It’s about sending young boys the message “toxic masculinity” over and over while they grow up and are trying to explore what masculinity means to them

Is that what you think the point of the discussion here is? What you're saying is valid but that's not this setting. I think that's the aspect that might be getting lost with what I'm saying. I'm not discounting what your saying, what I'm indicating is that "your argument, completely valid in general. But are we not speaking specifically of this thread?"

It's one of those things of, do you want to speak in general or in specific terms? In general yeah, we cannot just toss the term toxic masculinity all over the place with zero context. That's just going to confuse people. BUT…

Men need feminism too. Patriarchy and toxic masculinity harm both men and women in different ways

The starting of this thread is examining a specific topic among the many and it feels like you want to interject a side topic for fear that someone here might get confused about the specifics of "toxic masculinity" and what the background of that is. We're adults here and I think it's safe to look at what the original comment was getting at without diving head first into what (to me and that may be different for you so I acknowledge that) feels like splitting hairs.

And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda is not valid like you just did to me

Well. Are you a young boy? Are you confused about the term? And that's the crux of what I am putting forward. And it isn't in honesty an attack on you or at least wasn't meant to be. We can talk "in general" about a hypothetical young boy, or we can be "specific" and address what you are and are not confused by. But we ought to avoid strafing between the two loosely because that's going to be distracting in best light.

So I hope you understand when you have:

And every time a young boy questions the term in confusion he will be attacked “but the other side” yadda

and:

is not valid like you just did to me

Is taking the context of that first statement and attempting to apply it to the context of the second statement where the context of these two things are different altogether. "But the other side" yadda is dismissive in the first context and pointing out distraction in the second. We can use similar sounding statements in varied context to convey different ideas. Just like the statement "we need to go deeper" can have various meaning between the background of being on an oil derrick and being a gynecologist. Context really matters.

Patriarchy

You know the thing that bugs me the most about social patriarchy is the same thing that really gets me about anti-apologetics. There is the notion that there needs to be this unilateral action of sorts and straying from it shows weakness of sorts. It's not uncommon to hear conservative and traditionalist indicate that admitting wrong is a sign of weakness. And the reality is that we learn best from our own mistakes. Trail and error is an incredible teaching tool.

Patriarchy goes against what we actually know about how human beings learn things. It goes against the nothing of taking multiple inputs to come to a conclusion. It goes against the process of being well informed. It's these absolutes within this kind of system that give rise to the various toxic behaviors. I think if men actually sit there and actually listen to women and allow women to participate in decisive action, men will learn infinitely way more.

Men need feminism too

Exactly. Good objective thinking relies on taking all input and being able to share executive action. Humans aren't stronger than a bear, we're not faster than a cheetah, and hell we don't live nearly as long as most trees. The quality that humans have that places them above all else, is thinking and reasoning. And we do better at that quality by broadening our horizons not limiting them. The whole wild arguments of "well male lobsters assert dominance…". Lobsters or whatever animal a particular someone who I won't name tries to parallel us with, they don't reason and think in any remote sense the same way as humans. It's silly to try and take some biological aspect of our species or other species and draw a conclusion about how we should use the thing that makes humans, human.

But that is just my hot take on this.

I did in my first reply

Look I get the knee jerk on hearing male. "Oh we're talking about masculinity, that's an attack on me." But the topic at hand is masculinity.

Why are so many boys and men feeling alone and in the cold?

Yes, toxic behaviors exists in both mainstream genders. Shallow ass women who play on male insecurities is a thing. BUT that's not the topic here. Like, you shoving the whole "but the other side" thing really comes like someone walking into a hospital being outraged they aren't going to do a quick dental clean while you're there. You're in the wrong place. There is such a place to go to, but it ain't here.

I mean nothing but love for ya, but the knee jerk comes off a bit hard. Like we can have that discussion, but honest, I don't think this is the thread for it. It feels like it detracts from introspecting by way of blaming the other team. I'm not downvoting you, I get where you're coming from. But I just feel it's distraction.

And that is my opinion on the matter and nothing more.

tiffanarchy two hours later Where the fuck this cat come from?

Doesn’t matter the reviews or review bombing to Blizzard. The fact remains that no matter how actually shitty the game is Blizzard is making record profits off of the game.

That’s all Blizzard looks at these days. Is it making them money? And the answer is an abundant yes. So for whatever hate there is, the fact that players are still handing them fistfuls of cash indicates full success to them.

In legal terms we call it pretextual law. And usually they are stuck down by courts because they aren’t here for this phony shit.

Part 3 - What it means

The super computers have all the expected virtual exchanges programmed in, so if we're off enough to indicate that we don't have all the virtual exchanges programmed in, then we're missing a fifth kind of virtual exchange that needs to be programmed in, and that may mean there's a fifth force (since all virtual exchanges derive from an actual field).

However, this won't tell us WHAT it is. This is just one way of finding a path to go down. We'll need entirely different avenues to take that path down to discover the actual force. Basically, we're balancing our checkbook and the bank statement, but in the end the checkbook is off by a few dollars. So there has to be some bank transaction in the statement we forgot to write down. So this being off tells us that we're missing something, but doesn't tell us what we're missing.

Additionally, Fermilab confirmed with a sigma of 4.7, which is short of 5 sigma which is needed to claim a discovery. So spinning muons that decay in a few microseconds is pretty hard and with just random cosmic electrons and nuetrinos and what not flying through the air, there's a lot of "noise" on the wires that are measuring the spinning of those muons. So they have to keep working to get a cleaner and cleaner signal. Additionally, once they hit five sigma, they have to repeat it. And then, they have to submit their experiment so that someone else can independently do it as well and they have to hit five sigma. Because in the end, the very experiment they're doing might be what's tossing all the values off to begin with. That is their machine is just fundamentally flawed. That's that consistent but inaccurate that gets covered in high school science. Independent confirmation ensures that someone else builds a machine that aims for the exact same goal but in their own very special way.

So it's a very long road ahead, just so that it can be shown that there is indeed something missing from the calculations. But that's way better than where everyone is right now, not knowing where to look for more physics. If this all pans out, what it points to is there is a fifth force that is very, very weak and that means it'll be difficult to coax it to come out on display so that we can study it. Just the fact that on a muon were talking differences of just a few thousandths means this force is much weaker than the weak force. What role it plays? What does it mediate? No one knows, that'll have to be different experiments. In fact, just like it might not be a single transaction that throws your checkbook off from the statement, same diff, we may be talking about multiple forces, no one knows.

But like all things. This will CONFIRM we are missing some part from the standard model. And that is a big deal. Because right now, everyone thinks we're missing some critical parts, like dark matter and dark energy, but we've got equations that might be right that allows our universe to exist without dark matter and dark energy. But we don't know either way. THIS WILL CONFIRM WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING. That is hugely exciting. Not often you hear people getting excited over "WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!"

Part 2 - g-factor.

So back to our equation µ = g(e/2m)S. If the exchange between two electrons is just a single virtual photon, that g = 2. But if say the electron emits two virtual photons and then absorbs two virtual photons, that g now equals 2.0011614. We can find this value out with some fancy math. And this "correction" as it's called was first calculated by Julian Schwinger in 1949. But as we go, we can toss into that calculation three virtual photons. And then toss in three virtual photons plus one of them become a virtual electron/positron pair, that cancels each other out into a virtual photon. This moves that g a tiny bit up to 2.0023193.

Eventually we hit a point where calculating this by hand gets hard to do, but we have super computers now that can do thousands upon thousands of theses corrections and we arrive at a g-factor of 2.0023193043552. However we measure by spinning, physically not the quantum spin, an electron in a particular direction and then setting that spinning electron in an external magnetic field how long it takes the electron to align with the external field. Much like the compass and Earth's magnetic field eventually align. Now the electron can never perfectly align because of the particle's quantum spin and so the electron has a precession (much like a top will precess around its axis) , we can also measure the g-factor of the electron from this precession called Larmor Precession. We measure the g-factor this way at 2.00231930436146. The difference between the g = 2 and the g-factor we measure or calculate is the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The difference between the calculate and the measured g-factor comes down to the fine structure constant, but they agree.

Now we move to the muon, which is like the electron but much more massive. Chances to exchange with virtual particles is the square of the mass of the particle, so a more massive particle the more likely it will exchange virtual particles. Since the muon is so much more massive (40,000 times massive) than the electron, the likelihood that there will be virtual gluon exchange or virtual Higgs exchange is much more likely. So we do our thing of plugging all of that into a super computer to get the calculate g-factor. We then do our experiment where we spin it like a top to get the g-factor that way. Then we look at the two values and take into consideration the fine structure constant. And that's this experiment. And what they found is that the two numbers are off, by a quite a bit. Enough to point out that our super computers aren't taking into consideration all the various virtual exchanges that COULD happen. AND THAT is what the big deal is.

Part 1 - Background.

Start with the classical representation. A compass points in the direction of North when taken out and laid down. What is happening is that the magnet in the compass is aligning with the external magnetic field of the planet Earth. That is the classical mechanic and there is a quantum analog, which is what this whole experiment deals with.

On the quantum level we express the magnetic moment using the Dirac equation for bodies that have no internal structure as µ = g(e/2m)S. The e is the elementary charge, the m is mass of the particle, and the S is the spin angular momentum of the particle. In quantum mechanics spin plays a major role in magnetic moments, so we must consider it here. That g is the g-factor that the experiment is dealing with. It is a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the magnetic moment and angular momentum. Basically it serves as the thing we tweak to ensure µ lines up with things we observe.

Take two electrons that strike each other. They have the same charge (negative) and thus, they should repel each other. But "HOW?", they aren't allowed to touch each so what pushed them away form each other? Like, really really does the pushing? Not that, oh well their charge fields touch each other. There's got to be "a something" that literally pushes them. And that is the exchange of a virtual particle. Getting into what a virtual particle is a deeper dive into the fields, but here's a quick run down.

The universe is a bunch of layers that we call fields all sandwiched together. So all the things that exist are just point in that field that are excited (that is they have energy to bring them to a level that we call existing). So an electron, that's actually just a point in the electron field that has enough energy that we call it actually existing. Now there could be a point in the field that has energy that's below that threshold of calling it actually existing. That's a virtual particle. Virtual particles participate in interactions, but can only do so if everything stays the same in the end and momentum is conserved. Like we can conjure a virtual electron and a positron (anti-electron) to exchange energy, but they must cancel each other out (by running into each an annihilating) in the end. There's way more, but that's outside what we need for this.

So picture two electrons hitting each other and then they bounce away. Something has to push them. That something is a virtual photon. As the electron on the left approaches the electron on the right, they fire off a virtual photon which reduces virtually the energy in the electron. However, this loss is virtual, the books must balance in the end. Which the photon on the right ALSO fires off a virtual photon, virtually reducing it's energy. The left electron absorbs the virtual photon from the right electron and vice versa for the right electron. Thus, the balance is maintained, the electrons return to their original energy. But! Momentum MUST be conserved. The photon from the left electron was moving right so now the right electron, having absorbed a photon moving right, must move rightward, the right electron was moving left towards the left electron, but now it is that motion MINUS the motion of the emitted virtual photon PLUS the motion of the right moving virtual photon. So this is what is actually pushing the electrons away form each other. This is what the repelling of two like charges actually is at a very deep level.

However, in the end the books just have to be balanced. So it's balanced in one virtual photon exchange, but there could be two virtual photon exchanges. As long as it's balanced, it's all the same. In fact, we could have five virtual photon exchanges. One of the virtual photons could summon up a virtual electron/positron that cancel each other out to make a virtual photon. There's no end to the number of exchanges that could happen, there's an infinite number of exchanges that could happen. Richard Feynman indicated that the more and more exchanges that could happen all impart smaller and smaller "corrections" to a calculated event. So basically, if there were 126,347,428 virtual exchanges between two electrons, the conserved values (that motion that we call repulsion) would change very, very, very, very, very, very little if there were 126,347,429 virtual exchanges. Basically after the tenth or so virtual exchange, the additional repelling that would be added by the eleventh virtual exchange would be insanely small, but not zero. And everything thereafter would just get smaller and smaller and smaller, but still measurable.

Man I want to reincarnate as a cicada. Born, sleep for like 13 years, wake up, shake my ass to indicate I want sex, and then die two days later by becoming some bird's dinner. All this 401(k), healthcare, legal systems, and what not is some bullshit.

I'm mean they're puppets till they're told to go work in the meat packing plants. Then they're just cogs. Entire idea is to get them used to being valued only by what they put into society and not what they intrinsically bring to the table.

Ah c'mon now. Look how happy OP looks though.

It's like everything. They cannot understand that someone could be atheist, gay, trans, black, or poor by default, surely there must be some thing that triggered them to stray from the perfect path.

You know when Britain did this shit to China there were two wars, an uprising, and eventually Mao Zedong undoing the entire fucking Chinese government and executing every last dealer. That's not to say that's the proper outcome but the US population is way behind on the level of outrage they should be having with the Sackler family.

You know, I'm going to say it and maybe no one likes it, but. Just the feel I get is that we're so hopeless in having our politicians actually do shit. Like, we realize, they're not going to do a damn thing to address jack shit. And the world has been turned so rampant consumerism, that the only way it feels like we have left is to do this non-sense of burning sneakers, shooting beer, and selling cars.

Like we're so past the point that actual advocacy is so ineffective and politicians are so past the point of actually serving the public, it's either we rampant play the game they've set before us with mucho-consumerism or we do the teetotal opposite of "we're killing the Applebees" anti-consumerism.

Now there's tons of in the middle, but say there's some perceived social ill, well to solve it you cannot just send a letter to your Congressional Representative or Senator. That's just going straight to the recycle bin. And you cannot just march on whatever to try and make a point, news cycle isn't going to focus on it unless it drives traffic to their site to sell ads. So how does one solve this "ill", fuck it, let's go consumerism in one or the other direction TO THE EXTREME!! Because, that money, that's what they're listening to. So you and your groupies fucking with it or amping its sales through the roof, oh well that they will listen to suddenly. We've got this notion that the things we own OR don't own define our position of morals and ethics. It's kinda fucked up when you think about it, it's like 11:00am here and while typing this I'm starting to reach for my whiskey flask.

I feel like this is how the Boston Tea party got started. The British wouldn't listen to shit, so fuck it, let's go fuck their tea up! You know, I don't know, all of this is just a feeling. But it feels like people we voted in to listen to us won't listen to us and thus we've got to go fuck with people's wallets so that they will listen to us. Do I think it's a good idea? Nah, this is silly shit. We should be able to address social woes in better terms. But that said, it doesn't feel like we've got a lot of tools to actually address shit. Everyone (that's hyperbole, I just mean to say a good amount of folks) has gone greedy as shit. There is fewer and fewer folks who are looking at "what will this do to the future" and just getting into that "dog eat dog" mentality.

Trying to keep from going off in a long crazy ass tangent, long story short, I think the 1% have amassed so much fucking everything and the rest of us are fighting so hard for table scraps, it's difficult to not be slashing at people's throats. Because if you ain't taking from your brother or your sister, you've got rich fuckers taking from you both. Like I said, it's just feels, but damn it feels like when it comes to solving some sort of problem in society we're a small hungry rodent being backed into a corner by some fifty foot cat. We're at a breaking point, we're either going to do something crazy or be a feline's lunch. Is that the proper way to solve anything, odds are likely "no", but damn I can't blame a person for being crazy. We're in some crazy ass times.

So yeah, I agree with you, but I mean I can't really look around this place and blame a person for being batshit crazy. It's kinda the environment that's promoted now a days. Now me and my whiskey flask are going to go have a heart to heart. Shit.

Man this thing has been on again, off again since the 1990s.

Oh shit yeah! That kid totally learned from his parent that violence was a solution to emotional issues. That kid is fucked for life (which is highly likely to be incredibly short) if at age six they already associate lethal violence as an appropriate solution for dealing with emotions.

That kid will learn the lesson of fuck around and find out in a life-altering/ending way soon enough. If it's starting at age six, educating that out of him is going to be a near 90° uphill battle. And that parent squarely put that mentality into him.

I like the cut of your jib.