something_else

This is a safety thing. It is nothing to do with man hating. You avoid large groups of men on the street too because they pose a potential threat to your safety. Why do you think that it is OK for you to say hateful stuff like this about women, but you find it unacceptable for women to say hateful stuff about men? This is very wishful thinking. The issue is not nearly this simple and there are many things that contribute far more to male loneliness than women online with extreme views.

I'm an avid solo hiker, so I'd say that you absolutely should do it! I see you're a woman so I suppose it's slightly different in terms of the safety of being alone in the middle of nowhere, but I've ran into many solo female hikers when I've been out so I don't think you should be too worried about the risks of someone causing you any trouble, especially if you stick to busier routes. If you are starting out, you should stick to easy and busy routes anyway. If you do this you will be perfectly safe. Also, make sure you pack the right equipment. Check the weather forecast and bring extra layers if it will be cold, and a rain jacket if it's going to rain. If you live somewhere where there is potential for snow and ice, you need specialist equipment to hike in those conditions so you should avoid those routes until you have some more experience.

I get the point you are trying to make, but rape and a few woman being pro-male-loneliness are not really comparable. The easiest way I can think of to show how they are not comparable is this: If you got rid of all rapists in the world, then rape would no longer happen or would be significantly reduced. If you got rid of the women online who are pro-male-loneliness, then the majority of men who were lonely before would still be lonely. Rapists are the root cause of rape, however a few women saying men deserve to be lonely are not the root cause of male loneliness. Do you see how these are completely different issues with completely different causes? They are not comparable.

Dr K is a great example of someone who cuts through the BS of internet culture and gets to the root issues of things, I really like him. And your post was very well written

If you witness this this pro-male-loneliness type of behaviour in real life then do something about it, like you should if you witness a woman being assaulted on a train. On the other hand if you witness it on the internet you should ignore it, because in the majority of cases it is designed to fuel your outrage in order garner attention and make money. Of course it counts as man hate, I just don't think there are very many women in the real world who are actually pro-male-loneliness. And because of that, I don't think they are a significant part of the cause of the male loneliness epidemic. Starting a crusade against these women saying bad things online might feel like you are doing something worthwhile, but it ultimately won't do anything to solve male loneliness because these women are likely unrelated to the root cause.

No, the legal issue isn't just scamming men. The issue is how he recruited, treated, transported and manipulated the girls involved for his webcam business. All of that was illegal, and comes under human trafficking.

When you said "Femdom is not healthy. It is trauma reliving" you took a judgemental and black and white point of view on a nuanced and complex issue; human sexuality. That's all I care about here. If you have any comment to make on that, go for it.

Basically this. I was politely objecting to your overconfident black and white thinking on the topic.

Being gay is a sexual preference, and so is femdom. They are very comparable. I am not arguing that trauma is unrelated to sexual preference, I am pointing out that the phrase 'Femdom is not healthy. It is trauma reliving.' is a very narrow and judgemental view of human sexuality.

Your teeth evolved when the average age of a primate was like 30-40. It seems reasonable that they would not really be designed to last much longer than that without specific care, even if you don't eat much sugar or acidic foods.

This is along the same lines as saying that being gay is trauma reliving. Some people have sexual preferences that aren't trauma based.

It's likely not bots. The internet has a tendency to give the vocal minority a significant advantage over the silent majority. People saying dumb outrageous things very loudly will get more attention than people ignoring dumb shit or saying sensible things. This gives people the impression that dumb ideas are far more widespread than they really are in reality. In this case that is the idea in discussion is that most women are pro-male-loneliness. Most women are not pro-male-loneliness, they just don't understand male-specific issues that well, in the same way that you won't understand female-specific issues like being sexual harassed or assaulted. Rather than responding to toxicity with toxicity, you should ignore stuff that's blatantly dumb and outrageous instead of fuelling the internet fire. Just focus on being a good person yourself. If you want to fix a problem, focus on fixing the problem instead of directing all your attention towards naysayers and critics.

I agree. But to donate $25m he'd actually have to have paid a significant amount of tax because otherwise the government sees him donate this money and starts to ask where it came from and if he paid tax on it.

This phrase suggests to me that your feelings might be coming from time spent on the internet and not from exposure to women (and men) in the real world. What you read about male and female dynamics online does not really map that well onto reality. Especially if you visit corners of the internet that are very redpill/blackpill. You get a trojan horse; a few grains of truth about dating on the outside, loaded with toxic and false ideas on the inside. As a man you'll get hate from most women if you are creepy, lack social skills, or make women feel unsafe, which is not really most men. At best it's an increasing minority that gets exaggerated online because that's where all of the people who lack social skills go.

I think a good chunk of the perceived intensity actually comes from the nausea and body load on those seeds. They're probably safe but no one is going to know for sure because they are quite a niche psychedelic.

Kurzgesagt released an interesting video today that discusses the nature of infinity and eternity. It discusses scientific theories which show how we could just be dreaming up the universe. It seems like the kind of video that would appeal to the people here so I thought I'd share it! It's somewhat limited I suppose, but it shows you how you how scientific logic can end up touching on some of the same conclusions people draw from spirituality.

Fair. Though the expenses of running a business have a tendency to add up quite quick, even the smaller ones. I suspect paying his tutors is probably his biggest expense. They are all multi-millionaires in their respective fields and are not going to work for him for cheap. I'd imagine he probably also spent a significant amount on marketing. If they were generating $4m at peak, and keeping even $3m of that, which is very high, that would mean they're donating over 2/3 of a year worth of profits if they donated $25m. For someone like Tate, that seems extremely unlikely. I think you are prob right that they have more than $25m. What I think is unlikely is that he has so much more that he can afford to donate $25m. I also would add that faking something like discord numbers or whatever is not that hard, if that's how you calculated the number of members inside his course to get to $4M. Certainly, if you look at how frequently he talks BS it doesn't seem beyond him to do that.

Spending money on a car collection and giving money away to charity are quite different. In one case you still own a car collection worth millions and in the other you lose the full amount of money donated. So you need a significantly higher net worth to donate $25m to charity than you do to own a $25m car collection. To be clear, I think he has a lot of money. Just not money on the level where he can afford to donate $25m. My point with the bugati was simply that Tate is known for living a very extravagant life to show off his wealth, not one of low living expenses. He has to spend a significant amount of the money he earns on maintaining that lifestyle for his brand.

Like his $5M bugati? haha

Even if it was bringing in 4M per month, you also have to remember that was revenue and not net profit, and that was also at its peak. Out of that 4M per month, he has to pay for His 10+ multimillionaire tutors, who won't work for cheap Marketing Developers Servers Any other staff Tax Among other things. And then split whatever net profit is left with his brother 50/50, and then pay more tax on top of that in personal income tax. So even if it was truthfully generating 4M in revenue, which is a big if, he still would not actually receive as much of that money as you would think. Maybe $1M per month at a push? It's a lot, but not so much that he can afford to throw away $25m.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this is related to what I said. I agree with you, but this seems more like a general reply to OP than a reply to me. Perhaps I need to clarify. My point was that if OPs instinct upon talking to a stranger with a different opinion is to make a forum post criticising them as a person, OP should reflect on why they feel the need to do that. If OP had phrased this topic as a matter of how important matching opinions are when dating, like you did, I think that would probably be more productive. However OP phrased it using lots of negative and judgemental terms like 'bossy girls', 'hugely unattractive', 'bossy and opinionated', 'are the worst', 'very annoying' 'have to deal with' etc. which to me indicate OP should reflect on why they feel so negatively affected by this scenario.

He is being charged with rape, human trafficking, and trafficking minors. The legal issue isn't the webcam business itself but how he was misleading, recruiting, transporting, and controlling the girls for it. He was also using them to scam men out of millions too which adds to the illegality. It doesn't seem like the way that Tate was running his webcam business was legal at all.

Why do you think it is that you did not just take this in your stride? And why did you feel the urge to make a forum post about it? It sounds to me like a fairly minor interaction that can be boiled down to "I spoke to someone with a different opinion than me"

It's not like pent-up sexual energy has ever made anyone more angry, more impulsive, and more aggressive, right?? That would never happen /s What works for you may not work for others.

Yes but he only owns 50% of the business because it's shared with his brother, so if there is a 40% net profit he only really gets 20% of that. Sorry, I worded that quite confusingly but that was the point I was trying to make. They are all multi-millionaires in their respective fields. They aren't gonna do that shit for free, or cheap.