I mean, evil vs old. Choice seems simple

That's why I say do what you can, but if you spiral you're not gonna help anyone anyway.

When people say "touch grass" it usually means that the internet shouldn't influence your mental health. Unless any of the states decisions directly impact you, you can think about what you can do to influence it, but if you find yourself spiraling about it, its time to log off. Maybe start knitting idk

NOOOOOOOO

Eyo what.

49 Partners??

I think at this point its more F+ than a relationship. Which is cool, but where do you get the time to talk to all of them? Are they a full-time partner? Even then. This has to be bait. Ain't no way u talking to 49 partners on the regular. Is the whole neighborhood in on this? What is happening.

Yes the worst thing about the meat industry XD

This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.

As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:

Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.

Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.

Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.

You need to be capable of displaying both groups.

However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.

The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn't be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.

Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.

He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.

But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings. 

This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women's possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don't fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.

Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn't exist and just tells young man to become good humans.

Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.

In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.

TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.

The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that's also cool.

Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.

Yea, if your parents talk about essential oils you are not getting vaccinated XD Unlucky spawn

If the conclusion translates to way stricter conditions for aid (rolling back settlements, carving out pathways for aid, etc.) you won't get called fascist. If your conclusion is to let Trump into office, you are.

The first take is also a problem.

Genocide has a specific definition. The term is probably not applicable to Gaza, and doesn't have to be. A humanitarian crisis also leads to the above mentioned conclusion. Starting to call everything a Genocide that is nowhere near that level primarily has two effects:

• First it shuts down any debate about what is happening and what actions to take as a consequence. People who don't agree with the application of the term "genocide" will see you conspiracy theorists or similar. People who agree will write off all arguments as genocide denial. Stunlocking all processes that could lead to action.

• Secondly, and most importantly, it muddles the term. Genocide doesn't seem that bad if Israel is doing one or even Canada. While it does draw attention to your current issues, it simultaneously downplays actual recognized genocides.

An example of the second Point is, that a lot of people calling it a genocide are calling for aid to stop and NOT immediate intervention in the ONGOING genocide. Which would be a more appropriate reaction to genocide.

It honestly feels like a psy-op by Trumpels. How is your solution to this Conflict getting Trump - who is all the way on Israels side - into office? The man is one of the reasons for this situation, by cutting aid, by initiating the Abraham Accords, where "The plight of the Palestinians was an afterthought, if even that."

Genious idea, I see no way that can go wrong.

People say its complicated

Why not just eradicate all antisemitism in Western nations

EzPz

Emoji variable names should be simultaneously considered encryption and a crime against humanity

You can make both kinds of jokes, but you have to know your audience. Making murder jokes in front of a grieving family might not be the smartest move, same as joking about rape.