RE: Well, people already don’t like the choices for the next book club. Oh well.
——-
The books looked miserable to me, but I’ll give the selected one a try. One of the best things about reading groups is trying something out of my usual.
Loved the Braque piece. Nice to see something besides his cubism.
I look forward to hearing the Ruby Ridge talk. I'm not inclined to make Randy Weaver any sort of folk hero but, fuck, what an awful situation he went through. I can understand where others would take up his fight and influence their anti-government views.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about the choices either, but I'd of never read the last two books and they turned out well. So I' m trusting you and the group and will read what is chosen.
Re the book recommendation: The Satanic panic is important to understand -- among other reasons -- for what it tells us about how very prone we fallible humans are to falling for extreme bullshit. Remember during the Satanic panic most people really took it at face value and believed it was going on. There were entire conferences dedicated to discussing the "research." Psychologists made entire careers on this thing which didn't happen and which destroyed lives.
Among others, Diane Ehrensaft wrote in 1992 about Satanic child sex abuse stuff. https://archive.org/details/ehrensaft-1992/mode/2up You might think she would have lost her professional credibility after that, but no. She's moved on to today's junk diagnosis and is ruining lives anew.
Ehrensaft is now the (incomprehensibly) highly regarded clinician at UCSF who is pushing for transing children in the new (and not evidence-based) model of all affirmation, all the time, even of preschoolers (who, as anyone who's taken even an introductory class in developmental psychology is aware) are as likely to say they are dinosaurs or dogs as the opposite sex.
Ehrensaft is the person who has made the famous claim that boy babies who unsnap their onesie to form a "dress" or girl babies who rip the barrettes out of their hair are telling us about their gender. Yes she really said it, she really implied that infants have a concept of gender, and she really meant it.
With her history and her beliefs, she should have no position of authority, anywhere, related to children.
As much as we can look back on history and weep at how many lives were ruined with the Satanic panic, we need to look at the blind, deeply unscientific transing and sterilization of kids right now and weep at that.
Ehrensaft was wrong about the Satanic panic way back when, she's wrong about gender nonconforming kids now, and yet she's an associate professor of pediatrics and enjoys a position of considerable authority at one of the most esteemed medical schools in the world. Her Grand Rounds are well attended and have an air more of church services than of professional events. The questions from the audience are screened so no difficult questions -- no real questions -- even are asked of her.
We can weep at the past but we can also be motivated to open our eyes to the same stuff (in different form) happening around us right now.
Ok... I am just gonna' ask it. Can somebody please provide me a list of influential females in the professional elite educated class that are not deep into this cult of woke supremacy and totalitarian power grab? I am looking for names especially in the medical and social sciences as they seem to dominate the narrative of our pandemic era. Female Jordan Peterson? Female Alex Berenson? Female anti Rochelle P. Walensky or anti Debi Birx?
From my perspective this is a clear gender divide in our current culture war against the CCP-loving billionaire boys club and their minions of educated elites.
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but are you saying you enjoy our 21st century Western narrative of “trans” as some kind of wrongness that needs to be fixed (whether that wrongness is interpreted to be in bodies which need to change; or in the surrounding culture which needs to play along with a literalist view of “gender”) accompanied by emotional distress, the transition-or-die suicide narrative, ongoing medicalization and poor mental health? And you like that more than, say, the Samoan model where people just occupy their gender nonconforming niche and thrive?
Thanks, Mark. I think you feel the same way I do, that it's really important to get people to stop and think about what is happening to kids since about 2010. Mature adults can undertake any kind of cosmetic procedures they want. They should live their lives in whatever way makes them happy. But I keep seeing more, more, and more kids (my kids' age and younger, the kids of my friends and acquaintances, often quirky bright kids, kids who are having the typical teen angst about adolescence, sexuality, their bodies, the usual stuff we all went through) caught up in medical and psychological harm from people who think they are being progressive, open-minded and kind -- but they are being anything but. I'll engage respectfully with anyone who wants to engage with me on this issue. Once people with a conscience see the immense harm we're inflicting on a generation of kids, it's really hard for them to go about life as normal.
I don’t quite follow (and maybe that’s because I’m not familiar with what is happening with incels) but I would be interested in hearing more about what you think.
You can check out r/foreveralone. All the incel subreddits have been banned, but you can probably find archives of some of their greatest hits if you really want to find it. There's also pieces of this in MGTOW, "men's rights", "red pill", etc. You can find "joking" versions of it all over the internet, r/me_irl being one example.
Basically, the data shows that male virginity is much higher than it's been in history. Tons of men are aging into their twenties and thirties without ever having dated or had sex. Moreover, many men believe themselves inherently incapable of such things.
I'm not too familiar with the history of dating, but I imagine this is unusual. I think most people have dated and had sex before their mid-20s for a long time (not counting monks and priests and others who's aren't interested in such things).
I'm wondering if this is also something that is spread through the internet. First, people feel discouraged due to natural introversion or awkwardness. Next, people see these incel or forever alone ideas online and it "spreads" to them in the same way Tourette-like symptoms do to Tik Tok viewers.
Oh YES! The notion that the ideas spread, and that it might happen to incels as well. Now there's an interesting idea. Thanks for explaining that, and it's definitely something worth thinking about.
(I thought possibly you meant something directly related to incels and trans identity, which I hadn't heard of.)
So, a couple weeks ago, Benjamin Boyce did an interview with William Costello, a guy who did his dissertation on incels. One thing the guy mentioned, and it's something I've heard before (without ever having checked into the claim; so please take this as an unverified claim I'm parroting from someone else) is that
(1) for most of human history, most men did not leave offspring, but rather just a few men monopolized the majority of women;
(2) nuclear families, pairing up one man and one woman, were an innovation that essentially "spread out" the available women among men, so that there were more partnered men than in the past who were able to leave offspring; and
(3) a society with more partnered men tends to be much more stable and peaceful than a society with fewer partnered men. Unpartnered men = anger, violence and social instability. ("Access to women is the opiate of the people"?)
So according to this view, unpartnered men, and the anger and violence that go with that, are the human norm, and having more men partnered was a nifty innovation.
Now, I'd heard that before, and as an empirical claim, it would be interesting to look into it, although there's something very displeasing about thinking about women as a resource to be handed out to promote a more stable society. Just because it's personally displeasing, however, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Costello was of the opinion, though, that of the incels he studied, many of them were interested in the solidarity they got from the online groups, and preferred a life of online friendships, porn, and disgruntlement -- in Costello's opinion, that was a "good enough" life for them -- to a future in which they had to try really hard to make themselves more desirable mates and still might be rejected. In other words, Costello felt they found comfort and companionship as part of that group, without risking more pain by putting themselves out there socially and being shot down some more.
He also mentioned -- and this was extremely interesting -- that guys in these groups who decided to try dating or to change their situation were often harassed or mocked -- essentially the others want no one to leave the group, and they see success as some kind of betrayal.
And that made me think of how our current 21st century Western trans people (especially the young ones) tend to lash out, punish and stigmatize anyone who decides they're not trans after all -- it's often viewed as a betrayal. For many detransitioners I've heard from, the most painful part is being abandoned by all their friends when they decide they weren't trans.
So in-group dynamics, peer pressure, and "identity" as an incel are definitely in play, whether or not it's a mass hysteria. It's definitely true that group beliefs are self-reinforcing, and "incel" -- especially the 21st century Western kind -- is definitely also "something we made up."
Thank you for the detailed response: a few things.
1) I've decided never to discuss trans issues on the internet again. Just so exhausting.
2) "He also mentioned -- and this was extremely interesting -- that guys in these groups who decided to try dating or to change their situation were often harassed or mocked -- essentially the others want no one to leave the group, and they see success as some kind of betrayal." This also sounds like fat acceptance, another potential hysteria. They claim body positivity - every body is valid! But when people try to lose weight, they get pissed. See the anger of weight loss from Rebel Wilson and Adele. You can search up "fat acceptance" or "healthy at every size" for this breed of nonsense. Misery loves company.
3) Costello's claim that most men went unpartnered in antiquity seems wrong to me. I could definitely be convinced, but it's the sort of thing I'd need to see more than one dissertation on to change my mind. So many broad claims social science claims are crap, so I stick with intuition until I see really good evidence. Fwiw, this claim doesn't really bother me either way. It just reminds me of stuff like "people are naturally keto, " which could be true but also make me roll my eyes a bit
4) Regardless, most men have been partnered in for quite some time, and the rate has skyrocketed in recent years. We're also seeing similar things in China and Japan. I haven't checked the data, but I would imagine something similar is going on in the wealthier European countries.
And I've been burying the lead a bit. I bring this up partially because I'm in this group. I'm nearing 30 and I've never dated, though I'm not an "incel" because I hold generally progressive social views. I used to think it was literally impossible for anyone to date me because of some of these online ideas. I no longer believe that I've inherently undateable, but I still feel like there's something wrong with me. Not trying to make excuses, but it's a part of me I'd like to understand better.
RE: "I used to think it was literally impossible for anyone to date me because of some of these online ideas. I no longer believe that I've inherently undateable, but I still feel like there's something wrong with me. Not trying to make excuses, but it's a part of me I'd like to understand better."
I can see why those online ideas would be strongly persuasive -- any kind of group-think is, so you are absolutely right about that. That's one reason group-think of any type is pernicious. That you believed those ideas for a while is not a reflection on _you_, but a reflection on the crappy nature of group-think.
And I'm glad you no longer believe you're inherently undatable. Anyone who is interested in ideas, who can have a nuanced conversation and who engages in self-reflection has a lot going for him. I know that might sound like generic, encouraging Mom-speak, but it's also true.
Every single person who's ever lived is weird and flawed -- in that sense, something is wrong with all of us. It's always helped me to remember that. The people who seem carefree and un-weird are the people you just don't know very well yet. Get to know anyone, and there's a quirky weirdo underneath. That's how we humans are. Fortunately we all have redeeming qualities too.
Your mention of Japan reminded me of a long article I read very recently -- I wish I had the link, and I'll post it if I come across it again. The article was talking about how more and more people than ever before are unpartnered (not just guys) and in some places, like Japan, the article made it sound as if a lot of people prefer it that way.
But a lot of people don't, and that's a problem.
This article included an interview with a woman in her late 20s who was a virgin and when she finally started dating a guy she really liked and wanted to be intimate with him, she was scared to admit she was a virgin and when she did, he lost interest and broke up with her. No explanation.
But the point of the article was that there's a lot of this happening all over the world, and no one really knows why people are dating less, pairing up less, and even having less sex once they are paired up.
The easiest culprits to blame of course are online devices, which make it so much easier to interact not-in-person. And that seemed to be a reason that many people in the article settled on as a major cause.
Even before smartphones, though, the book "Bowling Alone" described this trend, so we can't blame it only on devices.
My daughter (long irrelevant backstory) just graduated high school but is not going to college till next year, and all her childhood friends left town to go to college. Point is, she's been bored this year. When I suggested my old-fashioned strategies for meeting some new people and making new friends, she patiently informed me, "People don't _do_ that unless they're _already_ friends. That would be so awkward." (Things like, asking if the person wants to go get boba.)
How do you make friends with people who aren't already your friends, to the extent that you would ever get to the stage of inviting them to get boba? It's a great big chicken and egg problem. I don't envy people who are trying to build relationships today. At all.
I can totally understand you wanting to understand this part of your life better. I don't know you or the situation, but it seems to me that this stuff is just way more difficult now than it was in my day. Your environment is not optimal.
And you sure as heck didn't ask me for advice, so forgive me if this part of my comment is unwelcome, but what worked for my daughter was joining a local theatre group. The specific type of group is beside the point. The relevant thing is that she put herself in a situation with new people doing an activity she likes, where people were all working together and there was no pressure to be friends, and they got to know each other organically by working on a shared goal. At the end there was a cast party, and from there, they decided to stay in touch and there are plans for a game night, and plans for a New Year's party.
So if I were a young adult in this situation, I would start putting myself in all the in-person places I could, with people who shared my interests and values, but with no pressure to make friends per se or date (for me that might include volunteering in animal rescue, volunteering at a food bank, joining a meditation group, joining a local maker-space, but you'd have to choose the things that suit you), where basic group camaraderie could organically form, because once you meet new groups of people in-person, you eventually hit it off with some compatible people, and then I guess (by my daughter's estimation) once they're finally your friends you can invite them for boba. :P
I think volunteering for causes you care about is a really good one, because not only are you doing good in the world, but you're likely to meet other caring people who want to do good in the world, and people you meet that way care about at least one of the same issues you do.
Young women are constantly saying "there are no good men left" -- that seems like a low bar to jump, right? (especially given the horrible stories I hear about the men young women are meeting). A good dating relationship is based on shared interests and solid friendship. If you express genuine interest in new acquaintances, if you ask them questions about themselves, if you try to get to know them and be thoughtful to them (something as simple as mentally filing it away when they mention their favorite bakery, and then when you have to get them a Secret Santa gift, you get them a gift card from there), you can be a standout on the bleak landscape of men. Just by being an authentic, friendly human.
As I said: You didn't ask. Forgive me if it's overstepping. You seem like a smart, nice, interesting person, but for young adults, the opportunities are lacking. It's sad that people need to work so hard to create the opportunities which "just existed" in earlier generations. That sucks, but it's not an impossible problem. I really wish you well, and I'm glad you escaped the group-think.
So if I were going to do a "things we made up" part 3 (and I might, but for now, I'll probably mix it up for a while), I would probably do one on cultic influence / mind control (which doesn't necessarily need a leader, but it does involve "beliefs" that group members must adhere to). I wonder if something like this might apply to (some) incel groups. See for instance http://cultresearch.org/the-change-process/# At the very least there is some overlap, especially if you look at the list. (snip below:)
Conditions Needed to Create a Thought-Reform Environment
Keep the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person.
Control time and physical environment (contacts, information).
Create a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependency.
Suppress old behavior and attitudes.
Instill new behavior and attitudes.
Put forth a closed system of logic.
(end snip) Not perfectly overlapping, but...there it is.
Regarding the comment of the week, I remember being horribly disillusioned when I realized it was not physically possible to sing along to many of my favorite songs, and that this was a problem with The Used's self-titled first album. I was even more disappointed with their later, even more heavily produced albums.
I have had my revenge on the music industry though. A favorite video game soundtrack that I was sharing with my wife features a real live flute soloist, and I expressed my deep appreciation for their phrasing as a former highschool saxophone player. She had no idea what I was talking about, so I showed her each audible breath that was captured on the soundtrack. Horrified, she wishes to return to the time where she had never once heard a breath on mic.
RE: Well, people already don’t like the choices for the next book club. Oh well.
——-
The books looked miserable to me, but I’ll give the selected one a try. One of the best things about reading groups is trying something out of my usual.
Ah, I hope my comment about genre books didn’t get you down. I literally pay you money to hear you talk, so I will happily read whatever you want.
Loved the Braque piece. Nice to see something besides his cubism.
I look forward to hearing the Ruby Ridge talk. I'm not inclined to make Randy Weaver any sort of folk hero but, fuck, what an awful situation he went through. I can understand where others would take up his fight and influence their anti-government views.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about the choices either, but I'd of never read the last two books and they turned out well. So I' m trusting you and the group and will read what is chosen.
"I Can Please None of the People All of Time".
But they keep coming back, that's how you know you are doing well.
Just because we complain does not mean that we are not pleased. Indeed we are often best pleased when we are complaining.
Thank you for the Philip Glass
Re the book recommendation: The Satanic panic is important to understand -- among other reasons -- for what it tells us about how very prone we fallible humans are to falling for extreme bullshit. Remember during the Satanic panic most people really took it at face value and believed it was going on. There were entire conferences dedicated to discussing the "research." Psychologists made entire careers on this thing which didn't happen and which destroyed lives.
Among others, Diane Ehrensaft wrote in 1992 about Satanic child sex abuse stuff. https://archive.org/details/ehrensaft-1992/mode/2up You might think she would have lost her professional credibility after that, but no. She's moved on to today's junk diagnosis and is ruining lives anew.
Ehrensaft is now the (incomprehensibly) highly regarded clinician at UCSF who is pushing for transing children in the new (and not evidence-based) model of all affirmation, all the time, even of preschoolers (who, as anyone who's taken even an introductory class in developmental psychology is aware) are as likely to say they are dinosaurs or dogs as the opposite sex.
Ehrensaft is the person who has made the famous claim that boy babies who unsnap their onesie to form a "dress" or girl babies who rip the barrettes out of their hair are telling us about their gender. Yes she really said it, she really implied that infants have a concept of gender, and she really meant it.
With her history and her beliefs, she should have no position of authority, anywhere, related to children.
As much as we can look back on history and weep at how many lives were ruined with the Satanic panic, we need to look at the blind, deeply unscientific transing and sterilization of kids right now and weep at that.
Ehrensaft was wrong about the Satanic panic way back when, she's wrong about gender nonconforming kids now, and yet she's an associate professor of pediatrics and enjoys a position of considerable authority at one of the most esteemed medical schools in the world. Her Grand Rounds are well attended and have an air more of church services than of professional events. The questions from the audience are screened so no difficult questions -- no real questions -- even are asked of her.
We can weep at the past but we can also be motivated to open our eyes to the same stuff (in different form) happening around us right now.
Ok... I am just gonna' ask it. Can somebody please provide me a list of influential females in the professional elite educated class that are not deep into this cult of woke supremacy and totalitarian power grab? I am looking for names especially in the medical and social sciences as they seem to dominate the narrative of our pandemic era. Female Jordan Peterson? Female Alex Berenson? Female anti Rochelle P. Walensky or anti Debi Birx?
From my perspective this is a clear gender divide in our current culture war against the CCP-loving billionaire boys club and their minions of educated elites.
There are plenty. Bari Weiss is an obvious one. Suzanne Moore is another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Moore https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/stonewall-crumbles-prick-news-settles
Also: your casual uninformed sexism is kinda pathetic. You should get out more.
And here I will recommend to all your two brilliant essays on this topic:
https://bprice.substack.com/p/trans-is-something-we-made-up
https://bprice.substack.com/p/tiktok-tics-and-mass-sociogenic-illness
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but are you saying you enjoy our 21st century Western narrative of “trans” as some kind of wrongness that needs to be fixed (whether that wrongness is interpreted to be in bodies which need to change; or in the surrounding culture which needs to play along with a literalist view of “gender”) accompanied by emotional distress, the transition-or-die suicide narrative, ongoing medicalization and poor mental health? And you like that more than, say, the Samoan model where people just occupy their gender nonconforming niche and thrive?
OK hahaha -- I can be slow on the uptake at times!
Thanks, Mark. I think you feel the same way I do, that it's really important to get people to stop and think about what is happening to kids since about 2010. Mature adults can undertake any kind of cosmetic procedures they want. They should live their lives in whatever way makes them happy. But I keep seeing more, more, and more kids (my kids' age and younger, the kids of my friends and acquaintances, often quirky bright kids, kids who are having the typical teen angst about adolescence, sexuality, their bodies, the usual stuff we all went through) caught up in medical and psychological harm from people who think they are being progressive, open-minded and kind -- but they are being anything but. I'll engage respectfully with anyone who wants to engage with me on this issue. Once people with a conscience see the immense harm we're inflicting on a generation of kids, it's really hard for them to go about life as normal.
Latest impossibly sad story from PITT:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/a-trans-estrangement
I wonder if it's a similar phenomena for incels or, more broadly, men who can't a get a girlfriend.
I don’t quite follow (and maybe that’s because I’m not familiar with what is happening with incels) but I would be interested in hearing more about what you think.
You can check out r/foreveralone. All the incel subreddits have been banned, but you can probably find archives of some of their greatest hits if you really want to find it. There's also pieces of this in MGTOW, "men's rights", "red pill", etc. You can find "joking" versions of it all over the internet, r/me_irl being one example.
Basically, the data shows that male virginity is much higher than it's been in history. Tons of men are aging into their twenties and thirties without ever having dated or had sex. Moreover, many men believe themselves inherently incapable of such things.
I'm not too familiar with the history of dating, but I imagine this is unusual. I think most people have dated and had sex before their mid-20s for a long time (not counting monks and priests and others who's aren't interested in such things).
I'm wondering if this is also something that is spread through the internet. First, people feel discouraged due to natural introversion or awkwardness. Next, people see these incel or forever alone ideas online and it "spreads" to them in the same way Tourette-like symptoms do to Tik Tok viewers.
Oh YES! The notion that the ideas spread, and that it might happen to incels as well. Now there's an interesting idea. Thanks for explaining that, and it's definitely something worth thinking about.
(I thought possibly you meant something directly related to incels and trans identity, which I hadn't heard of.)
So, a couple weeks ago, Benjamin Boyce did an interview with William Costello, a guy who did his dissertation on incels. One thing the guy mentioned, and it's something I've heard before (without ever having checked into the claim; so please take this as an unverified claim I'm parroting from someone else) is that
(1) for most of human history, most men did not leave offspring, but rather just a few men monopolized the majority of women;
(2) nuclear families, pairing up one man and one woman, were an innovation that essentially "spread out" the available women among men, so that there were more partnered men than in the past who were able to leave offspring; and
(3) a society with more partnered men tends to be much more stable and peaceful than a society with fewer partnered men. Unpartnered men = anger, violence and social instability. ("Access to women is the opiate of the people"?)
So according to this view, unpartnered men, and the anger and violence that go with that, are the human norm, and having more men partnered was a nifty innovation.
Now, I'd heard that before, and as an empirical claim, it would be interesting to look into it, although there's something very displeasing about thinking about women as a resource to be handed out to promote a more stable society. Just because it's personally displeasing, however, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Costello was of the opinion, though, that of the incels he studied, many of them were interested in the solidarity they got from the online groups, and preferred a life of online friendships, porn, and disgruntlement -- in Costello's opinion, that was a "good enough" life for them -- to a future in which they had to try really hard to make themselves more desirable mates and still might be rejected. In other words, Costello felt they found comfort and companionship as part of that group, without risking more pain by putting themselves out there socially and being shot down some more.
He also mentioned -- and this was extremely interesting -- that guys in these groups who decided to try dating or to change their situation were often harassed or mocked -- essentially the others want no one to leave the group, and they see success as some kind of betrayal.
And that made me think of how our current 21st century Western trans people (especially the young ones) tend to lash out, punish and stigmatize anyone who decides they're not trans after all -- it's often viewed as a betrayal. For many detransitioners I've heard from, the most painful part is being abandoned by all their friends when they decide they weren't trans.
So in-group dynamics, peer pressure, and "identity" as an incel are definitely in play, whether or not it's a mass hysteria. It's definitely true that group beliefs are self-reinforcing, and "incel" -- especially the 21st century Western kind -- is definitely also "something we made up."
Super interesting.
Thank you for the detailed response: a few things.
1) I've decided never to discuss trans issues on the internet again. Just so exhausting.
2) "He also mentioned -- and this was extremely interesting -- that guys in these groups who decided to try dating or to change their situation were often harassed or mocked -- essentially the others want no one to leave the group, and they see success as some kind of betrayal." This also sounds like fat acceptance, another potential hysteria. They claim body positivity - every body is valid! But when people try to lose weight, they get pissed. See the anger of weight loss from Rebel Wilson and Adele. You can search up "fat acceptance" or "healthy at every size" for this breed of nonsense. Misery loves company.
3) Costello's claim that most men went unpartnered in antiquity seems wrong to me. I could definitely be convinced, but it's the sort of thing I'd need to see more than one dissertation on to change my mind. So many broad claims social science claims are crap, so I stick with intuition until I see really good evidence. Fwiw, this claim doesn't really bother me either way. It just reminds me of stuff like "people are naturally keto, " which could be true but also make me roll my eyes a bit
4) Regardless, most men have been partnered in for quite some time, and the rate has skyrocketed in recent years. We're also seeing similar things in China and Japan. I haven't checked the data, but I would imagine something similar is going on in the wealthier European countries.
And I've been burying the lead a bit. I bring this up partially because I'm in this group. I'm nearing 30 and I've never dated, though I'm not an "incel" because I hold generally progressive social views. I used to think it was literally impossible for anyone to date me because of some of these online ideas. I no longer believe that I've inherently undateable, but I still feel like there's something wrong with me. Not trying to make excuses, but it's a part of me I'd like to understand better.
RE: "I used to think it was literally impossible for anyone to date me because of some of these online ideas. I no longer believe that I've inherently undateable, but I still feel like there's something wrong with me. Not trying to make excuses, but it's a part of me I'd like to understand better."
I can see why those online ideas would be strongly persuasive -- any kind of group-think is, so you are absolutely right about that. That's one reason group-think of any type is pernicious. That you believed those ideas for a while is not a reflection on _you_, but a reflection on the crappy nature of group-think.
And I'm glad you no longer believe you're inherently undatable. Anyone who is interested in ideas, who can have a nuanced conversation and who engages in self-reflection has a lot going for him. I know that might sound like generic, encouraging Mom-speak, but it's also true.
Every single person who's ever lived is weird and flawed -- in that sense, something is wrong with all of us. It's always helped me to remember that. The people who seem carefree and un-weird are the people you just don't know very well yet. Get to know anyone, and there's a quirky weirdo underneath. That's how we humans are. Fortunately we all have redeeming qualities too.
Your mention of Japan reminded me of a long article I read very recently -- I wish I had the link, and I'll post it if I come across it again. The article was talking about how more and more people than ever before are unpartnered (not just guys) and in some places, like Japan, the article made it sound as if a lot of people prefer it that way.
But a lot of people don't, and that's a problem.
This article included an interview with a woman in her late 20s who was a virgin and when she finally started dating a guy she really liked and wanted to be intimate with him, she was scared to admit she was a virgin and when she did, he lost interest and broke up with her. No explanation.
But the point of the article was that there's a lot of this happening all over the world, and no one really knows why people are dating less, pairing up less, and even having less sex once they are paired up.
The easiest culprits to blame of course are online devices, which make it so much easier to interact not-in-person. And that seemed to be a reason that many people in the article settled on as a major cause.
Even before smartphones, though, the book "Bowling Alone" described this trend, so we can't blame it only on devices.
My daughter (long irrelevant backstory) just graduated high school but is not going to college till next year, and all her childhood friends left town to go to college. Point is, she's been bored this year. When I suggested my old-fashioned strategies for meeting some new people and making new friends, she patiently informed me, "People don't _do_ that unless they're _already_ friends. That would be so awkward." (Things like, asking if the person wants to go get boba.)
How do you make friends with people who aren't already your friends, to the extent that you would ever get to the stage of inviting them to get boba? It's a great big chicken and egg problem. I don't envy people who are trying to build relationships today. At all.
I can totally understand you wanting to understand this part of your life better. I don't know you or the situation, but it seems to me that this stuff is just way more difficult now than it was in my day. Your environment is not optimal.
And you sure as heck didn't ask me for advice, so forgive me if this part of my comment is unwelcome, but what worked for my daughter was joining a local theatre group. The specific type of group is beside the point. The relevant thing is that she put herself in a situation with new people doing an activity she likes, where people were all working together and there was no pressure to be friends, and they got to know each other organically by working on a shared goal. At the end there was a cast party, and from there, they decided to stay in touch and there are plans for a game night, and plans for a New Year's party.
So if I were a young adult in this situation, I would start putting myself in all the in-person places I could, with people who shared my interests and values, but with no pressure to make friends per se or date (for me that might include volunteering in animal rescue, volunteering at a food bank, joining a meditation group, joining a local maker-space, but you'd have to choose the things that suit you), where basic group camaraderie could organically form, because once you meet new groups of people in-person, you eventually hit it off with some compatible people, and then I guess (by my daughter's estimation) once they're finally your friends you can invite them for boba. :P
I think volunteering for causes you care about is a really good one, because not only are you doing good in the world, but you're likely to meet other caring people who want to do good in the world, and people you meet that way care about at least one of the same issues you do.
Young women are constantly saying "there are no good men left" -- that seems like a low bar to jump, right? (especially given the horrible stories I hear about the men young women are meeting). A good dating relationship is based on shared interests and solid friendship. If you express genuine interest in new acquaintances, if you ask them questions about themselves, if you try to get to know them and be thoughtful to them (something as simple as mentally filing it away when they mention their favorite bakery, and then when you have to get them a Secret Santa gift, you get them a gift card from there), you can be a standout on the bleak landscape of men. Just by being an authentic, friendly human.
As I said: You didn't ask. Forgive me if it's overstepping. You seem like a smart, nice, interesting person, but for young adults, the opportunities are lacking. It's sad that people need to work so hard to create the opportunities which "just existed" in earlier generations. That sucks, but it's not an impossible problem. I really wish you well, and I'm glad you escaped the group-think.
So if I were going to do a "things we made up" part 3 (and I might, but for now, I'll probably mix it up for a while), I would probably do one on cultic influence / mind control (which doesn't necessarily need a leader, but it does involve "beliefs" that group members must adhere to). I wonder if something like this might apply to (some) incel groups. See for instance http://cultresearch.org/the-change-process/# At the very least there is some overlap, especially if you look at the list. (snip below:)
Conditions Needed to Create a Thought-Reform Environment
Keep the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person.
Control time and physical environment (contacts, information).
Create a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependency.
Suppress old behavior and attitudes.
Instill new behavior and attitudes.
Put forth a closed system of logic.
(end snip) Not perfectly overlapping, but...there it is.
Re Satanic Panic: Now the mainstream media is going after Elizabeth Loftus:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/05/how-elizabeth-loftus-changed-the-meaning-of-memory
Oh god I saw her speak a few years ago and she was excellent I really thought was settled ... How depressing
Regarding the comment of the week, I remember being horribly disillusioned when I realized it was not physically possible to sing along to many of my favorite songs, and that this was a problem with The Used's self-titled first album. I was even more disappointed with their later, even more heavily produced albums.
I have had my revenge on the music industry though. A favorite video game soundtrack that I was sharing with my wife features a real live flute soloist, and I expressed my deep appreciation for their phrasing as a former highschool saxophone player. She had no idea what I was talking about, so I showed her each audible breath that was captured on the soundtrack. Horrified, she wishes to return to the time where she had never once heard a breath on mic.
Was that particular Phillip Glass composition used in any films? It sounds so familiar but I can't place it.
It makes me think of how "Westworld" on HBO remakes a bunch of songs in arrangements for different instruments...like that's how I might've heard it.
"Forgetting the Fundamentals of Conservatism" is insightful. The forgetting has only accelerated since.
It's insane that stardestroyer.net still exists! I remember reading their Star Wars vs Star Trek articles as a middle schooler.