I think Burns is a sweet and calming presence, the way he pauses as if he's in a personal conversation with the viewer on the other side of the screen. That's been the stuff of children's shows since the 1950s, the illusion that the person on the screen is seeing me. I remember "Romper Room":
But the NYT dream of somebody on their side to counteract the "manosphere"? It's just sad to continually display the neediness for someone to help you defeat Joe Rogan... a man who was on your side and is still trying to be on your side.
పోస్ట్లు
57 కామెంట్లు:
Unless the "feminazis," as Rush used to call them, can come up with a program for men other than "shut up and take it, your time is over, the future is female and the future is now," to oppose the incredibly incisive "consciousness raising" of men that is going on in the man-o-sphere, they are doomed to failure.
But "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," isn't going to cut it.
No one who is trying to be a counterweight to the manosphere will ever be a counterweight to the manosphere.
Either it happens organically or it doesn't happen at all (Joe Rogan didn't set out to be "Joe Rogan"). Which is precisely why so many left-wing influencer movements fail.
This very long examination of fiction written for women today is really something, for sure. You get to the main point within a minute or two, basically, but the long discussion is why women read "romantasy" novels where an ubiquitous trope is that the woman cheats on her man with an overpoweringly attractive man who has a supernatural bond with her, therefore it's none of her fault, and oh, BTW, he's not a provider type, not a husband type, no, the husband just gets left to raise this guy's progeny, supporting them, and leaving them whatever he leaves behind.
Why does this stuff sell? They have theories.
Yoda turns out to be a master swordsman who can duel with Christopher Lee's six-foot Count Dooku just as well as he can spout backwards koans.
And I thought the exegesis was settled that Daniel is actually the villain of The Karate Kid, which makes Miyagi the villain's creator.
RR
JSM
"Let's find a way to get all the men checked back in and listening again, so we can resume telling them how awful and toxic they are." doesn't seem like a long-term winning strategy.
How about humility and listening and restraining your habitual instinct for hubris-driven criticism of others. That might work.
But the NYT dream of somebody on their side to counteract the "manosphere"?
Anything but come to terms with the fact that they may need to change some of their thinking. A wise man once told me; if every where you go you smell dog shit, it's time to check the soles your shoes!
The betasphere wants to conquer the manosphere. You need to start with reality, reason, and logic, not imaginary characters designed to sooth your insecurity. Just go punch that bully in the nose..., and then run like hell.
Two words: Harris/Walz
Are you freaking kidding me? That was your A-Team? Did Yoda tell you to do that?
Another useless lefty without a clue.
Joe Rogan was on the left. They drove him away.
Our current political tribes consist of racists, foreign invaders, redistributionists, and over educated women who demand 6 figure jobs producing nothing of value and telling other people what to do on the left and everyone else who are quickly losing patience with these violent thieves and invading hordes.
He's a counterpoint to the manosphere? The entire MSM and Entertainment Industry is a "Counterpoint".
Let me guess - he's pushing the standard liberal/left POV everyone else does, except in "calming way".
We all know that they would not give a crap if we all went into the woods and died if they hadn't lost the last election. Well they would, because civilization would collapse, but you know what I mean, they wouldn't anticipate that that would be the result.
Yoda and Mr. Miyagi would kick the asses of most men. Steve Burns would struggle to subdue a 12 year-old girl in a wheelchair.
I wonder if Steve sat down in his thinkin’ chair to think, think, THIIIIINK before attempting this counterbalance. He doesn’t have a clue
Manosphere counterpoint? By a man? What a putz.
Mister Rogers.
It's like they're walking the street in pajamas mumbling Pete Hegseth...Pete Hegseth..
Poor Steve. I'm assuming the Times reporter posed a question about a "counterbalance to the manosphere" and that it was not part of his PR material.
If they would just... sideline crazy, the left wouldn't need to woo Joe or anybody else, because compassion is perhaps, their most attractive asset.
Counter what?
The "manosphere" -whatever the hell that is knows that XY=male and XX=female. But you want to counter biology with "spiritual wisdom?"
Ok soyboy.
Bring on adult Barney show.
This is the discussion that people need to see.
This is where the conversation needs to start from.
The only reason the left is trying to prop up simps and morally retarded losers is because as you move up the morality scale leftism becomes less attractive to you.
For the left Politics is about sharing. Those people have more stuff than me so lets share.
They don't know how to create. So they attack the makers.
Women rarely progress beyond the "If I am nice people will be nice to me morality level." Thus when they don't get what they want by being nice they lash out.
The video I linked is actually informative and addresses the current situation in a much more appropriate way.
Mr. T. said...
Counter what?
The "manosphere" -whatever the hell that is knows that XY=male and XX=female. But you want to counter biology with "spiritual wisdom?"
Ok soyboy.
In this case they are trying to set up a straw man.
The real problem they face is that in order to keep people on the political left you must keep them morally retarded.
People who are in the "If I am nice everyone should be nice to me" level of moral development think if they are nice then everyone will share their stuff and we can all be happy. Women don't usually make it past here. Stockholm syndrome originates from here.
Men generally stop at level 4 which is the law and order stage where you create systems and rules to deal with situations where people are not nice back.
This is why in general women do well organizing on the familial level and men do well organizing on the societal level.
On the left the men who never get past stage 3 on the moral ladder are simps and idiots who don't understand how forcing people to share their stuff and be nice destroys wealth in society.
But the problem is the sociopaths and psychopaths' with no moral structure at all. They need to keep the masses at level 3. People who make it to lvl 4 or higher are harder to control.
No one who is trying to be a counterweight to the manosphere will ever be a counterweight to the manosphere.
The Left's counterweight begins with the requirement that it must be acceptable to feminists.
To quote Sun Tzu: They lost the battle right there.
"I am very happy to be a counterpoint to the current manosphere. We’ve forgotten about philosophical and spiritual wisdom. Go back and check it out — Yoda is the strongest person in 'Star Wars.' Have we forgotten the lessons of Mr. Miyagi?"
If this dweeb is going to counter the manosphere with philosophical and spiritual wisdom garnered (heh!) from Star Wars, I doubt the manosphere has anything to worry about.
Is the "manosphere" where men place women and children first?
Where women perform human rites to sustain their affordable, available, reusable, and taxable status for social, political, criminal, clinical, and climate progress?
Where females are herded on womb farms for male couplets with a heterosexual kink?
Where women are thrown under the bus to aid and abet simulants in the transgender spectrum?
Where the "burden" of evidence is aborted and sequestered for #MeToo, illegal aliens equivocation and inclusion, and #LoveWins is licit under Democratic law?
“I am very happy to be a counterpoint to the current manosphere,”
I was hoping the title was how NYT framed Steve Burns, and not his own words.
Whatever the 'manosphere' is, it doesn't need a counterpoint and men aren't an invasive species. Putting down other men with podcasts doesn't make Burns look better.
Star Wars is the feminist counterbalance to Star Trek, at least the original when Captain Kirk would woo women and kick alien ass. And the real Kirk is still at it on X and flying in space, but where is Yoda? Crocheting plant hangers in the Tenderloin in a tent cohabitating with a cat, I would bet.
Star Wars is the feminist counterbalance to Star Trek
Princess Leia: "I'm desperate to find a counterbalance to the manosphrere."
Han Solo: "I know."
" a man who was on your side and is still trying to be on your side."
The problem is that Rogan is open to new experience and committed to giving it honest consideration. This makes him a bit of a soft touch for silliness at times, but also takes him to some interesting places (although I am not going to waste 2 or 3 hours watching him get there, step by step by halting, timorous step). The Democrats have an agenda, which is to obtain power, and the only ideas they are interested in are those that can fool people into believing they will benefit from that agenda.
We’ve forgotten about philosophical and spiritual wisdom. Go back and check it out — Yoda is the strongest person in 'Star Wars.' Have we forgotten the lessons of Mr. Miyagi?
"Liberals don’t know things. They don’t read history, they don’t obsess over stats, the few data points they do see they forget. Their entire worldview is driven by the consumption of fiction."
- memetic_sisyphus
Mom used to hate it when I insisted on watching to the end in case I was recognized. That Joya lady, too…
"We need a man to appeal to all those icky men" is a head-scratcher.
Hard pass. What kind of adult would want to be spoken to like that?
Sometimes I believe we've basically become a Nation of pre-adolescent children.
Comments on youtube are interesting. Numerous women admit crying, for some reason.
Blues Clues must be a good show for kids.
Think I will take a look out of curiosity.
DEIsts have been notoriously transhumane through their progression from prehistoric to modern culture.
*Disney* Star Wars is the feminist counterbalance to Star Trek
I don't want to look it up because we're moving and I'm dead on my feet and my brain is just about as done, but was it this guy who went into porn? Or was that the previous (or subsequent) guy? Blues Clues was not a favorite of any of my three, though they watched from time to time. My oldest really liked Caillou, which I thought was just sweet and gentle at first and then realized had this 4yo child running circles around his parents.
A lesson from Mr. Miyagi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT7JOS_cHDE
Also, Daniel is the real bully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT7JOS_cHDE
Star Wars, Karate Kid.
Yep. Moral lessons from Hollywood. Uh-huh. That's the ticket.
Does he think that is the way to appeal to men? There isnt now, and I think never was, an adult man of my acquaintance who would find that rhetoric appealing, much (much) less convincing.
Rejoice in an important anniversary: It was at the first debate a year ago, when America realized that the Emperor Biden was wearing Depends.
We dodged a bullet.
here is some Sad News for the leftie libs..
Star Wars was FICTION.. That means it was made up..
It's NOT Real. Things that happened in Star Wars (including Princess Layme being a slave girl 304) did NOT actually Happen.
they were invented, they never happened..
It was NOT a documentary.. Sorry to burst your bubble
Does this counterweight make me look fat?
"We dodged a bullet."
A messy turd, anyway.
There's a fine line between being needy and being totalitarian. Rogan isn't controllable and that's what matters.
I am deeply annoyed at his insinuation that philosophy and spirituality are thoroughly left/liberal. He makes it sound like all men have to do is think philosophically and spiritually - all fixed! Confucius, Machiavelli, and many strict/fundamentalist spiritual practices are pretty conservative. More muddling of language - makes the steel plate in my head hurt.
um, lady, just from reading this i can tell that you are utterly exhausting to be anywhere near. have you considered this aspect of your conundrum?
"i keep speaking to the men as though they are broken women and yet they do not want to hear my message of how to be. it's so odd..."
From el gato malo
I don't think there's any doubt that Mr Miagi or Yoda could kick ass if they had to. I don't get that feeling from Steve. Comparing them to him misses half the point.
Joe Rogan will never be a good Democrat. He asks the tough questions and won't allow you to avoid the answer.
Star Wars was FICTION.. That means it was made up..It's NOT Real.
While some of that is well taken, I'd say, it's also worth noting polymath physicist Jacob Bronowski's general discussion of the topic of novel “truth” in his slim, little book The Common Sense of Science: {quoting…}
This is very striking when we come to problems of right judgement and good conduct.
There never has been a great book or a powerful work of art which has not been thought immoral by those with an older tradition. Jews still think the New Testament immoral, and Christians the Koran. Savonarola thought Florentine art licentious, and when George Eliot wrote about him in the last century, she thought him licentious and her critics thought her so.
Sidney's Apologie for Poetry is a school book now, and so is Shelley's Defence of Poetry. Yet Sidney was defending all literature against the charge of being a corrupter of men on the very eve of the Elizabethan flowering of the arts; and a succession of men and women went to prison for selling Shelley's poems. The harsh pattern of Swift's writing was fixed because he scandalized the religious sensibilities of Queen Anne. In our own day, Thomas Hardy, James Joyce, and D.H. Lawrence have been held to outrage and to undermine morality. Yet it is overwhelmingly likely that their books will survive when the thousand spruce and proper critics of the day have been forgotten.
Often the attack on a new outlook in the arts takes a slightly different ground. A book or painting is held to be harmful to the public mind, by being not immoral but without morality at all. Raphael was criticized in this way for being amoral, and so were Whistler and the Pre-Raphaelites. In literature, Tolstoy's Anna Karenina was called amoral, with many other works of the Russian novelists and playwrights; and the list of English playwrights who have been charged with a lack of any moral sense goes all the way from the Restoration to Oscar Wilde and Bernard Shaw.
It is this last charge which is commonly brought against science. The claim is not that science is actively anti-moral, but that it is without morality of any kind. The implication is that it thereby breeds in the minds of those who practise it an indifference to morality which comes in time to atrophy in them the power of right judgement and the urge to good conduct.
This charge seems to me as false of the sciences as of the arts. No one who stops to think about Anna Karenina today believes that it is without morality, and that it makes no judgement on the complex actions of its heroine, her husband, and her lover. On the contrary, we find it a deeper and more moving book than a hundred conventional novels about that triangle, because it shows so much more patient, more understanding, and more heartbreaking an insight into the forces which buffet men and women. It is not a conventional book, it is a true book. And we do not mean by truth some chance correspondence with the facts in a newspaper about a despairing woman who threw herself under a train. We mean that Tolstoy understood people and events, and saw within them the interplay of personality, passion, convention, and the impact on them of the to-and-fro of outside happenings. No ethic and no set of values has our respect now which does not recognize the truth in this.
There is indeed no system of morality which does not set a high value on truth and on knowledge, above all on a conscious knowledge of oneself. It is therefore at least odd that science should be called amoral, and this by people who in their own lives set a high value on being truthful. For whatever else may be held against science, this cannot be denied, that it takes for ultimate judgement one criterion alone, that it shall be truthful. If there is one system which can claim a more fanatical regard for truth than Lao-tze and the Pilgrim Fathers, it is certainly science.
{/unQuote}
(Jacob Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science, 1951, Harvard University Press; pp. 121-124.)
Without men, who's going to kill all the spiders?
Steve in "Blue's Clues" was a very unimpressive character - at least for adults. I kept confusing him with John Stamos and Scott Baio. I doubt he's up to carrying the weight of our philosophical and spiritual heritage on his shoulders. Also, I'd draw a distinction between Rogan engaging with people of different opinions and the usual frat boy "guy culture." The "manosphere" may have grown up a little over the years.
Romper stomper bomper boo. I remember Pixanne, Sally Starr, and Wee Willy Webber better.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.