A generation of weak men
- Thread starter Yubel
- Start date
- Tags clown world 🤡 micropenis support group we live in a society weebs rise up
Indeed. This whole gender stereotype of "pink is for girls and blue for boys" is very recent; just a century ago it was believed that pink was masculine because of its link to red while blue was feminine since it's more delicate and light. Marketing campaigns started to change this association by late 20s and 30s, and from 40s onward pink established itself as a girlish color.
It's completely random, just like most gender stereotypes.
It's completely random, just like most gender stereotypes.
B
Maybe I do get your point a bit.
But I don't think it has anything to do with being a man.
People these days rely too much on the government, corporations etc.
They don't even encourage you to be self reliant.
They tell people to take pills against everything instead of living a healthy lifestyle for example. Most of those civilizational illnesses are a direct result of people's own behavior.
Only sick and mentally impressionable people (so called "sheep") arethe perfect consumers.
But I don't think it has anything to do with being a man.
People these days rely too much on the government, corporations etc.
They don't even encourage you to be self reliant.
They tell people to take pills against everything instead of living a healthy lifestyle for example. Most of those civilizational illnesses are a direct result of people's own behavior.
Only sick and mentally impressionable people (so called "sheep") arethe perfect consumers.
This thread is just about romanticizing gender stereotypes and delusional reactionism, nothing more. I mean, what's even the "general weakness of man", exactly?
And your answer has nothing to do with my post. It's a fact that pink isn't a girlish nor a boyish color, and that's what I was addressing.
And your answer has nothing to do with my post. It's a fact that pink isn't a girlish nor a boyish color, and that's what I was addressing.
Last edited:
What's "winning" and what's "losing"? How and who defines the cut-off point distinguishing a victory from a defeat? What are the consequences of winning and losing, both in terms of self-perception and perception from others, and why are they legitimate? When two or more things are in conflict, therefore winning at one means losing at the other, which should be prioritized?
No shit I addressed this thread and its proponents as romantic reactionists. Again, what's the operative definition of such "general weakness of man" you accused me of not understanding?
No shit I addressed this thread and its proponents as romantic reactionists. Again, what's the operative definition of such "general weakness of man" you accused me of not understanding?
B
Maybe it's not even this.
You seem to approach this topic with too much emotion. Everything you dislike or consider ''weak''you call ''leftist''.
It's not that simple. One can't just separate everything into left vs right, things have more complexity to them.
You're looking for an ''enemy' and you find them in the people you call ''leftists''.
You seem to approach this topic with too much emotion. Everything you dislike or consider ''weak''you call ''leftist''.
It's not that simple. One can't just separate everything into left vs right, things have more complexity to them.
You're looking for an ''enemy' and you find them in the people you call ''leftists''.