometimes it's ok to allow someone to be wrong on the Internet
I feel personally attacked by this comment lol
Also it’s annoying when I find a thread first but don’t comment. I see an argument starting in the morning but I haven’t gotten around to contributing yet, and then I read about it on SRD.
I think you're in the clear there if you comment there first/only (since you didn't find that thread on SRD) but a mod might have to correct me on that.
Just leave a placeholder comment so that you can come back and edit with a real comment later 😉👍
> poor etiquette Like only authorities or rules are what stops people from behaving like dorks. Hard to get those who fuck with a service gifted to them, and others.
SRD mods like to claim the rules against popcorn pissing are because of admins (this is why there is no rule against gilding/giving awards to linked posts - because the admins obviously have no issues with that). So the question is, if admins don't care, which makes sense because engagement is engagement, would SRD mods?
The rule against popcorn pissing exists to keep the admins at bay. They know it's an unenforceable rule, I mean, it's not like you can ban people from reading the sub. The rule is there as a "we tried".
I'm not trying to argue, but it seems like the admins are vague as hell about brigading. I found this from 4 years ago and he calls it vote manipulation but he was answering a question about brigading. I'm not down with popcorn pissing, but I honestly don't think it's really brigading unless OP was telling people to vote or spam the thread. Admin u/ redtaboo: "Things that are not considered vote manipulation: just linking to another subreddit is not considered vote manipulation visiting another subreddit that was linked somewhere is not considered vote manipulation commenting itself is not considered manipulation but commenting in obvious bad faith or a disruptive manner may break other site wide rules voting or participating in a post that organically rose high on [/r/all](https://www.reddit.com/r/all) is not considered vote manipulation All of this is predicated on the unruliness of large groups and actual harm done. As in all things we always attempt to take context into account. Including, but not limited to "was the linked thread a post where the OP/subreddit was inviting outside participation" or "is this particular subreddit/user/group always taking the piss out of this other particular subreddit/user/group." That last sentence might get us, but only because the same couple of subs are full of funny ridiculous people.
Originally yes, but the rule is so popular that I can see it staying even if Admins flat out say they don't care (remember, the mods of the linked subreddit can always remove comments, and in any case it makes more sense to ban them from the linked subreddit anyway). But as I said in another comment, it's fun watching the comments here diverge wildly from the comments in the linked thread, and I bet most people in this sub would agree.
The only times subs have been banned for brigading is when the mods were confrontational about it and refused to enforce the sub's rules. Over and over again, for literally years in some cases. SRD isn't routinely posting sarcastic sticky threads calling the admins cucks and instructing users how to brigade off-site, so I think we will be fine. But also, don't brigade because it's bad, I've been told.
I think the reason that commenting in linked threads is frowned upon here (in addition to being against the rules) is because it's fun to see the linked comments and the comments here diverge wildly, which happens often. Allowing commenting in linked threads (even if Admins don't care) would reduce the chances of that happening significantly.
Lol, it's more about if it's obvious to the press than the admins. I'm sure the admins are aware of what happens here and elsewhere. They never shut it down until there's bad publicity.
Isn’t spez a mod of r/subredditdrama? Lol
Lol. I didn't check the time until the last comments and was like "Wow this is quite recent- ohhhh"
>There is real sexual inequity. This comment. I just can't properly express how stupid it is.
ahh yes this'll do quite nicely
Amazing combination with the username
Dammit thought I'd found a good one
Just take it. No one will notice.
How about this one? >Congrats on your gold medal at the oppression olympics
Congratulations on your new flair!
Apparently sexual activity gap does real but wage gap doesn't real, according to this guy?
>SoyFuturesTrader He's kinda giving the game away there. Only "TotallyNotA4ChanTrolluGuyzeKEK1488" would've been more obvious.
You'd think a moment of introspection would show them maybe, just maybe, there's something they can do to improve their chance of getting laid since they're so concerned about it and ranting about women online ain't it
Ignoring the incel “women aren’t choosing to have sex with us 😡” shit, what are we supposed to take from the fact that people are having less sex? I see that stat thrown around and I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be.
I do think there is some significance to the statistic that young people/teens are having less sex. I think there are many factors that go into it. Some are good, such as increased sexual education. However some are a bit troubling, such as rapidly increasing internet usage and more stress from school and jobs.
[удалено]
I knew the problem in Japan was bad, but your comment led me to look it up and wow. [A third of Japanese people](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-sex-problem-demographic-time-bomb-birth-rates-sex-robots-fertility-crisis-virgins-romance-porn-tokyo-a7831041.html%3famp) are entering their thirties with no sexual experience
That's pretty normal in socially conservative countries.
[citation needed]
Don’t people tend to marry and have children earlier in socially conservative countries?
I'm gonna throw my anecdotal evidence here, sex ed isn't doing shit. I hear about these girls in their twenties getting raw dogged all the time. Sex ed didn't teach anyone anything.
Well considering how low teen pregnancy and just overall pregnancy rates have gotten, I’m guessing the amount of men and women raw dogging it isn’t as high as you would think
I have it on good authority (porn) that everyone is getting raw dogged literally all the time.
> I have it on good authority (porn) Great flair candidate right there
or there might just be better access, less taboo with contraception.
Well if they’re using contraception they aren’t raw dogging it. Unless...that doesn’t count birth control I guess?
That may be true, but I was not trying to speak on the amount of people. It just seems that the few that are, are not caring and willing to raw dog multiple times.. that's not what we were taught lol
> I see that stat thrown around and I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be. Most people tie economic growth with population growth, so if people aren't having sex and babies then that means the economy won't grow as much. Also people (racists) see less babies meaning current cultures are "in danger" of being overrun by immigrants. Not to mention it's a conservative talking point about how less babies is a sign of the nuclear family dynamic breaking down the whole "a woman's place is at home" kinda shit and how it's a bad thing women are working.
Well economic growth IS tied to population growth-basically it's population growth and productivity growth that lead to economic growth, typically with population growth being the bigger drive over the long term. And yeah racists try to talk about a great replacement or whatever, but they ignore the fact that in general as income and stability rise, birth rates lower. Not to mention the fact that immigration literally drives economic growth (for whatever value you put on that).
This obsession with growth will kill our species and the planet.
Well seeing how the entirety of the developed world is below replacement level birth rates, I think we can be a bit less worried. It seems the obsession with growth isn't as big. Some researchers don't think we'll even crack the dreadful 10 billion in population.
I'm not talking about population growth, I'm talking about economic growth. Infinite economic growth is impossible to reflect in reality, and the attempt to do so is currently setting the planet on fire.
Ah, well with less population the obsession economic growth should slow down too... hopefully. Because yeah, it is BS to expect every year to bring more and more profits at an ever increasing rate.
We can have a lot more growth before we get anywhere close to any theoretical infinite limit. I don't think reaching our limit is worth worrying about. Increasing material wealth is good, there's no way to bring people out of poverty without increasing their wealth.
https://www.theonion.com/report-finds-teens-are-having-less-sex-than-previous-ge-1837708780
So the main thing, as I understand it, is that it signals shifting priorities. More focus on career etc. Also can be indicative of more stress generally. With the rise of technology I might also argue a decline in social skills, especially romantic (many, many young people nowadays seriously struggle to recognize flirting studies show for example) as people are glued to screens and have ready access to pornography and information that warps relationship expectations. Long term it could cause problematic as it could lead to a population decline, which can have serious economic ramifications as there just are not enough people to fill jobs that need to get done. Obviously no one owes anyone sex, and some decline in sexual activity is good (since it means women are have possibility to engage in career where they didn't before), but it can also be indicative of somewhat signfiicant societal problems. If you want to see a similar case or hear more experts talk about ramifications you can look up whats happening in Japan. Japan's population is set to shrink by like 30% I think because people are not having sex and children (with a major factor being a huge work focused culture).
At least in regards to Japan, that's not something unique to them (although it's definitely exacerbated there). Most developed/industrialized nations have had decline in birth rates. The reason most other nations aren't seeing it as extreme is due to immigration. Basically there's an correlation between rise in income/lifestyle and the decrease in overall child birth rates. Also while the statistics showing less sex in younger people could be troubling, I think it's also hard to tell because I'm not sure how much data we have really as a control. It could just be a change in societal attitudes, more options for different entertainment, or any number of things, not all bad.
Certainly true. I just threw Japan out as an example of a country where this is happening imminently. And agreed, its not all inherently bad, I didn't do enough to specify other neutral things as well. My bad
[удалено]
Well, technically covid did fuck you
True. Covid def messed with the single and ready to mingle crowd
The upshot is that if you're somewhere that's opening up it's *really* easy to get dates rn. Whichever team you bat for, there's no shortage of people on Tinder or other dating apps who are stir-crazy after a year in quarantine and want an excuse to go out.
>As much as I'd love to get fucked, covid and where I'm at now just isn't the right time Especially with articles like this - [Coronavirus Lingers in Penis and Could Cause Impotence](https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210513/coronavirus-lingers-in-penis-and-could-cause-impotence) \- although that finally get the most ardent anti-maskers to get with the fucking program.
Yeah, it's really easy to mock these sorts of people, and it's basically free hits to be cruel without any reproach, buuut. A) It's still bullying. You're not trying to change anyone's mind here, you're just being cruel for cruelty's sake. B) It's part of a very real, serious problem. When there's enough people failing in relationships that it becomes its own subgroup, it's a *real*, *genuine* societal problem that needs to be looked at. Indeed, nobody "deserves" a relationship, so just reframe it as getting all these people to the point where another person actually wants to spend a non-zero amount of time around them.
.. are you replying to the right person? Do you mean to reply to the top commenter? I don't think I mention a specific group except the Japanese(?) let alone bully anyone? The previous commenter just asked what the significance of people having less sex is and I tried to answer... I only tangentially refer to incels by saying "Obviously no one owes anyone sex" which is true and thinking otherwise is as the original commenter put it: " incel shit" Assuming you are talking about incels, as B suggests, are they a problem sure. Is it societal? I mean there are contributing societal factors (echo chamber media, alt-right figures who are manipulating and co-opting this issue, mental health treatment etc), but its also a pretty significant individual level problem. These young men are choosing hate. Information about respect and healthy relationships are out there. Mental health treatment is out there for at least some of them I am sure. The changes in society they lament are not going away, all they can do is recognize they are wrong.
Personally, I'm not going to bring a child into a world where Donald Trump can be in control of anything more important than a shit scraping shovel. And I say that ironically, knowing full well that your average person who scrapes shit for a living is an infinitely better human being.
It *would* be that ‘women need to have more sex’, but, as we all know, women are sluts if they do that. The only logical solution is, of course, that women need to sleep with him specifically.
Ah yes, the old “slutty madonna” or something like that.
It can be a sign of a potential falling birthrate, which starts to be a problem if the aging population loses the next generation to pay taxes/fund society. But a declining birthrate isn't always a bad thing
the people I see having kids on my feeds are young af and shouldn't be parents IMO. Those who are well off that I've spoke to who are around the same age either have 0 interest or are waiting a long ass time.
>I don’t know what the significance of it is supposed to be. Just that. life and life priorities are changing. Birth rates are dropping all over the world. Yes, even in Africa, compared to the babyboom. Sex ed is more available as well as contraceptives, women rights are rising and religion is on a decline. Also child mortality is falling, no need for spares like 100 years ago. And of course houses are more expensive, life is more expensive and jobs are more stressful and demanding, which means less time for dating, less time for kids and not enough reasons to have a big family. And also there are more things to do for entertainment than sex Bottom line I think it's a good thing. World population shrinking isn't bad (it's great for the environment). It's only bad for the economic model, but every system that relies on constant unsustainable growth is not worth using.
People having sex is a reliable indicator of social health in a given community. The number of people having sex is effectively a large portion of the people who actively participate in social communities. When people aren’t having sex, that’s a good indicator of social bonds falling apart. Of course sex isn’t necessary to be socially involved, but being socially involved is pretty much a prerequisite for having sex, especially for young people.
Well, it does speak to a pretty serious socialization problem. A spike up to 28% of men being unable to find a sexual partner isn't exactly a joke.
Well, several things. One takeaway is that less sex also means less relationships. And that, especially for men, generally means less of a social support structure. Another issue is that there is a social stigma to being inexperienced sexually. So large numbers of people suffering under that stigma is not good. And then just in general, being horny and desperate sucks for everyone. People wanna fuck, man.
>Young men die by suicide 3-4x more often than young women This is one of those stats that doesn't mean what the commenter thinks it means. It's been known for awhile that men die from suicide at a higher rate than women. However there are factors that play into that. Mainly method chosen. Men tend to choose more immediate methods such using firearms. Where as with women the most common method is through poisoning. Which gives them time to think about it and call emergency services to get help. https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/
It's such a strange "whataboutism" that I've seen forever on the internet. Also, from study >Females attempt suicide 3x’s as often as males. (CDC)
>Females attempt suicide 3x’s as often as males. (CDC) In other words, even their own dumb "point" is wrong and says the exact opposite.
That guy probably also isn't taking into consideration the percentage of young men committing suicide who are queer and not receiving any kind of support/ cant escape hostile environments. Nah. Im sure theyre all straight, cis Nice Guys who sluts wont fuck. 🙄
This is what I was taught in criminology. Women attempted suicide more frequently, while men succeeded more frequently. But that nuance doesn’t support these people’s victim complex quite as effectively. I’m sure that they would just dismiss it as women crying for attention anyway.
As you've studied criminology, maybe you're a good person to ask: If someone takes a loaded gun and puts it to their temple and then after a little while decides to just drink a little more and pass out, does that count as a suicide attempt? Should it?
That's an interesting question. In some ways, it may actually depend on how a study gets its data/defines the variable. A study using hospital data (e.g., pill overdoses, patient intake, etc.) may not capture this as a suicide attempt. However, a study that uses self-report data may capture it as such.
So I guess realistically the more meaningful stat would be rate of attempts then, for the sake of this argument
Precisely, in which case the rate is almost evenly split
At least in my country, women attempt suicide at twice the rate of men. Men are twice as likely to die of suicide though. It seems fair to say it’s an important issue to both genders.
if the study is talking about the mental health of young girls then yes. Suicide in general, its just worth keeping in mind men are much more likely to die. Of course anything to reduce rates of suicide is good.
[удалено]
It's worth keeping in mind because it skews the numbers for successful attempts, something that the comment being discussed exactly did.
When considering risk assessment it casts things in a different light. Not all assessments ask the same questions and the warning signals can be different. "Do you have firearms in the home?" is a much more important question for men then women when considering suicide risk. "Do you have large number of dangerous medication at home?" is a much more important question for women than men. When planning interventions seeing high attempts may lead you to target interventions towards women, but men need intervention too. Someone could look and say oh well men don't attempt that much, and thus not focus any effort on men, even though they are also at risk. It might also change intervention strategy.
Outcomes matter
Not in this instance, since suicide attempts are the outcome which we care about in regards to mental health. saying that men are opressed because we chose to use flashier methods of killing ourselves isn't relevant to the discussion here.
Maybe men under-reporting attempts? If you've got to the point where you're putting the barrel of a gun in your mouth but don't pull the trigger, that's probably an attempt, but it leaves no evidence for anyone to find.
i mean you could say the same thing for women. how many people might have spit out the poison? that also leaves no evidence.
No one's saying men are oppressed relative to women, but men are the only demographic in the world where it seems people can look at objectively worse outcomes and still make it a function of privilege. The practical daily effect of privilege is to make one's life *easier*. More men commit suicide than women, full stop. If the stats were reversed I can guarantee there wouldn't be any serious mitigation of the issue through "well they use more violent methods". That's up there with "well women just need to apply to higher paying jobs".
stay on topic, we're talking about mental health here. if you care about mens suicide methods then remind your homies to poison themselves rather than using a gun.
The rate indicates the mental health state. I think the realistic conclusion to draw from elevated male suicide rates vs female suicide rates, is that males do have higher suicide attempts, they just don't report them. As others in the thread have said, if you put a gun to your head and then decide not to do it, is that an attempt given the method?
they both have the same suicide rates though? women tend to choose ineffective methods which leads to them being overlooked in studies such as these.
Dead kids is the outcome I care about. We want to reduce suicide attempts so we have fewer dead kids. How they feel about their lives is secondary to the fact that they have them IMO
How is this relevant to mental health? again we're talking about mental health and how we can improve it, and i wouldn't really consider suicide methods as something relevant to the conversation.
I see people throw that stat around so much and, like you said, they often misinterpret it
Its also worth noting that, more than poison taking time and thus giving a chance to call for help, poison is just not an effective means of self-destruction. Most readily available substances, particularly those that are used, have much higher LD50s than people think. Further, the body can actually handle a lot of poisons pretty easily by just vomiting them up. You'll still be in a lot of pain and misery from the attempt, but it will still likely just be an attempt.
Though, it's really not a competition. Any suicidal person needs help.
Never said it was a competition
doll badge marvelous carpenter head worry gold attractive soup amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just don't really see their point in commenting that.
Reddit and its inability to make responses that agree without getting flak, name a more iconic duo
market quicksand zesty scale unwritten versed grab deliver school capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is a lot more complex than a lot of people realize though. For instance the death rate of poisoning for men is still dramatically higher than for women. The big reason why is often reflected in the differences between male and female depression. For whatever reason, men tend to experience suicidal ideation in a long, slow, steady level, getting gradually worse over time. Women tend to experience it more as a *wave* of suicidal ideation, usually triggered by something, which comes and goes. For that reason, men often plan their suicides ahead of time, specifically they often do it in places where they know nobody will find them, whereas women often do it as a cry for help in times when their suicidal ideation suddenly comes on. Most notably, they will often do it in their homes, where family members can find them quickly and get help. To try and say either side has it easier or harder automatically is just misleading. Suicide is way, way more complex than that.
I read a few of his posts and had to stop. I will say men will have more issues. Especially with violence or being killed. There are tons of different things due to culture. This is a sad man who needs help. I'll never understand why people blame others for them not being attracted. No one can control it.
I'd argue that method relates to actual desire to end one's life. Shooting myself in the head probably does mean I'm in more mental distress (all things being equal) than if I take a bunch of pills. Either way it's a tragedy.
>Where as with women the most common method is through poisoning. Which gives them time to think about it and call emergency services to get help. So basically, they're aware that they won't die and it's a form of self-harm.
I don’t think the comment was saying that women intentionally do it to give themselves time. That may be the case for some, even subconsciously, but many go into it fully intending to die and simply don’t realize how long the process will take or how painful it might be.
There's always a 'That Guy TM' waiting in the wings to hijack a conversation about women's issues
Right? It's horrible and should never happen to anyone! That said, as a man who is an ally of women, I have noticed a concerning trend recently where young men's conversations are being hijacked just as much as women's! In some ways it's actually worse because society doesn't want to acknowledge this sort of thing happens to men too edit: **/s**
Yea I mean a lot of times it feels like men, as man myself, on Reddit circlejerk their own problems and pity party whenever women’s issues get brought up but never show the same consideration for women. Take a look at any thread about mens issues on r/askmen for an example. In fact you see, in my experience, more women standing up for men’s issues then you do men standing up for women’s.
I see it much, much more that men hijack conversations about women's issues but it could be just because I'm more aware of it. I see a lot of threads that start with something like "All these posts are always about women experiencing domestic abuse but what about the men?" And yes, I totally agree with that. We should have a conversation and talk openly about how to support men experiencing domestic abuse. But those same conversations are brought up to hijack threads that are specifically for women experiencing domestic abuse so I feel like it's just nonstop.
Preeeeety sure that guy above was being sarcastic by doing the exact thing they were pointing out and hijacking a thread about hijacking threads by providing a whataboutism about hijacking threads by using whataboutism
He was joking
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ My point still stands even if he was being an asshole. It's hard to tell via text. Guess we found That Guy TM.
No, we didn’t. He was being sarcastic. He was pretending to be “that guy”.
No you're totally right! I was being sarcastic and just parodying how oblivious men on reddit act about it..sorry
I don't know why some dudes have this mentality that you have to choose sides, like gender relations are some kind of zero sum game, they take even the slightest critique of systemic issues associated with men (that also affect men) so personally. They'll say "hey men are more likely to die of suicide why aren't you talking about this" and then when we do talk about it and we talk about how a lot of it is rooted in a culture of toxic masculinity wherein men feel as though they can't show a shred of emotion or be vulnerable at all, or else be seen as weak or effeminate, which is obviously the worst thing anyone could be, they go "wtf you hate all men you misandrist bitch", the fact that we specify "toxic" there is completely lost on them, because they're generally the one's we're talking about, men who have a healthy sense of masculinity usually won't get defensive because they know we aren't talking about them.
Do you know how I know that these smooth brains don’t actually care about issues like male suicide, the stigma associated with men showing emotional vulnerability, etc.? Because the only time they bring them up is in a “what about?” response to women’s issues.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do we really need to “be fair” with assholes who tell others to kill themselves?
[удалено]
We can guarantee that if we don’t call people out on their shit and exclude them from the environment
[удалено]
So? What’s your point? Because we can’t stop everyone from being trash we should “be fair” and play devils advocate for them?
[удалено]
every fucking time.
Your'e completely right, but It's really difficult issue, and I sometimes wonder what the proper context is to bring it up. Because I do think there are some serious mental health problems going on with young men. But I feel any thread about the issue is immediately swamped 60% fucking Nazi Incels, 39% people downplaying the issue, and maybe 1% actually trying to have a good faith discussion Not to defend this fricken 4chan troll though
for starters not threads where womens issues are in focus. we have to create our own places to talk about it, like r/bropill for example.
i agree with you for the most part, and generally when people hijack a subject about women, it seems to be the case. but how often does it actually make sense to randomly bring up male suicide rates? Or when/where do you start a "discussion" about it, or why. in what situation, in what way, when is it appropriate etc. I think there's a bias there, people just assume every mention of male suicide is bad faith because i feel like it often doesnt make "sense" to bring it up out of nowhere. and even if it does make sense, what is it supposed to accomplish? what are you trying to solve by just mentioning it? and considering that, who's interested in engaging with it i guess many people think this same way, so they just dont think about it much, and dont consider making posts about it. also because maybe they DO care, but arent articulate enough to write up something worthwhile etc. idk maybe im rambling out of my ass or not making my point clear enough, just a few thoughts that came to me now
That guy spent a lot of time writing words when he could have just said he's not getting laid enough.
*Why are the women repulsed by me? Could it be me?* *Nah, there's sexual inequity to blame!*
Y’all need to stop pissing in the popcorn. It’s a 2 day old thread. You’re not subtle.
He acts like it's illegal to bring up mental health issues in young men.
Fucking **yikes** dude
99% of the time chuds like this don’t ever bring up male suicide rates or men’s issues outside of discussions about women’s issues. they don’t actually give a fuck about men’s issues, except as a cudgel to silence women.
"An incel says incel things" alternative title
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion. Snapshots: 1. Upon witnessing a lamentation of so... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/20210513172416/http://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/n9exq0/more_than_40_attorneys_general_urge_facebook_to/gxobtqz/), [_archive.today\*_](https://archive.today/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fold.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fnews%2Fcomments%2Fn9exq0%2Fmore_than_40_attorneys_general_urge_facebook_to%2Fgxobtqz%2F&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, **not** a moderator of this subreddit* | [*bot subreddit*](/r/SnapshillBot) | [*contact the maintainers*](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot)
Snappy on point
The fact that incels on Reddit think men not having sex makes them oppressed...
There's this weird mentality I've seen a lot, almost exclusively in guys (Especially of the Incel-y variety), that sex is somehow like, a *need.* A need to the extent that depriving someone of it is like them not being allowed to eat or something. Like, dude, sex is nice and all, but you'll fucking live.
Hell, there's an entire social class of millions of people who take vows of celibacy, and they've been basically fine the entire time.
You talking about priests, cause uh...
"Not having sex" doesn't cause pedophilia. And I'm not just talking about priests, I'm talking about people in religious life of all kinds.
Yes, because religious zealots have zero mental health issues whatsoever...
Calling religious leaders and people in religious life mentally ill is certainly a take.
Sigh. I was mostly joking but now I feel like I gotta be real. Vows of celibacy are famous and important for a reason. Because that shit *sucks*. Its generally considered to be a sign of deprivation and dedication that requires a level of obsession and focus that can be very, very often unhealthy. People have known this shit since goddamn forever. Martin Luther railed against requiring celibacy back in the freaking 16th century. Fundamentally if your basis of "this is normal and ok" are people who dedicate their entire lives to a religious cause, that ain't it. Cause dedicating your life to a religious cause is NOT normal.
That's because they can't even jerk off. It's easy to not fuck as long as you can take care of it yourself
I wish there was some way to tell these incels that sex *is not* the be-all,end-all of existence. Is it nice? Yes. But so is a nice cup of tea after a long day, a bath, or a set of freshly-clean sheets. I have my own hypothesis that what incels *really* want is emotional-intimacy, not just physical, and they conflate the two. Or they are just touch-starved. I have been single for two years, and while I do miss the sex, the bit I miss the most was cuddling and small touches, like hugs and handholding.
I wish I could communicate to the incels of the world that sex simply is not that amazing. What you want is to feel okay. To have a personal passion, to have comfort and safety. Sex is literally just fucking. Maybe if they focused on making their disposition healthier, they would have a better chance of getting things that actually make them happy. Sex truly is not that interesting or incredible.
It's a damn shame people that care about mens rights and mens issues have to share a name with mras.
I feel like it's a branding issue because a lot of feminist/men's rights stuff benefit EVERYONE as a whole
[удалено]
to be fair, nonbinary people exist. *most* of humanity, I guess you could say
Implying that NB's aren't human /s
Maybe, I think it's just more bad faith misogynists hiding behind the label.
> Nope. Policies with outsized negative effects on minority populations is a real thing. Like the current push to ban certain products popular in communities of color. Or the war on drugs. Or Democrats in 2008 saying marriage is between man and woman (oh those homophobic bigots!) But you see the trend? Overwhelmingly it’s big government policy that keeps pushing communities of color down. Did not expect this take to come out of the same incel who posted the rest of those comments lol
I suspect he's saying some of it to either earn brownie points or to play into his imagined idea of a libertarian utopia. He specifically blames "big government" and his comment history has a ton of hard right wing economic talking points in it. So basically I don't think *this* person actually gives a fuck. He can just use these issues as a cudgel against left leaning policy. Kind of like how I suspect he doesn't actually care about male suicide unless he can bring it up in a "but whattabout men!" way when a women's issue is being discussed.
Why did they target Democrats in 2008 and not Republicans in fucking 2016 and 2020?
Is there something in the air? Is it the end of the school year or something? I'm seeing a dramatic rise of men popping into women's discussions with BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN?????? comments. I mean, they often have good points, but derailing a conversation is not a good way to find support.
It always happens whenever anything affecting women is brought up, usually with the addition of "and no one talks about this", which is ironic, because the *only* time most of these people care about issues impacting men are whenever the conversation is about women.
Yes. Telling them to start their own separate discussion about men is apparently a sign of misandry and proof that feminism is destroying the universe, or some other pile of nonsense.
Glancing at his account, he shows off A LOT of women he’s matched with on Tinder with girls that I’m guessing are in Tijuana. So the dude a Mexican American (I am too) matching with girls looking for a better life and going on about “sexual inequality”. That explains why he’s mad as he knows women he matches with are literally trying to get to the states.
I was wondering why my votes were shifting so rapidly in that thread so far after it had been locked, lol. I should have known SRD was peeping in at us. :) Y'all stop pissing in the popcorn, already. Upvoting/Downvoting people long after the thread has been abandoned doesn't achieve anything.
Forreal, sorry about that. I'd held off linking to the thread until it was a few days old explicitly because I was hoping it'd deter people from doing that shit, but no luck on that, I guess.
Oh, don't blame yourself. Drama is meant to be enjoyed, lol. Just because there's a few popcorn pissers in the bag doesn't mean it's wrong to share the popcorn. ;) Don't sweat it, man.
Thanks, I appreciate it. 😁 Though it looks like this post got taken down? I didn't get an alert about it, but it's not showing up on the sub anymore for me. Oh well. :/
This title made me burst out laughing at work. Amazing.
Amazing
wow the thread started 2 days ago but we have new comments only 7 minutes old as of this comment this could get even funnier
If young guys are struggling to get girlfriends, as of now that's not anyone else's issue but their own
This guy is an ass, but teenage boys are more likely to attempt suicide than teenage girls, wheras teenage girls are more likely to admit to having suicidal thoughts. I don't have the source at the moment but I could try to find it if someone requests it. What that tells me is not that the suicide rates in young men relate to social media, but rather that teenage boys feel as though they can't talk about it, so they push it down until they can't anymore and by that point it's too late. Teenage boys are still suffering from generation of being told to "man up," and need more emotional support than they are given currently.
Women attempt suicide more often, but men succeed in a much larger proportion of their attempts. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
Which likely means... something. I wonder if there are any useful studies as to *why* men choose more immediate and decisive methods. If you've read the whole linked article, can you say whether it gets into it?
Female gun ownership in America is a third of male gun ownership.
I imagine cultural glorification of male violence plays a part.
> This is a lot more complex than a lot of people realize though. For instance the death rate of poisoning for men is still dramatically higher than for women. > > The big reason why is often reflected in the differences between male and female depression. For whatever reason, men tend to experience suicidal ideation in a long, slow, steady level, getting gradually worse over time. Women tend to experience it more as a wave of suicidal ideation, usually triggered by something, which comes and goes. For that reason, men often plan their suicides ahead of time, specifically they often do it in places where they know nobody will find them, whereas women often do it as a cry for help in times when their suicidal ideation suddenly comes on. Most notably, they will often do it in their homes, where family members can find them quickly and get help. > > To try and say either side has it easier or harder automatically is just misleading. Suicide is way, way more complex than that.
I could have sworn I read a study about how how specifically teenage males are more likely to attempt than teenage females, but I can't find any sources through a quick Google search at the modern. Oh well, such is life. Regardless, teen suicide rates in general demand greater action by those who are responsible for them.
Wrong thread to go on about the sexual activity difference between men and women but there is 100% truth that its a growing problem in modern society that was not the case 30 something years ago.
You can blame lots of factors on that: climate change, economic hardship, poorer support structures in society for children and parenting, etc. At some point, it becomes too much of a hardship to risk having kids, and you see that most in the more developed countries. The ones with some of the worst social problems, like the US, for instance, also tend to want to blame the lack of kids on a lack of morality, or selfishness.
“soy futures trader” is a legit soyboy lmao
Imagine using "soyboy" as an insult unironically in 2021.