What exactly are people not hearing? Say the quiet part out loud already. It is the fact they can no longer openly shit on women and minorities and homosexuals and trans people that they have issues with. The fact that being white and having a white name are not enough to be granted a favorable job. That is all that is changing these days. Now consider what it says about the men who are kicking and screaming about this.

Socializing with a small group is still a party in the sense of the ur-human gathering around a campfire. Not every party is something out of Animal House.

Sure, but even that is a once a month thing for us. If we hang out with others two nights in a row, we need recovery time.

I confess, I'm not very bright and am having trouble decoding the subtleties of "Kill All Men!" as you have done. Could you explain how you got from "All" to "just the bad ones"? Would you interpret "Kill All Women" in the same manner?

Tangential question: do you advocate death for all bad people, a group which according to you includes the president?

I think GP is more in response to "view[ing] men as a kind of primordial oppressor", then the "Kill All Men" statement.

In any case - "Kill All Men" was always just a shibboleth. Treating it as an actual policy recommendation is prima facie risible. Throwing it out there to see who is oblivious enough to object is the point.

When I grew up, I was taught that if someone in your friend group makes a racist joke, you should stand up to them, and inform them that casual racism leads to normalizing racism.

Even if "Kill All Men" was just a shibboleth of a specific online culture, it seems like objecting to it would be a kind of moral duty (for the same reasons), as long we are in agreement that normalized misandry is bad. But again, in my generation I don't think there was any kind of consensus that misandry is wrong. That's why objecting to a shibboleth like this would be evidence of how "oblivious" and behind the times you are

Both are damaging and shouldn't be normalized, for similar reasons.

Do you honestly believe these people are advocating for slaughtering half the human race and damning the rest of it to extinction? Or is there some hyperbole that is going over your head?

In your comment above, you said that the less-hyperbolic version is killing all "bad" men, including the president. If one is trying to get all non-"bad" men on board with this, why would you use an alienating slogan like "Kill All Men?" It's such a big messaging fail that I can't really credit them with any thought process.

This is why I asked how you managed to extract something other than "Kill All Men" from the phrase "Kill All Men".

I am not claiming my experience generalizes here. But my experience was absolutely saturated by a narrative that men are oppressors who are the cause of many/most of the ills of society. The nuance of only including men who are "evil" was not present in my experience. A conversation might go like:

A: "Kill All Men! They are disgusting"

B: "Well, surely not all men, some men are noble or allies to your cause"

A: "When I look at who the evil people are, they are almost all men, and they are supported by many men. Men are responsible for the evil and for failing to stop the evil. For every man that commits date rape, there's 5 men that hear about it and don't do anything. They are all responsible, and just as guilty."

I'm certainly not claiming that there is widespread oppression towards men, but at least in my generation (particularly in higher education) the overton window includes denigrating masculinity but doesn't include admiring it.

Who are the people you have these conversations with?

Another comment mentioned "ShitRedditSays" - is it possible you were saturated with a narrative that you went out and sought to saturate yourself with?

I don't know what exactly you're asking by "Who are the people I have these conversations with?" They were real-life in-person interactions, most often with young women I knew in college. It's interesting that even when I specifically say that I don't know whether my experience generalizes I still get subtly accused of having a preconceived narrative that I tried to confirm. I can only give you a n=1 sample size. But in my experience growing up in the US casual misandry is very normalized, in a way that contrasts to the stigma that surrounds casual misogyny.

FWIW, the specific insinuation here is that you are terminally online and have formed your opinions without the benefit of touching grass.

Just to help you decode the lifetime of these interactions that awaits you.

Yes. It is an ad hominem attack meant to make it easy to dismiss an ideologically inconvenient lived experience.

Sadly, ad hominem attacks to reinforce group identity have become common across ideological groups.

I honestly think you're over-intellectualizing it.

The core contention is that he's a virginal loser with no friends. Men have insinuated this about each other, independently of political division, across the ages.

I do think it's helpful to understand when interactions are really just boiling down to this. Helps with the angst.

It feels like there's almost no engagement with the actual claims I'm making.

From the original claim of, "Nobody really thinks men are the cause of most of societies problems."

My response was, "While growing up I was taught and interacted with people who definitely thought men were the cause of most of societies problems."

The counter was, "You must be a terminally online virgin with no friends then."

From my perspective I have a rich social life that includes both genders and would consider myself a feminist. But it really is radicalizing that even mentioning experiences of casual misandry is met with accusations of social ineptitude

You ever hear anybody say "toxic femininity"? Yeah, me neither.

But, anyway, it's a confused conversation. It's helpful to zoom out a bit. The top-level comment is (partially) blaming feminist discourse for a social ill (increasing gambling addiction among young men). While politely stated, the claim is pretty inflammatory.

So part of what's going on here is that people are reacting to what they perceive as you defending that initial claim (which, again, is pretty inflammatory IMO) instead of just denouncing a bunch of people as incels and moving on.

Anyway, I will validate you. You are not taking crazy pills. You're just ... saying some things that are taboo to say. I would, uh, avoid ever using the word "misandry" in a setting where it can be associated with your real name.

I simply do not believe that people start interactions with you by saying "Kill All Men! They are disgusting"

That is simply so far out of the realm of believability. It is no different than if you said people started conversations with you by levitating and turning into flocks of bats.

I can believe that a conversation like that happened once. Maybe twice, if I want to be extra generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's missing context but I can have my imagination can fill in those gaps.

But he said that this was common.

Yeah that wasn't meant to be an accurate transcript of a whole conversation, just wanted to sketch out the ideas involved. The "kill all men" bit would come after getting to know the other person and talking to them about how they see the world, they wouldn't say that to introduce themselves

"Kill all men" was certainly a Tumblrism (and SRSism) in the mid-20-teens, so if you hung out with young women into Tumblr in 2014 or so you might have heard someone drop it in real life. I did a couple times.

There are car clubs that go on drives in the twisty santa monica mountains and san gabriel mountains.

How could you tell they were high?

> How could you tell they were high?

In New York it's not too difficult. Fidgitiness, twitchiness, rambling series of non sequiturs that make even my ADD brain rattle. Screaming at traffic and running on the margin one second and then asking me if I know that the archangel who visited Muhammed was actually a demon the next. (I'm not Muslim. The conversation wasn't addressed to anyone in the vehicle.)

Like, I guess I can't say they're taking too much of a substance. But if they aren't, they're taking too little.

That is just how a lot of people are. They could be on the spectrum. They could be talkative. You don’t know them. You have no baseline for their behavior.

Would you say the same if the claim was they were drunk?

Sure if there was no obvious physical impairment

I don’t understand why it costing more than face value to mint is such a bad thing

A better measure, assuming that pennies facilitate value exchange[1], would be whether the cost to mint a penny exceeded the marginal increase in GDP[2] due to having that additional penny available.

[1]: This assumption may not be true; if they're worth so little that people lose track of them, they could actually make it harder to exchange value.

[2]: Making the GDP higher is also a very debatable measure, but I think this generalizes to other dollar-denominated measures of prosperity.

I would prefer if we do not spend billions of dollars each year on pennies when we could do something actually productive with that money.

People do not reuse pennies. They are lost and forgotten about much of the time.

This is one of the stupidest comments I have seen on the internet bar none. Wasting money is bad. I should not have to explain further.

A penny is reused over and over again, every time it changes hands. It’s not necessarily bad that it costs a few cents to make one if it has utility.

It costs more to make a ceramic mug than it does to fill it with coffee. That doesn’t make a ceramic mug uneconomical, because it’s used lots of times and the cost amortizes.

...Having said that, I don’t think there’s actually much value to having an individual token of exchange that signifies as little value as a penny does - it would be a good idea to stop making them even if they cost far less to make than they do.

does it change hands? when was the last time you actually used a penny to buy something? do you ever deposit your pennies into your bank account?

most people throw them in a change jar and forget about them.

I agree with you on that - that’s what my last paragraph was trying to convey. I don’t think pennies are necessary, and we are (were) wasting money making them. Nickels and dimes are probably in the same boat.

But I was replying to your reply to a comment which said “I don’t understand why it costing more than face value to mint is such a bad thing” which you antagonistically and derisively called “one of the stupidest comments I have seen on the internet bar none”. It wasn’t a stupid comment.

How long have you been on the internet? A day?

The audience is like 25+ feet away to be fair. A little different in your kitchen.

The scale is different but the principle is still quite similar.