I disagree that this is a right wing talking point, but whether it is or not is irrelevant. If it’s a problem, it’s a problem. There is no “buying into it.”

It’s a genuine problem that billionaires create literally ONE MILLION times more carbon footprint than 90% of the people. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135446721/billionaires-carbon-dioxide-emissions

It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

That’s not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

The only issue I have with the compass being used here is that it’s used wrong.

Only the Stalin quadrant is passable. Everything else is super stretching at best while ignoring the purpose of why political compass was made.

Racist remark and gay sex has absolutely nothing to do with economic policies. Being a racist isn’t even authoritarian. It’s just that people who tend to have racist pov tends to be authoritarian and economic right. Historically, they would often advocate for restrictions on another race, but racism by itself is neither as it’s not a policy itself. While LGBT ideology is libertarian, it has nothing to do with economic. It’s that the people who tend to be pro-LGBT is on libertarian and economic left. OP is making correlatory claims rather than direct. And the political compass came to exist precisely to get people out of the mindset of over simplistic team mindsets.

Selling your mother into slavery requires authoritarian government, and libertarian would be for freedom of individuals. So, this is on the wrong quadrant entirely. Actual slavery should be more important factor than an anti-authoritarian movie. It’s just a piece of entertainment.

Whenever there is a major affordability housing project, it usually gets shut down by its area residents who get to have a say. They’ll often say things like how it’s unsightly because it blocks their views or overshadows their detached homes. Which in turn decreases their own house value. There are plethora of reasons, but I believe that is the one OP is making. NIMBY in other words. Alternatively, OP may be making comments about how government housing projects is socialism/communism and some people are rejecting simply on that basis.

Lack of supply in housing is a severe crisis in certain regions, like Toronto for example, which is now rated as the #1 housing bubble in the world according to some banks with the biggest reason being lack of supply. There’s an estimated shortage of nearly 6 million homes for the Canadian population, most of which is around Toronto. The rapid housing prices is in turn making homelessness spike up.

Indirectly, but effectively, the local population is saying they’d rather have tents pitched near their homes rather than an affordable apartment near by.

You’re kinda telling people to waste time. It is not a myth.

League, rating scale, etc. are a measurement that’s made from the outside. Not internally. Everyone wants to date the best that they can date. A fit muscular guy is likely going to garner more attention from more people than a fat guy. That is a fact. Subjectivity in attraction certainly exists, but it’s not that widely swinging. A very few curve extremely outside of the norm (i.e fetish). For example, almost every person attracted to a male would find Brad Pitt very attractive. Etc.

So if you go after the attractive person, they’re also going to get many alternate options. And they’re going to pick someone they find most attractive among their suitors. If I had 100 matches on a dating app for example, I’m only going to bother spending my time talking to 10 of them and ghost the 90. I just can’t deal with the rest, humans only have so much time. If I get 1000 matches, I’m going to ignore 990 of them. My criteria in picking who is most attractive is likely not that much different from anyone else.

Question of if they’re out of their league means are you in the ignore pile, or the talk to pile, and sometimes the friendzone pile (i.e. you’re the backup). You can try to claw your way out of the ghosted, but your chances are slim. So it’s better use of your time and resources to retarget to another lower tier person who might only get 20 matches and will bother talking to 10 people. If that still doesn’t work, you keep going lower. This is effectively how the “dating marketplace” puts values on people.

You can keep trying to date the higher tier people, but you’ll keep getting outright rejected or not have a long term relationship with them. Because they know they can do better because they’ll keep getting suitors throughout their life.

World was certainly easier to date in the era of pre-dating apps or social media. Since the pool of people around each other is a lot smaller. But thanks to online interactions, we’re literally competing against countless others. So, it’s better to not waste your time on someone out of your league. You aren’t going to keep them. All you did is waste time (and probably lot of money if you’re a guy, and that money is going to be proportional to the gap between your leagues).

When a girl says they like certain things from a guy, they really mean certain things from a guy who has already met her base standards. Like attractiveness. So they want an attractive guy to be funny.

I agree they’ll dull faster. Fabric scissors are sharpened on a much lower angle, so if the metal doesn’t have the sufficient hardness, they will not retain their edge for long.

I have expensive japanese knives, scissors, guillotine (no, not the historic french one) etc. I sharpen them myself every few months on whetstones. I’m not gonna overly worry about their usage because even at the rate at which I sharpen, they will likely last me a lifetime. Other people use my tools incorrectly often. I’ve seen my parents use Shun chef knife like a cleaver through fish & chicken bone. I’m sure it works very well. It’s bad for the knife. But I just sharpen on my regular schedule and go on with my day instead of stressing about it.

If you know how to sharpen them, it doesn’t really matter that much. Stuff dulls eventually.

The correct statement is that he popularized this format of “change my mind.” Therefore, the attribution goes to him.

I think that’s the way most people operate anywhere, not just this website.

This meme is about whether we want to see his face constantly or not. Many would prefer not to see it.

That’s not the premise I drew from what this post is about. It’s not a question of what we prefer to see. It’s a question of if he deserves the meme format. But I guess we can simply disagree on that point.

Even if it’s a question of preference, I would still argue the same. We can’t just live our lives purely through our preferences. We have to face reality of how things are. And Crowder is the face of the meme, whether we like it or not. He is the one attributed to this meme, and will continue to be regardless of preference.

Dismissing claims based on a counter logic is how a proper arguments are formed. Once again, that is not a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where they attack a different claim. He is not attacking a different claim in any way. Underselling and dismissing is not a strawman.

Misrepresenting it is, but if anything, you keep proving him right. You’re putting your feelings of Crowder, as a person, as the reasoning. In other words, someone you don’t like is a meme format. There is no misrepresentation here.

My only point here is that you have your fallacies wrong.

Sure, I’ll play this game.

The premise of the convincing is loaded. No one deserves shit. Steven Crowder made the format famous and therefore he is attributed to it.

Whether or not the person is a piece of shit is irrelevant and ad hominem. If Hitler said 1 + 1 = 2, Hitler is right. You don’t get to deny that just because you hate the person. Shitty people can make correct statements and they can achieve things. Doesn’t matter which name we apply to it. We must be able to argue on the merits of the statement or format without sorting to personal feelings on the person, lest you become the one who is intolerant.

That’s not a strawman. He’s on topic.

Underselling is not an attribute of strawman. And I’m not sure what he misrepresented.

If anything, your argument is an ad hominem. Why is verbally abusing and degrading his wife, an insult towards his character, relevant to what he said? He is a piece of shit. So? If you’re saying we should use Calvin because Crowder is piece of shit, you’re just proving @BeefDaddySupreme@lemmy.world 's point.

P.S. I’m sure I’m gonna get mega downvoted. Arguing with logic is apparently not a thing on the internet.

That’s precisely why the left will keep losing men. And as I see it, left is going to lose men faster as time goes on unless something changes.

People can’t figure out life on their own. That’s reality. Especially with the current state of economy where the young men are doing very poorly in droves. And then the left just tells them: go figure it out on your own. Well fuck.

Meanwhile, the right will say shit like: go work out, improve yourself, do this and that to make more money, and you will get your life together, you will own a home, you will get a wife, etc. You’re right, these advices aren’t even political. But they are real advices, which people like JBP gives. And for the majority of their main points, they are actually good messages, crazy ones aside. Sure, the political right isn’t actually gonna do shit for men, but they have real advices. Things people can follow and have hope. It’s surely more enticing than what the left preaches.

The rebuttal from the left is often absolutely terrible messages and say things like “just don’t rape women” or “just respect potential partners” which just drives people away further. These are not real advices. These only make sense if you view men already in a negative light. It’s not actionable advice if they’re not a horrible person already. Left demonizes men, like you just did, whether you realize it or not. If a man views themselves as a good person already and the message they get is “just respect potential partners” which they already do, and still clearly achieving nothing. You get two outcomes. At best: you helped nobody. At worst: they now think you think they’re horrible because the reward isn’t coming with the advised action. So one side says you’re horrible and the other side says you have a future. Who will they stick with? Seems obvious to me.

Imagine the gender flip of that message. “Just don’t be bitch.” How would that message be perceived by women?

Even Andrew Tate has objectively better actionable messages for the men than the left. He constantly says stuff like go to the gym and work out. Does that actually help in the goal of dating? Fuck yeah. Actual cause and reward. These are real advices for men.

You can’t expect people to write their own script. Vast majority clearly can’t. They need guidance. And left has none to give. Until that time comes, people like JBP and Andrew Tate will continue to sweep in the young male audience, especially in an era where fatherless boys are more bountiful than ever.