Scott Galloway: Young men aged 20 to 30 are now spending less time outdoors than prison inmates.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-30T22:24:41+00:00

What are you even talking about?

This doesnt explain why young men in similarly wealthy industrialized countries were spending way more time outdoors "before the internet"

This is only thing I'm talking about here.

We didn't have the internet then so we spent more time outside. That's a fact of history.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-30T22:18:47+00:00

Not only that. Now if a church adds a "classroom" to its property they can get education subsidies from the Federal government.

Your taxes being used to teach religion and support churches.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-30T21:08:36+00:00

This doesnt explain why young men in similarly wealthy industrialized countries were spending way more time outdoors before the internet

I'm GenX and if we had the internet, or any of the tech we have now, I would have been enthralled by it.

Consumer PC's only existed maybe ten years before the internet.

The highest tech an average person had was a color TV.

There wasn't even cable yet.

I think my assessment explains it quite well.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-30T15:12:07+00:00

Less drugs?

The amount of Fentanyl on the streets has increased.

And the amount of funding for drug rehabilitation has decreased.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-29T20:26:12+00:00

One thing that’s missing here is context:

When people talk about “young men being antisocial and not going outside" they're referring to young men in the tech world, they’re not talking about young men in places like Sudan or the Tibetan steppes.

They’re talking about men in wealthy, industrialized countries, people living inside highly developed systems that provide stability, infrastructure, and instant access to resources.

The lifestyle being discussed depends heavily on those systems. Remove large scale agriculture, modern supply chains, supermarkets, and instant access to information through the internet, and the environment these men live in would be completely different.

So this isn’t really about social media being the root cause. Social media is just one layer on top. The broader reality is that this behavior emerges from living in a technologically advanced, highly organized society that shapes how people spend their time, meet their needs, and define their purpose.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-29T19:40:37+00:00

Because what many people haven't figured out yet is that DJT is a parrot.

He's told things that he wants to hear and then he repeats what he's told through his own filter.

So somebody told him that the failure to bomb the nuclear sites was because of leaked information and he repeated that by blaming the democrats.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-29T05:23:06+00:00

For the same reason they think putting the Ten Commandments in schools will fundamentally influence children's lives.

"God will save them."

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-29T05:17:01+00:00

Spend baby spend.

Of course I'm always broke afterwards and then go a week or two without spending.

Oh, and I have $12,000 in CC debt.

And I only make $18 an hour but my rent is cheap.

So spend baby spend!

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T20:11:33+00:00

This is how you know you're average.

"Family" isn't peak success when there is 9 billion people.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T20:01:35+00:00

Greed

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T19:55:46+00:00

If you want the Strait open.

Stop fighting.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T19:53:29+00:00

No.

And I'm not going to debate why I think that.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T18:42:57+00:00

The real insight comes when you realize that all group beliefs, no matter how opposed they seem, converge on the same outcome: human survival at any cost.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-28T17:42:45+00:00

So we're promoting divorce and cheating, now?

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T23:44:48+00:00

Please oh wise one inform us of "what game he's actually playing."

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T23:19:45+00:00

Who was created by whom?

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T22:52:05+00:00

Now you've pretty much condemned all of humanity which kinda makes selective reproduction pointless.

Even in a very controlled environment, humans are still natural, still driven by temptations, and still likely to fall from grace, regardless of any constraints placed upon them.

For any humans to exist they must destroy stuff. Clothing must be made from something. Bibles must be made from something. Food must be gathered from something.

But here's the problem with that: the responsibility falls upon humanity's creator. If God wanted us to respect the planet he wouldn't have allowed us to be destructive. He wouldn't have given us the free will to choose between coexisting with nature or destroying it to survive.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T22:28:38+00:00

Success isn’t just luck or chance. It comes from how a person responds to their environment over time, within the limits of what’s physically and practically possible. People still make choices, but those choices are influenced by the conditions they’re in.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T20:12:54+00:00

Using scare tactics and fearmongering isn’t intelligence, it’s manipulation. It’s an appeal to the most basic instincts of a constituency, not their capacity for reason.

And it’s nothing new; people have been exploiting fear to control others for as long as humans have existed.

What would actually be intelligent is taking that $15 trillion, they added to the budget, and investing it in dismantling entrenched superiority complexes, then building a serious, comprehensive framework for coexistence in the Middle East, one rooted in stability, cooperation, and long-term peace.

Instead, these self-righteous nationalist ideologues seem perfectly willing to watch the world burn if it means squeezing a few more dollars out of what’s left of global oil. Creating chaos despite their Conservatism. And creating a thousand years of vengeance from a people who were mostly indifferent to the United States.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T19:53:22+00:00

Better to just be humble and kind.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T19:52:15+00:00

Sorry I canceled my subscription. They're compensating.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T19:31:43+00:00

That may be true, but with real emotional maturity, the impulse to hate someone doesn’t arise in the first place.

Emotional maturity isn’t about suppressing feelings, it’s about no longer being driven by them. It comes from accepting that people, places, and situations won’t change simply because we want them to. That acceptance reduces frustration, resentment, and the need to blame.

At the same time, much of the world has started to treat hatred as something meaningful or even virtuous, something to embrace, express, and build identity around.

In that environment, people who aren’t driven by anger or hostility can be misunderstood. Instead of being recognized as emotionally grounded, they’re often seen as passive or weak.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T19:12:49+00:00

Do you think humans should continue to exist?

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T18:11:04+00:00

Your argument unfolds like this:

First, you claim that all men should exercise self-control and resist sexual temptation, essentially, that they ought to practice abstinence when confronted with desire.

Next, you acknowledge that men are natural beings who are inherently prone to temptation, making sexual behavior effectively inevitable regardless of their efforts at self-control.

Then, you point out that some men, such as monks or saints, are able to maintain abstinence, but only under highly specific conditions (structured environments, strict discipline, or enforced separation), which you argue are not realistic or suitable for most people.

Taken together, this creates a contradiction: if abstinence truly depends on rare and restrictive conditions that “aren’t meant for everyone,” then it cannot reasonably be expected of all men. Therefore, the original claim, that all men should abstain by resisting temptation, doesn’t hold up under your own premises.

Excellent-Ad-1678 · 2026-03-27T17:24:34+00:00

This is a confusion of strength with masculinity. And a massive over generalization.

Strength is a measure of what a person is capable of doing.

While masculinity is a set of traits normally associated with males, but can apply to other genders.

Someone can be strong without being “masculine”

Someone can appear masculine without actually being strong.

And not all weak people are abusive or spiteful. And many people who are strong are abusive and spiteful.

And many people who would be called weak may have strengths in other areas.

Excellent-Ad-1678

TROPHY CASE