The problem is liberalism, something the boomers inflicted on us.

Meanwhile middle age fantasy had black knights and it was fine.

Racists are gonna be racists is all there is.

You should certainly try to understand this in a different way, because you obviously misunderstood this badly.

It’s the opposite. Because it’s not nature but culture, it can be changed.

I don’t buy this nature thing. All societies have been exposed to violence, and women make babies. Then the same causes will lead to the same consequences.

You’re talking about statistics and sociology. The article talks about a psychology research. How do you make research in psychology?

While I agree, it must be stated imo that it’s not about the toxicity itself. It is about the interdépendancy between this toxic masculinity, and the submissive feminity.

Women are tought to be passive and fragile. Thus they need a man who is proactive and strong to lead her and protect her. Women are expected to hide what they think in order to not offend people around them, and thus a man is supposed to state things both for himself a’d for her.

Toxic masculinity and submissive feminity go hand in hand. They are, in fact, both toxic, especially together.

Starfleet is not anarchist. There are admirals. There are federation laws and judges (1st directive, in strange new worlds, laws against eugenics). Those laws and positions of power are decided on a federal level. How do you do that in an anarchist organization?

I fail to see how a federation can not be a representative government (because different worlds have different political systems, representative democracy is the only one that can make them all on an equal footing).

I certainly don’t know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.

If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.

The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.

It’s a federation, which means it’s a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.

I feel like external pressure is only half the problem. It is important but IMO the role model is also a problem. Non toxic masculinity is often describe in the negative of the toxic masculinity : you’re good when you are not toxic, not when you are something positive.

In some way it is less restrictive, but in other way it is missing the model.

The other side of this coin is the corruption of the ideal that lead to nihilism. Toxic masculinity corrupts ideals. Violence is strength. Protecting is necessarily the destruction of the threat. Independence is power. Smart is manipulation and deception. Everything is to be seen through a lens of domination and power. And that is the core of the problem.

Instead, a model is to be seen with any quality, but through another lens. Strength can help the weak. Smart can disarm an explosive situation. Power is to be shared and used wisely. Basically, a model opposite to the toxic masculinity can be many things with all the qualities of the virility, but the difference is that they will be used and targeted differently. And for many people, it is to be learnt through a model.

This is a core problem because for many people, if you tell them to drop the toxic behaviour, there will be nothing left to aim for, nothing for them to transform into.

And this goes back to the social validation you’re talking about. Going from toxic to positive requires a transformation so that the qualities someone has can be positive instead of negative, but as qualities they can still be praised and admired.

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.

You’re all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn’t in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.

The government in 1700 didn’t have as strong of a grasp on the military as it does now. And the police kind of didn’t exist in this time. The biggest inventions of the 20th century are mass surveillance, repression, and propaganda. An armed force being able to go from one side of the country to the other in a few hours is also a strength for government stability.

I know plenty of small businesses. I know none that keep to one person and aren’t disguised employees.

But then, if there are two persons in your business, who’s the boss? And if there’s none, congrats, it’s a cooperative!

Employment is something workers won in the early 20th century. Ask yourself why they fought for it maybe. Then come back with your arrogance.

Small businesses grow, that’s how capitalism works. When OP talks about empowering individuals, that’s liberal ideology. When talking about how self-employment is better for society, that’s liberal ideology.

Wrong. A company can be a cooperative or state owned.

Being self employed though means you are the only one to support the risks of your activity and it leaves you a pray from bigger businesses.

But liberal propaganda did its job and you’re probably indoctrinated with individualism and liberalism.

And that’s even worse.

Being self employed means you support all the risks of your activity, without any mutualisation or support from society or partners. That’s a distopia.

The problem with what you’re saying is that either you’re employed without any if the benefits of employment, or you are a capitalist.

In either way you lose.

On the other hand a company can be a cooperative or state owned.

But in the US you hate the state, you are indoctrinated with individualism and you hate socialism. So it’s a lost cause.

Self employment is very much not something you should seek. Self employment means the worker support all the risk. That’s a boon for the capitalists. Why do you think uber and stuff are so successful?