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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
an important thing to note is that with us being possibly THE single most social species on earth, sex isn't just about reproduction. It can also serve an important function in strengthening social bonds.
Imagine being part of a tribe 50k years ago: you're sure gonna feel more comfortable around another tribe if you've all made a big campfire together then done funny drugs and bummed each other silly.
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").
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I think the sticking point would be the "hard [people] make good times" assertion. Hard (read: traumatized) people tend to be assertive and aggressive in positions of leadership. While that certainly can create change for the better, that change is far from guaranteed.
I think he's trying to claim "the greatest generation" who taxed the rich and killed the nazis were "soft men" and that he's the "hard men" here to turn it around.
It’s funny that Laurence is about as soft a lad as they come. His entire acting family is so obviously posh and pampered that they all have to play Malfoys, but the rest of them just get on with it instead of coming out with cry-baby shit like this on the regular.
96 Comments
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 134 pts · 264d
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 34 pts · 264d
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..
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 264d
no its about femboys. read history
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 263d
can confirm I lived in the Roman empire 👍
HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 264d
You'd be surprised by the amount of nazi femboys there are...
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 7 pts · 264d
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.
de_lancre@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 263d
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 3 pts · 262d
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.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · -1 pts · 264d
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.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 1 pts · 263d
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.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 263d
So your "know" is just a gamble.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 0 pts · 263d
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.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 263d
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.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 1 pts · 263d
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.
AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 263d
Bro made a casual joke and you took it too seriously. YTA.
JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org · 8 pts · 264d
Those two aren't men, they're an enby and a trans woman.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 18 pts · 264d
Yet they still make me hard. Curious
JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 264d
Well that means you're bi
thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 264d
t'aint nothin wrong with it though
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 264d
everybody's bi.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 263d
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
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 263d
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.
JesusChristLover420@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 263d
Are ace people bi?
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 148d
an important thing to note is that with us being possibly THE single most social species on earth, sex isn't just about reproduction. It can also serve an important function in strengthening social bonds.
Imagine being part of a tribe 50k years ago: you're sure gonna feel more comfortable around another tribe if you've all made a big campfire together then done funny drugs and bummed each other silly.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 147d
why are you replying to several of my comments from longer ago
are you so active on lemmy that you are looking through past posts, are you looking at the past posts of this community, or are you stalking me?
stray@pawb.social · 2 pts · 263d
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?
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 262d
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").
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 83 pts · 264d
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.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · -11 pts · 264d
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?
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 264d
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.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 2 pts · 264d
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.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 264d
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.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · -2 pts · 264d
Then keep allowing shitty people to ruin things like you seem to want to do. It's the American way, after all.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 263d
Nah, metaphors can be wrong. Even things that "feel true" can be wrong.
MotoAsh@piefed.social · -1 pts · 263d
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.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 263d
How is this a metaphor for "don't put weak men in charge"??
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 1 pts · 263d
Because they create bad times? How is this a fucking difficult concept?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 263d
Bad people create bad times, it's pretty simple.
People might consider Jimmy Carter a "soft man," but did he "create bad times"?
MotoAsh@piefed.social · 0 pts · 262d
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.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 262d
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?
UnGlasierteGurke@feddit.org · 55 pts · 264d
SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world · 23 pts · 264d
Easy for you to say when you've got a prescription which ensures that for hours at a time.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 264d
is that prescription dancing?
lobut@lemmy.ca · 47 pts · 264d
Stupid men like oversimplified phrases that make themselves think they're better than others.
riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 264d
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.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 5 pts · 264d
Yeah. Gotta wonder what all their fuss is about.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 264d
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.
halvar@lemy.lol · 46 pts · 264d
IS THAT A RAINBOW IN THEIR PFP? DID GRINDR GO WOKE???
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 8 pts · 264d
Equal opportunity sodomy imposed.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 263d
How shocking!
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 264d
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.
sukhmel@programming.dev · 1 pts · 263d
That's a good one 🤣
halfdane@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 264d
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
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 264d
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
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 26 pts · 264d
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.
joyjoy@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 264d
Why is GrinderUS named GrinderUK?
toxicbubble@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 264d
listen up libruls, i beat my entire family so they can be MANLY
my wife left and took the kids
wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io · 4 pts · 264d
That’s hard, man.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 263d
"GrindrUK" "@GrindrUS"
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 15 pts · 264d
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
Iheartcheese@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 264d
Did anybody ever respond to him? I don't see anything highlighted so I don't think so
asbestos@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 264d
Nothing yet, will keep you posted
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 264d
I think we're all just having a discussion about how to help him. Such a delicate soul.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 15 pts · 264d
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!
mustlane@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 264d
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 4 pts · 264d
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.
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:mustlane@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 264d
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 3 pts · 264d
Condolences, hope you recover soon
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 264d
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.
Zombie@feddit.uk · 15 pts · 264d
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Fox#Personal_views
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 263d
Is there an echo in here??
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 13 pts · 264d
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...
Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 264d
most of the 20th century dictators were men "made" by bad times. explain this sherlock.
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 264d
I think the sticking point would be the "hard [people] make good times" assertion. Hard (read: traumatized) people tend to be assertive and aggressive in positions of leadership. While that certainly can create change for the better, that change is far from guaranteed.
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 264d
Trauma's no magic wand that makes people hard. It's not always true that what does not kill you makes you stronger.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 264d
The current times were made by people in their 60s to 80s so they are the weak men by his logic.
Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 263d
Soft men make me hard.
thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 264d
good times make hard men. soft men make me hard.
StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 264d
This comment made me a hard man.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 264d
Hard men make soft men. Soft men become hard men... What were we talking about?
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 264d
Did he just call himself soft?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 264d
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 264d
I’m so glad they sloppily hilighted the text, otherwise I might not have understood it
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 264d
So is Mr Fox admitting to being a soft man for being around to cause these problems?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 263d
I think he's trying to claim "the greatest generation" who taxed the rich and killed the nazis were "soft men" and that he's the "hard men" here to turn it around.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 263d
Then why are things getting worse?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 263d
Because the real "hard men" are the young men like @GrindrUK and the soft men like Lawrence aren't dead yet.
MML@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 264d
Okay, who else tried to wipe or blow away the random line?
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 264d
I was once told that blowing is gay.
... The guy was serious. Not using a euphemism.
If he saw it, he'd leave it be, not wanting to be gay.
XD
regdog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 263d
That depends on what you are blowing
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 263d
It’s funny that Laurence is about as soft a lad as they come. His entire acting family is so obviously posh and pampered that they all have to play Malfoys, but the rest of them just get on with it instead of coming out with cry-baby shit like this on the regular.
abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 147d
If you don't know who Lawrence fox is, he's a very far-right actor who tried to have political career.
regdog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 264d
Bazell@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 262d
This belongs in a meme section.