new thing just dropped

https://youtu.be/_uMnePS3oIA

not watching it because I just do not care about the retard grift youtube sphere

>>81970522 (OP)
>retarded fag that critiques both sides starts to give their own opinion
Why do they always do that? Keep with your stitch instead of trying to give your opinion

>>81970522 (OP)
I'm sure you're able to tell me why I should care about what this guy has to say, no?

>shitting up r9k with your favorite dramafarmer

Why?

guy looks like a cuckold, probably is

>>81970522 (OP)
why do they all look like this

>>81970584
he got his Indian wife pregnant

>>81970544
>>81970574
>>81970584
>someone posted something I don't care about, I MUST comment

>>81970522 (OP)
I'm not watching it, but let me guess.
Real masculinity is when you support niggers, faggots, mass immigration, isreal, and punch heckin nazis?

>>81970810
you are a living parody

>>81970522 (OP)
>yet another boring white man's pseud video essay
buy an ad, cracka

I don't care and I'm posting to let others know that they shouldn't either. Hopefully we see less of these threads

>>81970873
I said I didn't watch it
Judging by the dudes face I just assumed he was a Destiny/Vaush knockoff pumping out neoliberal slop.

>>81970801
>noooo I should be allowed to spam my youtube slop without being insulted!
kill yourself faglord

>>81970522 (OP)
I'll give it a shot. But if it's another fucking progressive/conservative feminist/cryptofeminist telling me that real masculinity is being a martyr for others with nothing in return, and no analogous obligations placed on women, then I'll be very angry with you, OP.

>>81970942
I'll see you in 15 minutes and you can tell me how you felt about it, minus the undisclosed sponsorship at the end

>>81970990
I don't even get what the point of this video was. He makes so many critiques, that the examples the other guy is using aren't representative, or are presented disingenuously, and then at the end he outright agrees that the way blockbusters present masculinity doesn't tend to be in this stoic gritty way, because it's supposed to appeal to women. So was this whole video just nitpicking and conceding the central point? I'm so confused. Now about his masculinity comments at the tail end of the video. He takes umbrage with the statement "men don't feel things as deeply". But to be charitable to the other guy, I think he was just stating that men simply aren't as neurotic. At least given the examples of emotions he gave. And that's a fact demonstrated in many personality studies. Then he makes a comment that patriarchy limits men and women. I'm not convinced there is such a thing as the patriarchy. I haven't been given any good definition of what that means. What things do I measure to determine whether a society is a patriarchy? How can I determine that a society that used to be a patriarchy is no longer one? It's a completely inactionable idea foundational to the feminist ideology, that is functionally used to give women privileges and discriminate against men under the guise of trying to achieve equality. I reject it, and I don't trust anybody who tries to use it to sell me anything. And it's a losing strategy for progressives to cling to this outdated grand narrative when trying to appeal to men who live in today's western world. He also mentioned that the "drinker's" solution to men dealing with emotions is for those men to bury them. That wasn't said at all. He simply said that men don't feel things as strongly. So I don't get why he felt the need to lie about that.

>>81971396
well I'm glad you were able to enjoy the video and engage with it critically without resorting to logical fallacies or shortcuts in reasoning

>>81970675
best he could get?