Doesn’t know the lyrics. Just goes meow meow meow.
Oh lay off the fragile masculinity/snowflake shit. We have feelings too. I’d like to see your take on an article called “Gay men are STI super spreaders” or “Blacks men end up in prison”. These two titles could both accompany thoughtful articles too, because underneath these vulgar headlines are genuine societal issues. I’m disappointed that a mod of this community of all people is telling me to just man up and suck up on the generalized man shaming.
I never said anyone was suggesting to get rid of white men. It would be absurd to suggest so. That’s my point. This means that white men aren’t the actual essence of the problem.
I’m a white man and I do my best to fight climate change. I’m not right wing and I don’t even know how to drive. I hate cars. There’s way too many of them. I go about with my kid in the bus and the subway. It’s cool. Why is the title stating I’m a climate denial super spreader? These blanket generalizations are bad no matter the group targeted because they have a “us versus them” dynamic.
Again, my gripe is precisely with the title, not the article itself. It starts off bad and turns off the ones that actually need to read this.
I think it’s inaccurate because the essence of what makes someone spread climate denial is not gender or skin color. Why target white men at large and not petro-masculinity or the manosphere? The solution is not getting rid of white men, it’s a culture shift, something this community is trying to explore. Fortunately the article is more nuanced than the the title.
To the surprise of no one, the right spread climate denial misinformation. I can’t say there’s much to be learned from this article. Furthermore the needlessly inflammatory (and arguably inaccurate) headline makes it clear the intent here is to preach to the choir.
Seriously though, I hope this post gets taken down. This is a small community, downvotes don’t bury anything. It’s typical Petersonian propaganda that tries to argue against what is stated in the sidebar by flaunting abstract wordings, accusatory misogyny and straw men. If this stays up I’m so out.
I feel targeted because I’m lumped into the title’s generalization. I’ve read a bit about informal generalizations afterwards and I get now that I don’t have to interpret it as such. Such generalizations are not as universally shunned upon as I thought as long as they don’t devolve into stereotypes.
As for clickbaity titles, of course it’s a thing but they’re counter productive so I’d rather call them out.
(I really should let this thread be already.)