mr_engineer

Does he have ToS in which he censors 'wokeness'? The way YouTube and Facebook censor Trump?

I didn't consider Trump as a legitimate political figure, because I agree with Leo that he is a conman. (The ha ha in the title isn't out of happiness, it's me laughing at progressives because they learned nothing from the loss in 2016) And, podcasters and YouTube channels are alt-media. The actually serious politicians and the mainstream-media have not been talking to white men at all. All they've done is demonize them. I guess this 2024 election was a W for the alt-media over the mainstream media. I personally like that, given how corrupt the mainstream media is vs the fact that alt-media is not politically funded. As someone who's seen the corruptions of the scientific-establishment first-hand, I'm more than willing to believe that journalism is even more corrupt. Well, yeah. This is not a bug, though, it's a feature. Why haven't the left been talking to white men, then?! Why hasn't their vision for a better future included white men?!

@Emerald It is the messaging that gets the votes, though. And, the messaging has always been awful from the left, ever since 2016. They only focused on getting votes from women and minorities. This is what we call 'identity-politics'. And it's a quick but long-term risky strategy to get votes. Didn't work in 2016 for Hilary. Then, Biden won not because of identity-politics, but because he's worked in politics for 50 years. Then, Kamala also relied on identity-politics. All Trump had to do was to play to his strengths on the identity-politics front. He focused on appealing to the straight white young man in the last few months of his campaign by appearing on Joe Rogan. Honestly, for decades, no political figure has been talking to this demographic. The progressives have hated on men for so long, they don't even know how to appeal to men while hiding it. Kamala had some campaign ads in which there was talk about 'I'm a man's man and I love women, I'm man enough to support a woman in office'. Lol. They cannot even talk to men without preaching masculinity. So, men took the opportunity to vote them out.

@Emerald Why didn't he win in 2020, then?! As I said, your argument would make sense in 2016. I thought the exact same thing in 2016, if I'm honest. But, after seeing that he is beatable, cuz he did lose in 2020, does it really make sense to play the victim to 'the fascists' after losing to him in 2024?!

@Emerald Look, Donald Trump won. The same Donald Trump who won in 2016, won again. After we've seen him in office for 4 years, we just couldn't get enough of him! And, we either get to bitch and moan about this and blame the 'fascists out there' or we get to take responsibility for the situation and see what part we played in this. I can understand the blame-game after 2016. But, it's been 8 years since then. Surely, 8 years have to be enough time to see how the social dynamics played out and how Trump capitalized on that, don't you think?!

Maybe identity-politics wasn't such a good idea after all, for the left. When you side with the minorities so much that you demonize the majority, the majority will vote you out!

It is really funny how the progressives alienated the straight, white, young man that they all decided that voting for Trump, of all people, was the only option to make their voices heard. You have been resisting Trump so much, that you got him for a second term! Truly, truly remarkable.

Oh, so you're okay with the fact that Trump won?! Then we've got no issue here.

By the way, shoe made this video on November 01, days before the election. Credit to her for seeing this happening. She's one of the good progressives who is actually progressing to Tier-2. The point of this thread is to remind you that Tier-2 exists on the Spiral to progress to, Stage Green isn't the end-all-be-all. And that's what you will have to do to make sense of this Trump win.

@Princess Arabia @Buck Edwards The shame-tactics that you're currently using, have literally cost yall this election. So, if you think your behavior didn't have consequences, you're wrong.

Well, I guess progressives gonna learn the hard way. Progressives have had a lot of chances to learn the easy way, but they didn't take those. Now, have fun with Trump in the white house!

There has been some talk about 'you have to go out to know what socially calibrated behavior is'. Here's my question - who makes the rules of what we define as 'socially calibrated behavior'? Why do we have to give someone else the right to define that for us? I prefer to make my own rules on this front and I prefer to be the judger of other people's social-calibration, not the other way around.

@Buck Edwards The behaviors that you described are flat out unethical. If you just follow the golden rule (do unto others as you wish for others to do unto you), you won't end up doing these behaviors. With or without 'social calibration'.

@something_else Then how do you objectively decide whether someone is 'socially calibrated' or not? Which social rules do you hold them to, in order to figure this out?

The entire world includes me, right?! So, here's what I'm gonna do - I'm gonna set the rules of social-calibration for you. If you don't follow those rules, I'm gonna be upset. Okay?!

Who is this 'society'? Which country is this person named 'society' from? Which government does this person work in?

And, who's the authority on 'society's definition' of social-calibration? Does anyone have a clear idea as to what it is, or is everyone just making this stuff up?!

'Socially uncalibrated' by whose definition?

This doesn't answer the question, though.

If someone is judging you for being socially uncalibrated, you have an incentive to 'work it out'. The incentive is 'fitting in'. However, if you're the one who's judging other people's level of social-calibration, what incentive do you have to 'work it out'?! You can just tell those who are 'uncalibrated' - these are my rules for you, so adapt or suffer. Right?!

Okay, so then who decides it? If there is an unpleasant interaction, who decides whose fault that is? And, who decides who's the socially uncalibrated one in that interaction?

And, what even is the point of 'being socially calibrated'? Is it to show off to others how socially calibrated you are?! If you're able to be authentic and connect with other people, the job is done, right?! Or, does all of this have to happen in a way that's 'acceptable to society'?!

Could you please use different words to explain this?

To those of you who consider yourselves as 'not having been socially calibrated' previously, and 'now you are socially calibrated' - why did you allow other people to define the social rules that you follow? Why didn't you just behave authentically and let the chips fall where they may?

In the past, I'd made this thread: where I conclusively debunked the idea of 'creepiness'. What I found is that if you hold women accountable for their own social comfort-levels, the idea of 'creepiness' stands no ground. This got me thinking, though - why is this myth so popular, socially? Why is it so popular to call men 'creeps', not giving a damn about how it affects his feelings, how it psychologically damages him? And, here's what I saw - there is a massive double-standard when it comes to who's held responsible for their own levels of social comfort. If you're a man, you are responsible for your own comfort-levels. No matter how much you've been bullied in school, how traumatized you are, your comfort-levels are your responsibility. You have no feelings, no emotions, your feelings and emotions should not be affected by what others do at all. If they are, that's your fault. Nobody gives a shit, and this is not a problem. This is 'just the way things are'. But, if you're a woman, now, your feelings and emotions are everyone else's fault, not your own! No matter what psychological issues you have and are projecting onto others, you can do no wrong, socially. If you have a social issue, that is necessarily someone else's fault, you can't do anything about it. Everyone else has to fix it for you, society has to change for you. Thoughts?