Thank you for understanding. So many times when I discuss things that are adjacent to this topic, I get flamed in the comments with people accusing me of being some sort of redpiller from the manosphere.
Like, no, social isolation is a problem, and it’s getting worse due to a variety of factors. To name a few, there’s social media algorithms designed to keep people dependent on their phones; there’s the long-standing consequences of the pandemic and the collective trauma that had in addition to the atrophied social skills due to quarantine; there’s widespread political polarization which keeps tensions high and makes it difficult to navigate new situations if you can’t prove you know the right social scripts and avoid any faux pas; there’s the whole toxic influencer culture who are grifting on inflammatory rhetoric, ragebait content, exploiting people’s vulnerabilities, and radicalizing them (which is a vicious cycle, because they prey on people who are already isolated!); and that’s just to name a few!
But if I summarize all that as a “loneliness epidemic,” then people call me an incel and act like I’m trying to coerce women into having sex with me simply by acknowledging the fact that social interaction is a deeply-set human psychological need.
Like, using “incel” as an insult is part of the problem. It feeds into this culture where “if you’re a man, you must get laid, or else you’re worthless.” That’s literally promoting toxic masculinity!
And it forces these people who are already isolated and vulnerable to go identify with these groups of similarly ostracized people in echo chambers where they’re insulated from those insults, where those predatory “influencers” then have fresh pickings of new losers to neg and radicalize.
But somehow, if I point out the problem here (because how can we solve a problem if we can’t talk about it?), then to most people’s view that makes me part of the problem! Even though, why would I be calling out the pattern if it was something I identify with?
The people radicalizing these vulnerable “losers,” yes they should be torched. But the vulnerable “losers” being radicalized need to be treated with compassion if they’re ever going to be redeemed. It should be pretty easy to identify who’s who, seeing as they have an entire social structure based on hierarchies of dominance and submission…
The people radicalizing these vulnerable “losers,” yes they should be torched.
Starting with: I have found a great many of “those people” to be highly insecure, living in denial and fear that they themselves may be such a “loser” but are putting on the bully face for the world to misdirect people away from the fact that they themselves are very much the same as the people they are bullying.
True, but there’s a line and once they’ve crosses it, they’re the bullies.
Where exactly that line is and how to draw it is a matter for debate. Maybe there’s another line where “This person is a bully, but still redeemable if he demonstrates willingness to change.”
But anyone who’s unapologetic and unwilling to change obviously needs to be shunned at the very least, and see consequences for the harms he’s caused.
That still doesn’t mean the majority of those vulnerable and radicalized people are irredeemable. Some are just uncritically following the trend. Which is wrong, but not as bad as being ideologically devoted to it, and their redemption can be as simple as showing them there’s a different way to be.
The main focus should be on helping vulnerable people before they become radicalized, but at this point I suspect everyone has already been corralled into one camp or another… Unfortunately no one was willing to listen to my soap box years ago, back when it was still possible to avert this calamity, at least to the same degree.
Oh, hey, you’re much more forgiving than me. Exposing the bullies for being exactly what they are using as an excuse to bully other people is just the first part of the “torching.” Forcible restraint, treble-damages penalties, and public shaming are top of my list for responses to bully-bad actors.
However, you are right that reconciliation and acceptance of all people, not exactly for who they are when they’re bullies, but for those aspects of themselves that are compatible with a society in which we at least don’t harm each other is always important to do when possible.
Based on my childhood experiences, until those compatible aspects are found and the incompatible aspects removed from their expressed behaviors - forcible restraint and removal from the situations in which they are causing harm to others should be the norm, not the exception.
Not particularly. Like I said, unrepentant bullies should receive no mercy. I left “torched” undefined on purpose, to keep it open-ended. It’s only the ones who demonstrate self-awareness and willingness to change who deserve a chance at redemption. Because they’re the only ones who can be redeemed. Redemption can’t be forced on anyone unwilling.
But blanket-shunning everyone including those who want to be better is self-destructive. It gives the enemy a larger recruitment pool, and it dwindles our own.
Many of those people were simply victims in their own ways: bullied and ostracized until they internalized the toxic patterns that were being used against them, and then projecting it onto others as they’ve learned to view it as the “norm.” Those people are redeemable, they just need to be shown a better way. What they’re missing is self-compassion. It’s not possible to love others when deep down, who you truly hate is yourself.
I know, because I was bullied and ostracized throughout my childhood as well. To this day, I have very little patience with bullies and abusers. I often get myself in trouble with my open contempt for them.
But it took me well into my twenties to unlearn the patterns that had been ingrained in me by that toxic environment growing up. It didn’t happen overnight, and it was painful, uncomfortable, and a lot of work. It would have been so much easier had I found a healthy support group or mentor, but everyone rejected me because I “should have already known” the social scripts and how to avoid the faux pas.
I’m not surprised that most people don’t do that work on their own, that many who start don’t see it through to completion, or that most of them end up taking the path of least resistance: moving to the echo-chambers full of people like themselves with similar qualms, who validate what they’re feeling and accept them for who they are. Those are the same echo-chambers where right-wing extremists poach their new victims for negging, manipulation, and eventual radicalization.
If I didn’t hate right-wing abusers and machismo culture so much, more than I hated suffering in isolation and constant rejection by the people on the left whose ideals I actually aligned with, then I may have been tempted to fall back into that trap, too.
But yes, the people orchestrating these right-wing radicalization funnels need to be forceably stopped. I’m not disagreeing with that. We just need to acknowledge that there are degrees of involvement, and not everyone who falls for their grift is a grifter themselves. And when their social structure is dismantled, we need to provide them with an alternative or else new grifters will simply take the place of the old, like a hydra.
Thank you for understanding. So many times when I discuss things that are adjacent to this topic, I get flamed in the comments with people accusing me of being some sort of redpiller from the manosphere.
Like, no, social isolation is a problem, and it’s getting worse due to a variety of factors. To name a few, there’s social media algorithms designed to keep people dependent on their phones; there’s the long-standing consequences of the pandemic and the collective trauma that had in addition to the atrophied social skills due to quarantine; there’s widespread political polarization which keeps tensions high and makes it difficult to navigate new situations if you can’t prove you know the right social scripts and avoid any faux pas; there’s the whole toxic influencer culture who are grifting on inflammatory rhetoric, ragebait content, exploiting people’s vulnerabilities, and radicalizing them (which is a vicious cycle, because they prey on people who are already isolated!); and that’s just to name a few!
But if I summarize all that as a “loneliness epidemic,” then people call me an incel and act like I’m trying to coerce women into having sex with me simply by acknowledging the fact that social interaction is a deeply-set human psychological need.
Like, using “incel” as an insult is part of the problem. It feeds into this culture where “if you’re a man, you must get laid, or else you’re worthless.” That’s literally promoting toxic masculinity!
And it forces these people who are already isolated and vulnerable to go identify with these groups of similarly ostracized people in echo chambers where they’re insulated from those insults, where those predatory “influencers” then have fresh pickings of new losers to neg and radicalize.
But somehow, if I point out the problem here (because how can we solve a problem if we can’t talk about it?), then to most people’s view that makes me part of the problem! Even though, why would I be calling out the pattern if it was something I identify with?
The people radicalizing these vulnerable “losers,” yes they should be torched. But the vulnerable “losers” being radicalized need to be treated with compassion if they’re ever going to be redeemed. It should be pretty easy to identify who’s who, seeing as they have an entire social structure based on hierarchies of dominance and submission…
Starting with: I have found a great many of “those people” to be highly insecure, living in denial and fear that they themselves may be such a “loser” but are putting on the bully face for the world to misdirect people away from the fact that they themselves are very much the same as the people they are bullying.
True, but there’s a line and once they’ve crosses it, they’re the bullies.
Where exactly that line is and how to draw it is a matter for debate. Maybe there’s another line where “This person is a bully, but still redeemable if he demonstrates willingness to change.”
But anyone who’s unapologetic and unwilling to change obviously needs to be shunned at the very least, and see consequences for the harms he’s caused.
That still doesn’t mean the majority of those vulnerable and radicalized people are irredeemable. Some are just uncritically following the trend. Which is wrong, but not as bad as being ideologically devoted to it, and their redemption can be as simple as showing them there’s a different way to be.
The main focus should be on helping vulnerable people before they become radicalized, but at this point I suspect everyone has already been corralled into one camp or another… Unfortunately no one was willing to listen to my soap box years ago, back when it was still possible to avert this calamity, at least to the same degree.
Oh, hey, you’re much more forgiving than me. Exposing the bullies for being exactly what they are using as an excuse to bully other people is just the first part of the “torching.” Forcible restraint, treble-damages penalties, and public shaming are top of my list for responses to bully-bad actors.
However, you are right that reconciliation and acceptance of all people, not exactly for who they are when they’re bullies, but for those aspects of themselves that are compatible with a society in which we at least don’t harm each other is always important to do when possible.
Based on my childhood experiences, until those compatible aspects are found and the incompatible aspects removed from their expressed behaviors - forcible restraint and removal from the situations in which they are causing harm to others should be the norm, not the exception.
Not particularly. Like I said, unrepentant bullies should receive no mercy. I left “torched” undefined on purpose, to keep it open-ended. It’s only the ones who demonstrate self-awareness and willingness to change who deserve a chance at redemption. Because they’re the only ones who can be redeemed. Redemption can’t be forced on anyone unwilling.
But blanket-shunning everyone including those who want to be better is self-destructive. It gives the enemy a larger recruitment pool, and it dwindles our own.
Many of those people were simply victims in their own ways: bullied and ostracized until they internalized the toxic patterns that were being used against them, and then projecting it onto others as they’ve learned to view it as the “norm.” Those people are redeemable, they just need to be shown a better way. What they’re missing is self-compassion. It’s not possible to love others when deep down, who you truly hate is yourself.
I know, because I was bullied and ostracized throughout my childhood as well. To this day, I have very little patience with bullies and abusers. I often get myself in trouble with my open contempt for them.
But it took me well into my twenties to unlearn the patterns that had been ingrained in me by that toxic environment growing up. It didn’t happen overnight, and it was painful, uncomfortable, and a lot of work. It would have been so much easier had I found a healthy support group or mentor, but everyone rejected me because I “should have already known” the social scripts and how to avoid the faux pas.
I’m not surprised that most people don’t do that work on their own, that many who start don’t see it through to completion, or that most of them end up taking the path of least resistance: moving to the echo-chambers full of people like themselves with similar qualms, who validate what they’re feeling and accept them for who they are. Those are the same echo-chambers where right-wing extremists poach their new victims for negging, manipulation, and eventual radicalization.
If I didn’t hate right-wing abusers and machismo culture so much, more than I hated suffering in isolation and constant rejection by the people on the left whose ideals I actually aligned with, then I may have been tempted to fall back into that trap, too.
But yes, the people orchestrating these right-wing radicalization funnels need to be forceably stopped. I’m not disagreeing with that. We just need to acknowledge that there are degrees of involvement, and not everyone who falls for their grift is a grifter themselves. And when their social structure is dismantled, we need to provide them with an alternative or else new grifters will simply take the place of the old, like a hydra.