PeepinGoodArgs

@[email protected]

Check out my digital garden: The Missing Premise.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

PeepinGoodArgs OP , to Men's Liberation in An Comparative Essay on Masculinity

This was a sort of personal research project sparked by reading this forum. I got quite a bit out of it. When I started I honestly thought the two conceptions could be reconciled. It’s something I’ve believed since I learned of the two different conceptions of masculinity. Now, I’m not so sure…probably not.

Anyway, this is my contribution to the lemmy version of his contribution.

Now argue with me!

PeepinGoodArgs OP , to Men's Liberation in Why Aspire To The Ideal Man?

See, this is what I thought initially: “I’m a man” is an indirect expression of values. And in more thoughtful men, traditional or otherwise, they may be able to articulate their values. So, I think this is probably the best answer.

But then there’s the obvious question of why those values embody being a man only. Why can’t women value the same thing and have the same type of expression? This part of the traditional manliness-as-values makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems unnecessarily restrictive.

PeepinGoodArgs , to Men's Liberation in DISCUSSION: What role do you think stoicism should have in modern masculinity, if any?

I want to respond to this but I’m on mobile. I’ll say this here to remind me at home when I have my full keyboard

kk. Home!

What drew me to Stoicism was it’s emphasis on emotional self-reliance. I’m just gonna say straight up: I think this was bad.

We’re more connected in the modern day in every way except emotionally. Stoicism was attractive to me because it allowed my anti-social teenage/twenty-year old self to be aloof, to feel like not engaging in society was the cultivation and practice of virtue.

To the extent that Stoicism is used that way today, then I don’t think it should have any role in modern masculinity.

Instead, I believe men need to be much, much more emotionally available. And to the extent that Stoicism helps men cope with our fear of failure in socializing, helps cope with the stress of socialization, I think that’s where it has the best role.

Because I’m still aloof, but that’s because I’m scared of being rejected. And, in my personal anthology, I have the ever-useful quote:

Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things.

And it helps when I’m like, “Fuck it…let’s go see what happens” and I go talk with people, usually at work where I have to talk to people anyway. And I connect with people and it’s rejuvenating in a sense.

So, I think Stoicism’s role is in helping the modern man being a more emotionally connected man and helping us navigate the difficulty of that endeavor.

PeepinGoodArgs , (edited ) to Politics in Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term

They’ll make it worse and praise the US for being energy independent.

PeepinGoodArgs , to Politics in [News] Alabama GOP Defies SCOTUS, Refuses to Create 2nd Majority-Black District

Lol, the internal discord of the GOP is leaking

PeepinGoodArgs , to Politics in Former senators debate the viability of No Labels' potential bipartisan third-party presidential ticket in 2024

“The American people don’t like what the two parties are doing,” Lieberman responded. “And they particularly don’t like the two candidates that they seem set on nominating.”

Sure, but this misunderstands voters. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to want someone more extreme and effective, less concerned with political grandstanding and more concerned with doing what the American people voted them in to do. DeSantis got it right…until he kept focusing on bullshit the general population didn’t want. Young Democrats pine after Sanders because he too gets it right, except that most older people don’t want that either.

No Labels talks like it can somehow smooth over the contradiction about abortion between Democrats and Republicans, but everyone knows it can’t. No Labels lauds unifying rhetoric over actual bipartisan policies. It’s one thing that say that everyone wants more done about gun control and gun crime, and it’s another to implement a policy that recognizes both views as legitimate because the two are largely contradictory.

In short, it’ll absolutely be a spoiler.

PeepinGoodArgs , to Ask Science in What was the historical science debate that seems silliest in hind sight?

Before that, nurses and midwives were well aware that cleanliness was important to not spreading disease. But that’s left out of history altogether.

PeepinGoodArgs , to Ask Science in Dehydration: How exactly does it kill you?

This was the response I got from Perplexity.ai.

The tl;dr is from there, too:

Dehydration can lead to death through mechanisms such as organ failure, blood thickening and reduced blood pressure, electrolyte imbalance, brain swelling, shock, and build-up of cellular waste.

Electrolyte imbalances and upset balance of salts and sugar can cause impaired cellular function, heart problems, neurological issues, kidney damage, and shock, ultimately leading to death.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • All magazines
    •