Kevin Samuels Dead at 56

[tokes99]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/science-health/954710/breakthrough-reveals-humans-getting-taller?amp

even tho this article is from 2021, it is referring to over the past century…yes over that period of time as nutrition improved folk across the world have gotten taller but in recent times average height, in the us specifically, as actually decreased…i don’t have citation but it could be due to increased immigration & low birth rates of ‘native’ americans recently

Not too many men are standing in line for a women with 2 kids by two different men because she's "healed"

if there was anything that the women who saw fit to call up kevin samuels illustrated it was that most of them, at least one could infer from their words, seemed not to be actually lacking suitors (if not exactly clear what those candidates’ s intentions are for relationship) but these women’s delusion was that they were want of a specific quality & type…so they are likely quite a few men that would ‘settle’ for women with kids, ‘high value’ or nah, for any number of reasons but that so many women seem to feel deserving/entitled and/or are dismissive of guys that don’t fit so neatly in to their ideal(s) until they already have kids or other life baggage was the revelatory thing to my mind

 

[deusavertat]

The average U.S. male height has been 5'9 for about 50 years it ain changing. Unless you're assuming short women are also no longer having children as well.

I don't think the average height was 5ft9 50 years ago. I think once the boomers die off we will see anothrr shift in overall population height.

There has been a gradual increase in height over the last century. The average height currently being 5ft9 is actually incredible.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

yah imma put this in the category of fake deep, with some gender ideology pseudo science thrown in.

yes human beings are a mix of cultural and biological influences.
but this needlessly over complicates something that is pretty obvious.

in general men and women like every other primate
tend to be attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of their target sex.

men hit puberty, become taller, broader shoulders, more muscular
but they also become more aggressive, more competitive
and tend to be interested in things over people

and surprise surprise women find, tall, broad shouldered men, who are competitive and successful attractive.

women on average tend more interested in people, feelings
and puberty makes their hips wider, breast grow, body fat redistribute.

so men in general tend to be attracted to hips, breast, thighs ect, and more submissive nurturing personality.


now human beings are not THAT different. so there is going to be a whole bunch overlap
in sexual interest between the sexes.
and there will be a ton of a typical humans with atypical interests.

but I think many of the broad stereotypes about the sexes are directionally tru.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

and with all things there is a Goldilocks zone.


men in general don't want a woman who is so passive and submissive that it's basically like having another child to take care of.
women don't want a man who is so hyper aggressive and competitive that he makes poor decisions, is emotionally inattentive or is unwilling to help with child rearing.

but again these are all generalities and there will be plenty of exceptions,

but there's a "wisdom of the ancients" element going on where

your grandmother probably has a much clearer eyed view about the broad differences between men and woman that the average 21 year old id guess.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

if you ever want to see how often folks that dont end up in the "women want this kind of man and men want this kind of woman" box, go to a wedding lol i was at a wedding last weekend and it was almost funny to see what folks that actually end up getting married or atleast are together in relationships look like with the whole KS/manosphere conversation in the back drop in attendance at this wedding. short dudes with tall girls, chubby girls with fit dudes, attractive women with men that most would be considered less than in looks.

 

[WASHED KING]

if you ever want to see how often folks that dont end up in the "women want this kind of man and men want this kind of woman" box, go to a wedding lol i was at a wedding last weekend and it was almost funny to see what folks that actually end up getting married or atleast are together in relationships look like with the whole KS/manosphere conversation in the back drop in attendance at this wedding. short dudes with tall girls, chubby girls with fit dudes, attractive women with men that most would be considered less than in looks.

The internet has given everyone a voice and an opinion. Which is awesome but people lie.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So I finally got a chance to listen, I have a lot of thoughts. Should have taken notes so I could remember them all.

But one thing that was pointed out that I didn't think about was the question of where can young men go to talk about / learn about women that ISN'T going to fill their heads with right-leaning ideologies? (Question is for everyone.)

I like how he spent time discussing the gaming space and how that is essentially a playground of young white folks to get "recruited" to the right.

I also like his point about how Black Twitter is filled with educated black folks making jokes/memes about subjects/topics about (black) people they wouldn't even invite to their own events.

I need to listen to the video he made that they were referencing in the first place.

Also, the part of the conversation where they both agreed time HAS to be spent on finding ways to help white men deal with their feelings of entitlement to everything under the sun. But they also said that will be tough to do without people thinking time/attention is being taken away from the needs of minorities.

Good convo though.

i skimmed through this, and with most overly academic, social science heavy thinkers.
I just think he's describing banal well understood concepts and dressing it up in fancy language.


men in all-male spaces engage in socially regressive behavior?
yah duh obviously.

men have a mix of rational and irrational resentments of women?
yah of course (the same goes for women)

none of this seems novel.


the recruitment problem has a pretty obvious solution.

much of popular feminists thinking essentially pathologizes typical male behavior patterns
or worse, makes up lurid caricatures of strait male identity.

example from Sexual Revolution by Laurie Penny



while there is a kernel of truth, the part about sex with women being a status marker.
most of this reads as the dark fantasy of women who has never actually met a human male

and the solution seems to imagine a world where men will simply start behaving like women.

this will never happen, the most you will get higher IQ men saying the correct words.
while increasing alienation and resentment from all the other men.

again a wisdom of the ancients situation.
you need an attractive positive vision of masculinity.

there is a reason that concepts like "chivalry" got invented.
it's a way to channel typical male behavior patterns into something productive and positive

nobody wants to be on a losing team.
this vision of the future where stereotypically masculine personality traits are stigmatized
is a political dead end. if the left doesn't offer positive vision of masculinity that isn't
"act more like women"

young men will go searching for acceptance somewhere else.

 

[WASHED KING]

i skimmed through this, and with most overly academic, social science heavy thinkers.
I just think he's describing banal well understood concepts and dressing it up in fancy language.


men in all-male spaces engage in socially regressive behavior?
yah duh obviously.

men have a mix of rational and irrational resentments of women?
yah of course (the same goes for women)

none of this seems novel.


the recruitment problem has a pretty obvious solution.

much of popular feminists thinking essentially pathologizes typical male behavior patterns
or worse, makes up lurid caricatures of strait male identity.

example from Sexual Revolution by Laurie Penny



while there is a kernel of truth, the part about sex with women being a status marker.
most of this reads as the dark fantasy of women who has never actually met a human male

and the solution seems to imagine a world where men will simply start behaving like women.

this will never happen, the most you will get higher IQ men saying the correct words.
while increasing alienation and resentment from all the other men.

again a wisdom of the ancients situation.
you need an attractive positive vision of masculinity.

there is a reason that concepts like "chivalry" got invented.
it's a way to channel typical male behavior patterns into something productive and positive

nobody wants to be on a losing team.
this vision of the future where stereotypically masculine personality traits are stigmatized
is a political dead end. if the left doesn't offer positive vision of masculinity that isn't
"act more like women"

young men will go searching for acceptance somewhere else.

That whole passage is nuts. I can't relate to anything in it.

Everyday I grow more and more thankful I had a father and other positive male role models in my life.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/science-health/954710/breakthrough-reveals-humans-getting-taller?amp

Again, do you understand what needs to happen for the AVERAGE height to EVER reach 6'3? Let alone in the next few generations?

 

[tokes99]

i used to essentially quote chappelle’s ‘chivalry is dead & women killed it’ line whenever women would get in their feelings about dudes not adhering to their fairytale notions of masculinity…but the more i understood what chivalry was, less about how men viewed women and more so how men viewed themselves, i do think that our modern conception of gender equality & chivalry cannot really coexist. it’s kinda arguable if it ever really existed at scale, in the ways that people think of it, at all

 

[IATT]

I stopped reading at “that you’re entitled to do it to them”…

 

[RustyShackleford]

i skimmed through this, and with most overly academic, social science heavy thinkers.
I just think he's describing banal well understood concepts and dressing it up in fancy language.


men in all-male spaces engage in socially regressive behavior?
yah duh obviously.

men have a mix of rational and irrational resentments of women?
yah of course (the same goes for women)

none of this seems novel.


the recruitment problem has a pretty obvious solution.

much of popular feminists thinking essentially pathologizes typical male behavior patterns
or worse, makes up lurid caricatures of strait male identity.

example from Sexual Revolution by Laurie Penny



while there is a kernel of truth, the part about sex with women being a status marker.
most of this reads as the dark fantasy of women who has never actually met a human male

and the solution seems to imagine a world where men will simply start behaving like women.

this will never happen, the most you will get higher IQ men saying the correct words.
while increasing alienation and resentment from all the other men.

again a wisdom of the ancients situation.
you need an attractive positive vision of masculinity.

there is a reason that concepts like "chivalry" got invented.
it's a way to channel typical male behavior patterns into something productive and positive

nobody wants to be on a losing team.
this vision of the future where stereotypically masculine personality traits are stigmatized
is a political dead end. if the left doesn't offer positive vision of masculinity that isn't
"act more like women"

young men will go searching for acceptance somewhere else.

Penny sounds like she is taking incel ideology, or maybe what sociopathic rich spoil frat boys think, and applying it to little boys generally.

I think there is a lot of BS we fill boys head with about girls, I sure know mine was, but she OD with that take.

I mean "whip it out" was a joke in here but also in many cases presented as legit dating advice.

I think the original framework of of toxic masculinity was good. There are a lot of character traits associated with masculinity, let us encourage the positive ones and discourage the negative ones.

But that lasted like 5 mins. It got reworked as anything a man did a women didn't like was related to toxic masculinity, and on the right it was used to whip up a moral panic about masculinity being under attack.

No matter how cringe or ridiculous I find them, the country might be better off if there was a progressive versions of these men's rights dudes. Someone to gives young men productive outlets for their frustrations instead getting them worked up so some grifters and monetize their anger or turn it into political power.

Gotta happen quick, because conservatives are using the women hating men's rights **** as a recruiting tool. And by the looks of it, there are a lot marks out there.

 

[finessence]

Y’all rather be tall and fat or short and skinny?

 

[Present]

i skimmed through this, and with most overly academic, social science heavy thinkers.
I just think he's describing banal well understood concepts and dressing it up in fancy language.


men in all-male spaces engage in socially regressive behavior?
yah duh obviously.

men have a mix of rational and irrational resentments of women?
yah of course (the same goes for women)

none of this seems novel.


the recruitment problem has a pretty obvious solution.

much of popular feminists thinking essentially pathologizes typical male behavior patterns
or worse, makes up lurid caricatures of strait male identity.

example from Sexual Revolution by Laurie Penny



while there is a kernel of truth, the part about sex with women being a status marker.
most of this reads as the dark fantasy of women who has never actually met a human male

and the solution seems to imagine a world where men will simply start behaving like women.

this will never happen, the most you will get higher IQ men saying the correct words.
while increasing alienation and resentment from all the other men.

again a wisdom of the ancients situation.
you need an attractive positive vision of masculinity.

there is a reason that concepts like "chivalry" got invented.
it's a way to channel typical male behavior patterns into something productive and positive

nobody wants to be on a losing team.
this vision of the future where stereotypically masculine personality traits are stigmatized
is a political dead end. if the left doesn't offer positive vision of masculinity that isn't
"act more like women"

young men will go searching for acceptance somewhere else.

Had to Google who Laurie Penny was and why her opinions found their way to publishing...

Came across this quote from JK Rowling:

‘Laurie, you’ve been flinging terms like “fascist” and “transphobe” against women who disagree with you for a very long time. I don’t recall you showing the slightest empathy for other women’s trauma while you dismissed their, in my view, reasonable and rational concerns… You claim to be suffering PTSD because of *bad book reviews*… If they cause you equivalent trauma to being bombed out of your house or witnessing the murder of loved ones, maybe find a job where dishing it out, but not being able to take it, is a key requirement.’


Had no idea JK Rowling listened to Nas

 

[osh kosh bosh]

i used to essentially quote chappelle’s ‘chivalry is dead & women killed it’ line whenever women would get in their feelings about dudes not adhering to their fairytale notions of masculinity…but the more i understood what chivalry was, less about how men viewed women and more so how men viewed themselves, i do think that our modern conception of gender equality & chivalry cannot really coexist. it’s kinda arguable if it ever really existed at scale, in the ways that people think of it, at all

equality is such a weird framework in a world where men and women generally want different things. yes each side has equal rights to desire what they want to desire.


but it often gets warped into, men and women should equally engage in the same acts.

that's why the sex positive version of feminism that basically encourages women to act like men sexually also leaves women wanting

you see now modern feminist turning against sex positive consent oriented feminism
Christin Emba takes this on in her new book.

we don't need to pretend like women and men desire the same things.
to have equality.

women can desire chivalry, protectors, providers
and men can desire fitness, nurturing, submissiveness.


this can be different and still be and equl exchange if both sides are fulfilled.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You see this constantly in feminist discourse.
bizzaro world descriptions of masculinity recast as pathological and inherently defective.


this from feminist trans man FtM.
who has suddenly discovered to their horror that men and women are different.
rather than appreciating this difference in a nuanced way, it gets pathologized.

there is always a kernal of a true observation but its always construed in the nastiest possible way

kernal of truth; men don't make new friends as easily as women
and yes men bond more easily in the context of team based competition.

but the conclusion here is men have "broken psyches"
and are suffering from emotionally malnutrition is just wild excessive


to my eye male friendships don't seem to rupture as easily as female friendships
and seem to require less emotional maintenance.

but I don't go around telling people women have broken psyches
because they don't wanna play PlayStation or bond through athletic competition.

 

[tokes99]

No matter how cringe or ridiculous I find them, the country might be better off if there was a progressive versions of these men's rights dudes. Someone to gives young men productive outlets for their frustrations instead getting them worked up so some grifters and monetize their anger or turn it into political power.

Gotta happen quick, because conservatives are using the women hating men's rights **** as a recruiting tool. And by the looks of it, there are a lot marks out there.

i wonder what would this even look like, given stuff like safe spaces, triggers, intersectionality could it really even appeal to those type or similarly ‘frustrated’ guys?

equality is such a weird framework in a world where men and women generally want different things. yes each side has equal rights to desire what they want to desire.


but it often gets warped into, men and women should equally engage in the same acts.

that's why the sex positive version of feminism that basically encourages women to act like men sexually also leaves women wanting

you see now modern feminist turning against sex positive consent oriented feminism
Christin Emba takes this on in her new book.

we don't need to pretend like women and men desire the same things.
to have equality.

women can desire chivalry, protectors, providers
and men can desire fitness, nurturing, submissiveness.


this can be different and still be and equl exchange if both sides are fulfilled.

from a general dispassionate/removed logical perspective, i have had, as i’m sure most can relate, discussions where people can & will agree in principle…but once it gets to the individual/personal level folk end up feeling a way

the general idea that men & women want different things is accepted but when it really comes to personal relationships people get real indignant about how they feel about the ‘double’ or different standards. as such, because we are so invested in the idea of equality, and this idea has literally animated & enlisted the untapped potential of half of humanity by the increasing the opportunities for women, i don’t know that this dualism of women wanting ‘equal’ but also better can be tempered

 

[RustyShackleford]

i wonder what would this even look like, given stuff like safe spaces, triggers, intersectionality could it really even appeal to those type or similarly ‘frustrated’ guys?

No every progressive or liberal space is like that though. But yes, it would be harder culturally.

Politically there are examples. I used to go to DSA meetings, they are broey as hell. Labor union halls for blue collar workers used serve this purpose in a way a lot too.

I mean I have issues with the DSA's politics but I can see the appeal they have to a lot of young men politically, especially white men. It gives them someone to focus their anger on that are not minorities, women, or immigrants.

The thing, it is just naturally easier to grift and ******** on the right. The American right wing movement is a scammers paradise. Nothing left wing people love more than exposing a scammer left winger. Leftist especially especially needlessly obsess about this. So you can't rely on scammers, you need authentic people. And if you are that talent and authentic, you can make you way and riches doing more legitimate work.

 

[deusavertat]

Y’all rather be tall and fat or short and skinny?

Tall and fat honestly. Depends on how fat we are talking. A little plump like WIll Farrell?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Seriously, if someone is talent enough to save men, especially white men, from the cultural outrage trap with progressive cultural positions, they got a chance to be president.

Why sell supplements and merch on social media when you got a chance at unlimited fame and riches.

Obama ain't YouTube selling water bottles and cutting ads for online mattress business on a struggle podcast, now is he.

Mans gets his millions upfront from Spotify to talk with Bruce Springsteen.

People tell me from time to time I should start a podcast, or a blog and I laugh because I know I would be an utter failure at it. But if I chose to abandon all these morals I have, start hating myself, stop getting shape ups, increase my affinity for white women, and get a taste for biscuits, I can make a decent amount being a loony right wing commentator.

 

[tokes99]

No every progressive or liberal space is like that though. But yes, it would be harder culturally.

Politically there are examples. I used to go to DSA meetings, they are broey as hell. Labor union halls for blue collar workers used serve this purpose in a way a lot too.

I mean I have issues with the DSA's politics but I can see the appeal they have to a lot of young men politically, especially white men. It gives them someone to focus their anger on that are not minorities, women, or immigrants.

The thing, it is just naturally easier to grift and bull**** on the right. The American right wing movement is a scammers paradise. Nothing left wing people love more than exposing a scammer left winger. Leftist especially especially needlessly obsess about this. So you can't rely on scammers, you need authentic people. And if you are that talent and authentic, you can make you way and riches doing more legitimate work.

dsa?

i don’t know that it is necessarily easier to grift on the more conservative side, altho it definitely seems to play out that way…and it definitely seems the case that progressives are always pulling each other cards on their bonafides; i would say as an observer that conservatives seem to have a narrower scope of attention/audience in comparison to progressives…which i guess functionally makes it easier but i don’t necessarily think it is because the conservative audience is more gullible

Seriously, if someone is talent enough to save men, especially white men, from the cultural outrage trap with progressive cultural positions, they got a chance to be president.

Why sell supplements and merch on social media when you got a chance at unlimited fame and riches.

Obama ain't YouTube selling water bottles and cutting ads for online mattress business on a struggle podcast, now is he.

Mans gets his millions upfront from Spotify to talk with Bruce Springsteen.

People tell me from time to time I should start a podcast, or a blog and I laugh because I know I would be an utter failure at it. But if I chose to abandon all these morals I have, start hating myself, stop getting shape ups, increase my affinity for white women, and get a taste for biscuits, I can make a decent amount being a loony right wing commentator.

eh, maybe but if someone were of this mindset why would they want to risk being ‘constrained’ by the presidency, other than vanity perhaps…i’d think you’d have much more autonomy/less oversight outside of any strictures of any institutions that you couldn’t control

 

[RustyShackleford]

dsa?

Democratic Socialist of America

i don’t know that it is necessarily easier to grift on the more conservative side, altho it definitely seems to play out that way…and it definitely seems the case that progressives are always pulling each other cards on their bonafides; i would say as an observer that conservatives seem to have a narrower scope of attention/audience in comparison to progressives…which i guess functionally makes it easier but i don’t necessarily think it is because the conservative audience is more gullible

The conservative audience is just as big as than the liberal audience. It is much bigger than the further left progressive audience. The conservative audience is also more demographically and ideologically homogeneous. That means conservative scammers can use identity politics over larger swaths of people.

And because their audience and commentators are more ideologically aligned, then commentators go own each other's shows and market themselves.

The left wing media while big, the left wing audience while big, is much more heterogeneous. And the ideological differences between the groups makes for a lot of shots at political allies

Right wing critics of the conservative moment fall out of grace really quickly with conservative audiences. Left wing critics of progressives and liberals if they fall out of favor with one faction can just go to another faction. And there is way more billionaire money funding right wing scammers. You don't need to be aligned with anything explicitly right wing, once they feel you are pushing some of their ideas to create a wedge there is funding available. On the academic side, the economics profession is a good example of this. The ADOS movement is another example.

Not calling anyone uniquely guilible. Just saying the dynamics of the political coalition make the right more hospitable to scammers.

eh, maybe but if someone were of this mindset why would they want to risk being ‘constrained’ by the presidency, other than vanity perhaps…i’d think you’d have much more autonomy/less oversight outside of any strictures of any institutions that you couldn’t control

Being president is still the ultimate status symbol in America. Out of hundreds of millions of people, you get to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, a job only a few dozen people in US history has done, there is an attraction to that. Look at how many billionaires still want become it even though they can live in relative peace with all their riches.

Secondly, coming from a middle to upper middle class background, becoming president is a great deal financially. You spend four or eight extremely stressful years in exchange to increasing your profile big enough that you can make millions from low stress public appearances the rest of your life.

And they build you a library.

That seems like a solid deal to me.

Even if I could be president I would probably fail at that though. Probably get impeached because I can't explain why Teanna Trump is on the White House visitor log 93 times during by first year in office.

 

[executive76]

 

[tokes99]

Democratic Socialist of America



The conservative audience is just as big as than the liberal audience. It is much bigger than the further left progressive audience. The conservative audience is also more demographically and ideologically homogeneous. That means conservative scammers can use identity politics over larger swaths of people.

And because their audience and commentators are more ideologically aligned, then commentators go own each other's shows and market themselves.

The left wing media while big, the left wing audience while big, is much more heterogeneous. And the ideological differences between the groups makes for a lot of shots at political allies

Right wing critics of the conservative moment fall out of grace really quickly with conservative audiences. Left wing critics of progressives and liberals if they fall out of favor with one faction can just go to another faction. And there is way more billionaire money funding right wing scammers. You don't need to be aligned with anything explicitly right wing, once they feel you are pushing some of their ideas to create a wedge there is funding available. On the academic side, the economics profession is a good example of this. The ADOS movement is another example.

Not calling anyone uniquely guilible. Just saying the dynamics of the political coalition make the right more hospitable to scammers.



Being president is still the ultimate status symbol in America. Out of hundreds of millions of people, you get to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, a job only a few dozen people in US history has done, there is an attraction to that. Look at how many billionaires still want become it even though they can live in relative peace with all their riches.

Secondly, coming from a middle to upper middle class background, becoming president is a great deal financially. You spend four or eight extremely stressful years in exchange to increasing your profile big enough that you can make millions from low stress public appearances the rest of your life.

And they build you a library.

That seems like a solid deal to me.

Even if I could be president I would probably fail at that though. Probably get impeached because I can't explain why Teanna Trump is on the White House visitor log 93 times during by first year in office.

yea from that perspective i think i’d have to agree that conservative side cares much less how sturdy the person with the ‘graft’ is just that they agree on terms basically.

i think if there was this persona who could indeed really capture that demographic, which is substantial but not nearly a majority, of what real utility would vying to be president provide? such a person would likely have to moderate and thus prolly alienate the the diehards…

 

[Present]

"I don't spend the night"