4 ms·
You are reading into “we get”, a perhaps shortened phrase (“we get to have”, i.e. “that’s an option for us?”) which is obviously useful in such a sardonic reply
by keybored 2y ago
You are reading into “we get”, a perhaps shortened phrase (“we get to
have”, i.e. “that’s an option for us?”) which is obviously useful in
such a sardonic reply. This was interpreted as a joke but for some
reason this person still ran with the entitlement shtick.
And since we’re playing language/interpretation games: this attitude
that men in particular feel entitlement in this area is backlash against
people writing about problems that men have is if it isn’t simply and
narrowly a problem of the individual. It starts like this:
- Initially it’s taboo
- Then it’s a topic about how men are failing as individuals
- Then it gets seen as a sociological problem (a sociological problem can still be an individual problem in other contexts, it’s a lens)
- horrible-hilde 2y agoI think the people pushing this narrative want, exactly, the reaction you are displaying here.
- keybored 2y agoWhat position? That social science is conceptually a thing?
- horrible-hilde 2y agoI think we are agreeing it’s an individual’s problem. I was responding to the “compassion” comment not the joke comment but the same applies for everyone. I just see streams of these weirdly skewed articles. The irony of segmenting society to fight loneliness is not lost on me.
- keybored 2y agoI don’t think I care to agree with you at all or your way of responding with obtuse “the reaction you are displaying here”, then backing away from it. Someone who wants institutions where people can get such support is pushing a narrative. Okay. Good for you.
- horrible-hilde 2y agoor maybe you don't write clearly?