I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this too. Just yesterday, I was thinking “what would Mr. Rogers say/think at a time like this?”

Then it dawned on me that maybe the worst parts of society had a radically different upbringing and media exposure than myself. ¹ The so-called “violent” cartoons (many of which were just toy commercials) I get and recall people keeping that stuff from their kids. But to think of banning something like (1980’s) PBS in your home, of all things. Now I understand why that messaging existed in the first place - we might be worse off right now without it.

1. Insert “we-are-not-the-same-gen-x.jpg” meme here.

I mean, if that ultimately gets me a girlfriend, I’ll give it a shot. Seems like a lot of extra steps though.

Easily the best one. But does that mean:

a. Self-actualization and understanding one’s self is difficult for men due to toxic masculinity and social norms.

b. Into guys but with dubious grammar skills.

c. … both?

One way or another: he’s full of it.

I think it’s HGH gut. Man’s rich as hell, so of course he’s going to pay for all the health and life-extending stuff he can get his hands on. Human growth hormone can combat aging, but it’s not perfect.

HGH is known to be an effective generator of muscle mass, which is why it is so often a favorite for bodybuilders. However, there is a large concentration of growth hormone receptors in the large intestine, which can contribute to the intestine’s undesired growth. Specifically, this tends to occur when an individual uses illegal HGH without doctor supervision.

I mis-posted my reply, which is located further down the thread in case you’re interested.

Aw crap. Thanks!

Is there a reason people hate him? […] isn’t he mostly known for giving away money and helping people out?

I may know why. The recently leaked PDF about how he runs his production company makes it patently clear: they aim to make successful YouTube videos, full stop.

Everything else is a side-effect. Not to suggest that they lack any ethics, but rather things like charity are there to get you to click and watch, nothing more. With enough exposure it’s easy to get the impression that something is “off” with being click-bated like that. I’m not saying that behavior is deserving of hate, but it may help explain why people don’t like his media.

Also, for people that are trying to make content in a much more honest fashion, Mr. Beast’s popularity can be disheartening and frustrating. YouTube has clearly decided to reward this eyeball-grabbing behavior without any regards to the quality of the content. It’s stuff made for the algorithm, rather than people showcasing their craft, skill, or interests. I’m guessing that people see their favorite makers and entertainers struggle to make a go of it by doing what they love, and see this guy come along and reap millions in revenue without any emotional connection to the output. To me, that’s a recipe for anger.

Personally, I refuse to view popular click-bait stuff to begin with, and routinely filter such content out (click “not interested”). As a result, my YT recommendations never contain Mr. Beast content and I actually had to fire up a privacy window and click on this nonsense so I knew what the hell everyone was talking about.

I try to use “driver” or “person”.

Second to this: an app has to earn social media status, or social media levels of engagement.

I’m looking at you, Venmo. No, sharing my spending details with other people online, is not a good idea. Ever. Conspicuous consumption is a social blight already, and you dare taint my phone by suggesting I lean into it? Do better.

I agree with the post. It’s coded derogatory speech while being technically correct. Personally, I would go as far to say it’s a dog-whistle and is absolutely a flag, especially if it renders any speech clunky and labored, or side-steps a person’s gender transition status.

Also, here’s something I’ve observed that may be relevant.

IMO, most of the time people use gender when telling a story, it’s not relevant information in the first place. In light of recent events, public awareness, and politics, non-gendered speech (in English at least) is automatically the most inclusive way to go and it’s a good habit to develop. The exceptions here are where it’s information that supports the story, disambiguates complicated situations (e.g. talking about a drag persona), or where it’s gender affirming in some way (e.g. respecting pronoun preferences).

I see this happen a lot, especially where woman/female is used as extra information when expressing anger, frustration, and disgust. For example, I hear “this woman cut me off in traffic” far more than “this man cut me off in traffic”, with “this person” or “a BMW driver” as a maybe-neutral-but-also-likely-male coded qualifier. To me, it suggests a kind of negative bias for gender, which may or may not be unconscious (depends on the person). It may seem like a small thing, but it’s freaking everywhere and it’s gotta stop.

For the rare occasion where sex or gender supports the story, “my teacher, who is a woman, …” or “my teacher, (s)he…” does the job. Yeah, it’s is a bit tougher on the tongue, but you should only need to say it once for the whole telling.

In a paper bag no less. You guys are fun.

• Gratuitous amounts of energy
• Energy Legs
• 400 babies

My unqualified opinion: I think It’s easier to craft a wig this way.

I’ve found that when I’m exhausted, I literally don’t have the energy/bandwidth to be anxious, let alone indulge in any mild dysmorphic hallucinations from the mirror. Even my typical ADHD symptoms are muted a bit. A tired brain is a much happier brain; just don’t ask me to do math or anything complicated and we’re good.

I’m pretty much in this camp.

I’ve tried some of the stimulant treatments, but they leave me feeling completely wrung out by the end of my shift. And being on that stuff for more than 12+ hours just seems like a recipe for heart disease.

Ten minutes later:

I, a non-violent person, really wish a nose-punch on anyone who uses the phrase common sense to bolster their position.

Very likely, that’s because every time “common sense” is used this way, it’s a logical fallacy.

Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.

I personally think that it also functions as a thought terminating cliche, as appeals to “common sense” seem to wind up near the end of the thread.

I never put it together like that. Thank you. It all makes so much more sense now.

@undergroundoverground, next to you in this thread, also goes into how they cannot actually define anything as simple as “anti-woke”. The rhetoric falls back to meaningless marketing-like-words (e.g. “common sense”) that are, perhaps deliberately, open to personal interpretation. The only coherent platform is the one that exists in an individual’s head, yet it is distinct from the next guy.