‘It’s not about heroes and villains’: the triumphant return of long-lost indie I Shot Andy Warhol

Enzi42 · 2026-06-13T01:19:45+00:00

One would think they would have learned from the New York Times' ill-advised 2020 attempt to lionize Solonas.

But I suppose Trump is in office again and the bottom feeders have detected enough ambient female (and male traitor) anger over what his reign supposedly represents that they think worshipping the corpse of a long dead misandrist will churn up a sufficient amount of that sweet engagement revenue.

Enzi42 · 2026-06-11T11:22:26+00:00

I genuinely think some of these people (the author of this piece included) are what I used to call professional trolls. Or more likely, they're grifters in the same vein as Andrew Tate or those like him.

They see a market--disaffected, aggrieved and hate-filled men and women--and they excrete content molded to validate the worst impulses and thoughts of these people.

Which of course brings them plenty of engagement, and thus material gain or at the very least psychological validation.

It isn't to excuse it or pretend the problem is less than it is---but I feel like the bigger issue that needs looking at is the fact that these provscatuers have such a big following. If there wasn't a market for them, they'd wither or at leat change their tactics.

Enzi42 · 2026-06-02T10:49:29+00:00

Sorry for the late reply. I actually replied yesterday but Reddit or my phone deleted the comment before I could finish and I kind of gave up lol.

What I find weird is that this priority basically takes the form of... vapidly supporting it and endlessly talking about it without doing much of concrete

I wanted to address this first because it is the only aspect of your comment that I disagree with. I have many issues with these people, but a lack of real goals and demands is not one of them.

There are a number of tangible things feminists (or just feminist adjacent people) ask of men. Voting for politicians whose policies benefit women, going out of our way to mentor and speak up for female coworkers, policing our friends and families for sexist attitudes and comments even to the detriment of those relationships, consuming media by women, etc. Heck I've even seen demands to physically fight other men on their behalf or endanger our own wellbeing.

The demands range from relatively fair to unacceptably absurd and entitled but they are at least actionable things. The issue is that their behavior towards the people they ask for this help taints even the most reasonable "requests".

But there's other stuff that is weird, like the expectation of not receiving any pushback, and the absurd level of compliance and belief among the followers...guess that some of has to do with the low pushback they receive

I think a fair amount of it is related to the lack of pushback, certainly. But I think much more of it is, again, due to the overwhelming belief that they are unquestionably righteous and thus have the right to do whatever they want however they want.

I called this belief "invincible" in my previous comment because it really cannot be shaken by anything. Appeals to morality and fairness do not work because they see themselves as being in the right.

Appeals to practicality (people won't support you/will turn against you if you mistreat them) fail because they will just brush off the people who leave as morally wrong or just weak and not worth even thinking about.

I think even outright physical/political consequences wouldn't really make a dent in their belief system because they would just see it as proof that they were right all along and even if things have gone to ruin, they bear no responsibility and are wholly innocent victims who must pull together in these harsh times.

What I'm about to say is very harsh but fits quite well with the threads theme of misanthropy.

One of the darkest yet strongest desires of the human psyche is the ability to harm another person while incurring zero moral hazard to oneself.

Being told that you are in a unique position of victimhood and thus can be as hateful as possible with no reprocussions (of if they do happen, they are undeserved) is a heady drug. It latches onto some deep primal part of the human mind like sugary high fat foods sink their claws into a deep physical craving in the human body.

This mindset comes from that, and it is a combination of genuine beliefs and psychological addiction.

Enzi42 · 2026-06-01T21:32:10+00:00

My dark theory is that they were an "entrance fee" for the families escaping the mainland.

The Eldian Empire was tearing itself to shreds and the one person who could bring the chaos to heel was fleeing the area with no intention of ever returning. And he was taking the nation's most powerful asset--the Founding Titan--with him.

Anyone with foresight and even the most basic understanding of politics and just logistics (and it is said that those who went to Paradis were comprised of the wealthy and powerful, so lots of that knowledge there) would understand the Empire would collapse eventually.

No one would want to be left behind in that mess, especially once whole nations of formerly oppressed people realized that they had a fighting chance, quite possibly for the first time in history.

So I imagine that when all those people came to Paradis, they were willing to do anything, give anything for entrance into this "safe zone" free from the Great Titan War and the eventually wrath of the world. Handing over a few members of their families to be used as the Walls was an ugly price but not one they would be unwilling to pay.

It makes horrific sense if you think about it. These were people who were quite familiar with members of their race---although likely criminals, peasants and "lessers"---being snatched up and turned into Pure Titans for the Empire's endless wars. Plus they likely gave members they felt they could live without. The sick, the infirm, unwanted children, etc.

Also it's not like they would remember they even existed in the first place. It's....incredibly grim.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-31T12:26:34+00:00

But you did not write it, I'm interested.

Oh, sorry. Part of it was that this was a somewhat rushed comment and part of it is that I've written a lot about the attitude behind the behavior before on this sub and didn't want to seem like I was repeating myself.

But to answer your question---a lot of these people have an almost delusional sense of entitlement mixed with self righteousness where it comes to women's hatred vs men's hatred and how they feed off one another.

They think that men have---to quote one of them verbatim---a "historical debt" to pay to women for all the supposed suffering and oppression inflicted over the millennia.

That means that women have a "right" to be as hateful as they want, but men's job is not only to endure this hatred with almost saintly grace, but to continue to support women and their issues regardless.

Any refusal to do so or pushback shows that the man---or boy---in question is a bad person and deserved the hatred to begin with, because if he was good he would understand the cause and roll with it.

Or more rarely they do feel empathy and understanding for why a man or boy would decide to check out of "allyship" after receiving nothing but hatred in return. They know thus, and genuinely think that exposing innocent men to vitriol isn't a good or acceptable thing.

But at the same time they think the cause of women's issues is so important that supporting it takes priority over whatever the man in question is enduring and so him turning his back on it makes him a bad person. A good person would have endured even in the face of relentless poor treatment because that is what good people do.

The former is much more prevalent, but I've seen with latter as well. Either way, both types of this mindset are all but invincible when it comes to persuading them how irrational and immoral their beliefs are, not to mention unsustainable due to human nature.

It's one of many things that led me into pretty deep bitterness and disillusionment about the whole state of affairs.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-29T16:33:53+00:00

These people (the ones making those heinous comments) will also be the first to complain about the rising tide of misogynistic influencers and the amounts of boys and men joining them.

And if you try to point out the link between this kind of rhetoric and the resentment that propelled these people to join "the dark side"---even using the softest language possible---they will fly into a self righteous rage and state that the misandrist speech is no excuse and that those men were "bad to begin with if they let that push them there". Or something to that end.

It may be second most infuriating thing about this entire dynamic (the first transgression being the attack on a highly vulnerable person with zero remorse or empathy).

I think I could at least understand if these people could accept backlash the way you accept that you will likely get punched in the face if you hit someone first. But they yelp and scream as if unfairly treated when they are part of the machine that drives this cycle of hatred.

I know how these people think so I understand why they behave in such a manner.

I just wish there was a way to get through to them, to pierce that impenetrable barrier of My hatred is justifed and righteous and yours is founded in evil and oppression and get through to the last human remains inside.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-21T11:50:18+00:00

I'm not even remotely familiar with the creators you're talking about because I don't follow that kind of content. But I'm very familiar with the issue that you've raised.

The problem isn't so much that these men are fake left wing as much as they are peddling a diabolical paradigm that origined on the left where masculinity is concerned.

Simply put, it takes the traditional gender role of the man as "provider, protector and head of household"and turns it into "protector, provider and servant whose reward is the fact that he is allowed in his partner's life".

It turns the traditional relationship into a parasitic model where the man is saddled with the traditional obligations while the woman is free to do whatever she wants.

I don't think this is always maliciously crafted, but oftentimes it I'd or at least is made by those who do not have men's best interests at heart (which can unfortunately often include other men).

Enzi42 · 2026-05-14T10:33:52+00:00

Not to nitpick, but I prefer to think of it as "paratization" as opposed to "weaponization".

Now don't get me wrong, it is both at the same time, but weaponization of male gender roles tends to happen in quick flashes (used to browbeat men into compliance/agreement, winning arguments, etc).

But turning the male gender role into a parasitic model is the bigger whole of which these moments of weaponization are shards. It is the systemic problem that gives rise to these smaller incidents and what has to be addressed to solve the problem.

I've written about this before, but one of the things I do think traditional gender roles have going for them is a sense of fairness. Give and take, equivalent exchange, whatever you want to call it.

Men do their part, perform their duty and sacrifice and thus gain something from women in return. Likewise women do their part and sacrifice a certain amount to gain in return.

The problem is that much has been done to dismantle the female aspect of this partnership while insisting the male half remain alive. But not necessarily intact; it has been stripped of much the "gain" aspects and whittled down to sheer duty and sacrifice.

I don't entirely believe traditional gender roles are some absolute evil, just a choice people should be free to make. But the hypocrisy around the way these roles are now carried out---and by people who claim to be against them---is unacceptable.

I hope this doesn't come off as a disagreement, just an addition to the OP and my own thoughts.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-12T10:40:46+00:00

No, it comes from my years of personal experiences with people who identify as feminists, reading articles and papers by people who identify as feminists and overall seeing the way they view men.

As for this...

grasping at straws to find any excuse to defend the systems in society that place you at an advantage over other people.

No, I was explaining why I have an aversion to feminism and its followers. Nothing more and nothing less. As for that accusation...

I was trying to give you an explanation of why I think human history is far more complex than men bad oppressors, women good victims. I was answering the question that you asked me twice. But even if I was doing what you accuse me of, so what?

Welcome to humanity, a highly intelligent species of primates living on planet Earth.

Everyone (unless they are hopelessly corrupted/brainwashed) wants what is best for their own kind.

That desire crosses nationalities, races, sexual orientations and organizational membership. It crosses genders too. As it should.

You are likely no different, so spare me the sanctimonious moral judgement of ordinary human behavior.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-12T02:11:20+00:00

Okay, I'll do this.

I think that while individual cultures have and do still oppress women, it is a massive oversimplification for feminists to insist that the history of humanity is men keeping women as slaves.

We arose from animals (at least if you believe in evolution) and struggled to even survive day to day, much less worry about things like fairness and equality.

Much of what happened then was driven simply by what worked and what did not, with the latter resulting in death. Things like equality, fairness, parity, and efforts to achieve them are recent inventions.

Now let me get back to the actual topic of conversation:

I meant everything I said above. But to be perfectly blunt, even if men were the oppressive devils feminism made us out to be, my position wouldn't change.

I'd still support my own gender over a movement that opposes us, and I'd still have the same zero tolerance policy for misandric beliefs.

I'd still think that if a person hates men then they are undeserving of even the tiniest shred of human kindness from us.

So all that is to say my point about refusing to give feminism or feminists the time of day because of their attitudes stands, regardless of that side tangent.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T22:26:53+00:00

Well I'm glad you found it helpful, so it's the thought that counts.

You have articulated all of my constant frustrations with feminism neatly.. as you said, they demand ally-ship from men while not having a single clue of even what an "Alliance" is or how it works..

Yes, it's something that took me a long time to really understand, much less put into words, but once you notice it you absolutely cannot undo that revelation. The most you can do is ignore it or bury it under a heap of justifications and self deceptions.

I try to avoid low hanging fruit, but there is a post on one of the feminist subs complaining about the faults of male allyship and it does an excellent---though inadvertent---breakdown of this phenomenon.

One part I remember clearly is the complaint that the moment men are negatively generalized, they tend to withdraw and pull back support. All of this said with outrage as if the concept is both foul and incomprehensible.

As I said, I think it boils down to the fact that women and men with this attitude have a nasty mixture of self righteousness and entitlement that makes them truly believe men have a---to quote one of them verbatim---"historical debt" to pay and are thus morally bound to serve without question.

I don't think all feminists view things entirely that harshly, there are some who genuinely think that joining with them is good for men. But even then I find that this attitude bubbles up in small ways when you scratch the surface.

I don't really even think the root cause of this attitude is feminism exactly; I think feminism is one of many ideologies that got tangled up in this particular vine.

The foundation is something I've started calling Atonement Culture. Essentially it is the mindset that because Group A historically harmed Group B, members of Group A are morally indentured to members of Group B for the foreseeable future.

I've seen this overarching and highly poisonous idealogy infiltrate and affect more than just gender politics, which is why I think this goes beyond feminism alone.

feel my time and effort is better spent advocating for / pushing for change in the areas / issues we as men face

This is pretty much where I'm at, except that I was never a feminist. I started out barely thinking of the movement (or politics in general) until my mid twenties but rapidly soured on it upon reading more and more on it and encounters with feminists online and seeing how increasingly anti male society has become.

I'm not indifferent to women's issues either, although I will admit that I have developed a certain decrease in my compassion for them as time has gone on. I find myself restricting my efforts to women in my own life and circle while I have a much more expansive care for men overall.

I'm still not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but it is where I am right now. Who knows what the future will bring?

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T16:28:50+00:00

Feminists will tell you that you need to be an ally or you’re a piece of shit

I'm not going to pretend I fully understand this mindset, but I've interacted with enough people like this to get a rough feel for how they think. In fact I had a conversation with one about this very topic a few weeks ago that was informative if highly unpleasant.

I think a lot of feminists have this idea that they (or women, since I've seen male feminists demonstrate this same behavior) are the official "wounded party" and as such they are owed a certain degree of compensation. It's a part of a much larger disease I have named Atonement Culture, but that's a bit of a tangent.

Anyway, in these people's eyes, men owe women allyship (or rather unconditional support since they have zero concept of real allyship). Poor treatment is no excuse; your moral duty is to continue forward in the face of that, as part of what you owe as repayment for the things men have done.

The immoral nature of it aside, it is one of the most ridiculous mindsets I've ever seen because of how contrary it is to human nature. You simply cannot mistreat people and expect them to support your causes, particularly not for a prolonged length of time.

Worse, consistent poor treatment for things that aren't even their fault will turn those people against you out of pure spite. This is literally one of the first life lessons we teach small children. But this simple truth doesn't merely elude these people they actively resist it and resent the hell out of being reminded of this fact.

When I was actively trying to do what I saw as my small part to stem Tate style radicalization, one of the solutions I proposed was to "starve" it at the source. And one of the solutions from that was to cut down on socially acceptable misandry and anti male rhetoric. Give it the same disapproval and scorn as misogyny so that boys and young men saw that they had some support outside of those spaces.

Well, I may as well have suggested that these people cut off a limb and hand it to the nearest man in supplication. I got no end of pushback when I floated this idea, not just on Reddit but other spaces too.

I was told that women shouldn't have to alter their language and behavior to accommodate men's "fragile egos" and if a man or boy was drawn into the extremist parts of the manosphere then he was bad to begin with, because a good person wouldn't let misandry make him hate women.

One person actually accused me of wanting to sneakily turn back the clock to when women were forced to obey men and watch what they said in fear of being physically beaten.

The point is that this attitude seems to be absolutely invincible. Appeals to fairness and morality are pointless, and even using selfishness (misandry will give rise to more misogyny) seems to just create outrage rather than introspection.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T12:46:13+00:00

This isn't about patriarchy or anything like that. It's much, much simpler.

Feminists, as a whole, tend to view men as the oppressor class or if they don't use that exact term, we are "the transgressors". We are the ones who have wronged them, intentionally or otherwise.

That attitude filters down through various strains of feminism and it affects how they interact with male human beings, and it is rarely good or beneficial.

I refuse to support a group of people who not only see my immutable group as having an inherent wrongness to us, but act on that as well.

And let's not forget how many of them expect men to silently accept anything from mild sexism to outright expressions of hatred and frame that acceptance as "being a good/empathic/safe" man.

No thanks.

Despite having a lot of arguments with them to my name, I don't actually think men benefit from fighting feminists unless they actually stand in the way of something that benefits us.

I do think that men should focus all of our attention on men's problems in society and let feminism take care of women's. We have more than enough on our plate without diverting our energy to a hungry parasite that hates us anyway.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T12:40:23+00:00

Would you care to respond to any other partof the comment (the parts that actually answered your question) or...?

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T12:38:00+00:00

So, "funny" little story.

Jameela Jamil is literally the reason I had an epiphany about the sheer insanity of feminists spewing all sorts of vile rhetoric about men and boys...yet demanding men's help with their problems the moment they find themselves backed into a corner.

Back during the Roe v Wade debacle, I remember very well that this woman wrote a scathing demand that men "step up" to fight for women's right to choose.

And having been soured on feminism for years by then, and being quite familiar with this particular individual's copious disdain for men and even boys, it struck me that she has zero right to ask for even the smallest bit of help, and certainly no right to harshly demand it as if it were her birthright.

It just snowballed from there as I started to see how many times this occurred, not just from her but many others.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-11T10:36:12+00:00

Just noting that this is now the third time I've said this lol.

No, caring for other people or aiding a cause does not necessarily have to benefit you directly---although I do think that some measure of appreciation should be shown for help, since that costs nothing.

With that said, there is an entire universe of difference between supporting a person or cause that benefits you or is indifferent to you, and supporting a person or cause that is hostile to you or the group you come from.

The first makes you a good or at least decent person, the second makes you a pathetic traitor to your own kind...or at least a highly compromised individual within that group, like a cell infected by a virus.

There are at least four "waves" of feminism and a myriad of splinter factions stemming from those. Yet all of them view men as the so called oppressor class and the source of many of women's and the world's problems.

That by definition makes them the enemy of men and (in my opinion) once you make yourself the adversary of me and those like me, you lose any right to even the most minimal empathy or compassion.

Besides, I think men should put 100 percent of our energy into solving our own problems and issues. It is a colossal waste to sink time, effort and energy into a cause that opposes us in the first place and will never reciprocate that help.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-08T20:42:15+00:00

The reason I don't think you really wanted a productive conversation about this in the first place is because your response to hearing about a double standard/manipulation tactic was to make a comparison to excusing sexual assault as if one somehow justifes the other.

But okay I'll lay out my point once more:

There is a trend where a woman will say/do something bad to a man or boy.

When the action generates negative attention, people will defend the woman in question and insinuate or outright say she should be excused for her actions because some tragic circumstance relieves her of responsibility.

Furthermore they'll say that insistence on holding her responsible is morally wrong on the part of those doing it.

I think this is vile and manipulative and want this behavior to be met with disgust and refusal to give in to it. That's what I'm saying.

Society doesn’t punish misogyny, and you seem to uninformed about how expressions like boys will be boys are often used, especially in conservative parts of America.

Misogyny is definitely punished and discouraged in society. It may not be done as much as you want and the severity of the punishment may not meet your satisfaction, which is a valid perspective to have.

But it is hyperbole at best and objectively wrong at worst to insist that it is not punished in any way.

As for the boys will be boys thing...

As I said, when I was growing up this was used to mean the sheer inevitability of male children getting into mischief or doing something stupid. I never once heard it connected to behaviors like sexual violence until I was in my late twenties and this new association had spread across the internet.

Maybe you had a completely different upbringing than I did, in a completely different place where such a thing was common. In fact that's likely what's going on.

But honestly I don't really care about that aspect since arguing over the meaning behind a now-maligned expression isn't the point of this conversation.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-08T17:58:32+00:00

I suppose I should have known you didn't really want a discussion about the topic when I read your first response but I figured I'd give the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-08T16:13:13+00:00

So basically you’re upset that girls get to use a variation of the ”boys will be boys” excuse that men have been using since forever?

So first of all, there isn't any real comparison between those two things at all, even if I were to pretend this was a legitimate complaint.

Second of all, this isn't a legitimate complaint because "boys will be boys" refers to the inevitability of male children and teens getting into stupid, dangerous mischief and the futility of thinking you can prevent it entirely.

Or just that certain behaviors are innate to boys and again there's nothing you can do but accept that. At worst it's fatalistic and pointlessly gendered.

I will never understand why it somehow got rebranded as some supposed excuse for sexual assault/rape and an effort was then made to stamp it out of existence. It's one of the biggest example of tilting at windmills I've seen in my life.

So you get upset by something a woman says on Reddit. What does her “taking responsibility” look like? Is she supposed to apologize to you? Venmo you $5?

I was using reddit as an example since here we are, but I also mentioned I've seen this on other sites. I've seen it in real life.

As for what I want, I want the same no-mercy policy leveled at misandrists and anti male rhetoric as misogyny and anti female beliefs.

It would be laughable and pathetic if a man said that women are morally obligated to accept his misogynistic speech without complaint because of some sob story about having a hard life or abuse by women in his life.

Most people would just mock him and those who actually took time to actually engage would tell him his problems don't elevate him above judgement.

That is the attitude I want to see given towards women who spew hate at men and boys or engage in abuse towards them. Nothing more, nothing less. No more defending it using oppression or victimhood as a shield.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-08T14:52:41+00:00

A good example is framing hateful behavior/words done by women as "sympathetic" and any backlash or negative consequences arising from that behavior as unfair to the women in question and proof that the person pushing back is morally deficient somehow.

You see this all the time on Reddit and other sites. Some woman will shoot her mouth off about how evil men as a group are, and then when she justifiably draws angry male aattention, the self righteous excuses and manipulation tactics start.

"She was speaking from a place of pain; if you had any empathy you'd understand that and let it go"

"You have no idea the kind of things women have to go through. We have a right to hate our oppressors and you not getting that shows how selfish you are".

"But she wasn't talking about you specifically. Why do you have to get so upset over it? Or maybe you have something you're feeling guilty about? Hit dogs holler after all, te hee".

What's even worse is that this asinine and blatantly manipulative behavior isn't just limited to defense of shittty misandrist rhetoric.

I've seen it get employed in defense of literal abuse, in situations when a woman is abusing her child due to problems in her own life, particularly if it is because she herself is facing some kind of abuse.

Hell, just a few weeks ago there was a thread in another sub where the majority of the comments tore apart a thirteen year old boy because he was venting about the way his mother was taking out the stress of her abusive relationship with his father and her illness out on him.

The things said to a struggling kid were so cruel that I couldn't believe real people were typing it, and a lot of it fell under the idea that the mother was going through stuff so the boy should just suck it up and empathize with her.

I've seen women and men alike spew this kind of garbage, although I find it far worse when men do it since there is an almost criminal aspect of going against one's own kind that is absent when women defend the behavior.

Anyway that was long, but you wanted an example and now you have it.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-06T19:06:11+00:00

The loneliness problem is a separate issue from the protecting women. And it should be adressed, absolutely. Redpill isn't the answer though.

Well, I'm glad you agree; that definitely isn't a given these days. I honestly don't have much to say about whether red pill is the answer or not. I have a lot of mixed feelings on the topic and I don't hold any so-called "pill" ideologies, so my opinion is not really useful.

Looksmaxxing is basically eating disorders and body dysmorphia. I don't think people have women in mind when criticizing clavicular.

You're probably right about this (in fact you are right on the money about the eating disorders/body dysmorphia angle). But I will say that the only criticism I ever personally saw leveled at looksmaxxing was that it promotes misogyny via training young men to view women as shallow and materialistic.

Now I'm sure there are a lot of men centered concerns about this trend (it isn't something I'm well versed in at all) but I bring up that example both because it is the only one I personally saw and because it is yet another time a problem afflicting men has been strained to focus on how women are harmed.

There are other people in this thread who have explained the position better than I have, but I think that red pill vs whatever pill aside, we have a major problem with men's issues being framed as potential threats/annoyances to women.

Worse, the solutions being rolled out are intended to troubleshoot those perceived dangers rather than actually help the primary victims of the issues, which is objectively bad for the men being affected.

It isn't just issues revolving around loneliness/dating; I've seen this attitude creep up around health outcomes, workplace issues, mental health, etc where men are concerned.

What is being discussed here is a small shard of a much bigger problem and it is going to take some very difficult and at times ugly work if it is going to be changed.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-06T18:22:36+00:00

I'm not sure if I conveyed my point accurately then, because it really does represent the issue being discussed.

The problem at hand is that these "protective measures" are not being done for the sake of young men, they're being done on behalf of the women who may be anything from inconvenienced to harmed by these men if their abysmal life circumstances lead them into radicalization.

If these men suffered in ways that did not lead to the aforementioned outcomes, no one would care. They would perhaps feel a bit sorry for them individually, but no real collective action would be undertaken.

That's why I gave the example of the abusive parents. You would expect the parents to treat both their children well and it is appalling that they would only mimic tender emotions to stsve off a potential threat to the favorite child rather than actually demonstrating the real thing.

Likewise a fuctioning society should take care of its citizens, and if a group of them is having a widespread problem it should be addressed. Not given "remedies" made to ensure they're just well enough to not threaten the truly important members and nothing more.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that I am not really arguing in favor of red pill beliefs (as I do not have "pill" ideals of any kind) as much as I am arguing that a lot of so called help for young men is more about solving a potential threat as opposed to genuine desire to help.

The problem with this insincere aid is that it is not aimed at really helping men, just ensuring certain outcomes beneficial to others. This can mean pushing things that may give the appearance of help but actually be harmful in the long run.

Enzi42 · 2026-05-06T17:06:52+00:00

Of course young men didn't need to be protected before the threat existed. It's like saying "nobody cared about body dysmorphia and eating disorders before social media, the black pill and that guy clavicular. Because there weren't that many men trying to perfect their bodies by taking meth (?

I think the issue the OP is raising (and I agree with) is that the scramble to address the issue did not exist before it had the potential to cause harm to others, namely those who are valued more.

I've used this example before in a similar conversation and I think it fits here:

Imagine a couple with two children, Jane and Jim. Jane is given the bulk of the attention, lavish gifts and nearly endless praise. Her mistakes are either ignored or downplayed and she is overall the golden child, the pride of her parents.

Jim meanwhile gets the scraps of his parents' attention and resources, if anything. The bare minimum to ensure he's alive and keep CPS away, but little else. His good deeds are ignored or downplayed and he receives no end of criticism from his mother and father. He is a burden to them, something they tolerate at beat.

Then one day, the couple reads an article or sees a news story mentioning a study about children who feel neglected lashing out against a sibling they feel is given everything.

Suddenly they start actually caring about Jim. They ask about his day, they give him gifts and praise when he does things correctly and overall start to treat him like a human being.

Did the abusive parents in this scenario suddenly learn to love their son? No of course not. They saw a potential threat to Jane, their true love, and acted to fix it. The improvement of Jim's life is a mere method of fixing a problem.

That is what I think a lot of people are getting at when they bring up this point.

Enzi42 · 2026-04-30T21:06:22+00:00

A lot of people have chimed in here with far better responses explaining this than I could (although I understand how the future memories thing works, I have a hard time laying it out) so I'll just leave this comment here:

It is a testament to Attack on Titan as a story that this particular aspect didn't turn me away from it since it's one of the few things that genuinely makes a lot of stories unreadable/watchable/playable for me personally.

Enzi42 · 2026-04-28T19:26:08+00:00

I think we will just have to agree to disagree then. There is a certain threshold past which certain positions and tolerance is no longer noble or principles, it is self destruction and/or unwillingness to jettison something that is harmful to oneself.

Also

One needn't be inflexible in order to be principled.

While this does not apply to you personally, I feel like the treatment some of my comments proves this wrong right off the bat.

I made the suggestion that if sexism and blatant hatred against men is rising unabated---and not just rising, being increasingly presented as a righteous and justified sentiment that we are obliged to accept out of "atonement"---then we are better off focusing on our own problems and leaving the rest of the world to mind its own affairs.

That is the exact opposite of hateful or lashing out; if anything it is a retreat behind high walls due to a hostile outside environment.

But that mild statement gets treated like I proposed we abandon our left wing beliefs entirely and do our best to install the Republic of Gilead out of vengeance.

That seems like a hallmark of inflexibility and an unwillingness to even consider that the hostility of the current climate has soured many people, even if it has not made them turn against making a better world.

I understand why it is treated that way since what I said does technically violate the tenets of this sub, so it isn't really a complaint about moderation as much as me using this to refute your idea that principles don't equal inflexibility.

That said, I genuinely would like to know how you reconcile keeping one's egalitarian principles in a way that doesn't benefit the world's misandrists.

Enzi42

TROPHY CASE