I’m already smart and beautiful.

Isn’t there a genie out there that cures anxiety?

I haven’t see the wire. But I don’t remember they doing that in CSI Miami, they just solved murder cases in ingenious ways.

For some people CSI is like extreme propaganda. Then they proceded to eat a literal propaganda video from a terrorist group that’s literally murdering people and justifying why they are murdering people and be cool with that. The other guy literally threatened me over that, it’s crazy.

So only bad guys solve murder cases?

Good guys let random vicious murders on the loose.

I should trust an obvious propaganda expert , but I don’t know…

Bro thinks Startship Troopers is actual army propaganda.

Fun fact. At no point in my comments you’ll see that I referred to “male friends” or “female friends”.

Plenty of men had female friends that got away because they fell in love with some other man/woman. And I don’t think toxic masculinity would have any impact in a friendship between a woman and a non-toxic man. And those relationships also break apart anyway.

It makes no difference the gender of the friends in my theory. And if course I don’t think that woman (or men) are, as a gender, the cause of male loneliness, or that women are to blame for anything, much less for also wanting to have a romantic relationship.

The only gendered part of the issue, and the reason on why we call it “male loneliness” is that women seems to have an easier time achieving romantic relationships when they want to. While men tend to have a much harder time and their loneliness tends to be involuntary more often than not. (Again not that women, as a gender, is to blame for this situation).

The thing is that you can be the best friend in the world, a partner will always come first for the other person. It’s not a matter of lack of empathy or any other"toxic male behavior" here. It’s just people having different priorities in life. And a problem with some people being no one’s priority. And I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with feeling bad about not being anyone number one priority in life, it’s just a plain sad fact that’s normal to make people sad about it.

I’m not convinced that my theory is true. As this is an incredibly complex topic. I just think that the whole “male toxicity is to blame” is just an easy scape goat or political dogma. “Toxic masculinity and sexism is bad so it must be the cause of every gendered issue in society”, and then constructing the argument needed for that statement to maintain true. And while sexism it’s obviously bad, it does not need to be the source of any and all problems. Some problems, I think, have other sources.

English, no.

Spanish, sí.

None. All are biased. The best way is to read multiple news sources being aware of what their biases are.

Toxic masculinity is definitely not a part of relationships falling apart.

Anyone who had live through being in a group of single people through their youth and, as years pass, became the only one single on that group could probably confirm the experience. Friendships do not fall apart just because some male toxicity. It’s way simpler, it’s just that when two people do not have partners they can devote a lot of time and emotional energy to each other. When you are single a friend can easily be the most important person of your life. When you have a partner the amount of time and emotional energy that you have for friends is inferior, as you want to spend a great deal of that time and energy to your partner (as it’s natural). Then relationships became different. It’s not that it’s impossible to have “married friends”. But it’s certainly not the same as having a close single friend. And toxic masculinity does not take a part in any part of this process. The process is just a natural thing to happen on these situations.

Yes, people can cope trying to make new friendships. But that’s just a way to cope. Same as filing your live with hobbies and social activities can help coping with the lack of a romantic partner. But it does not solve the base issue. It’s like taking antidepressants for a depression, it helps, but it’s no solution, and the lack of antidepressants was not the issue.

Having a romantic relationship is important for many people. Denying that can be alienating, as you are denying personal experiences and personal feelings. I don’t think that solution is convincing people that their natural desires of being as loved as they see other people to be is just wrong and that they should live with even wanting that love (while they see plenty of other people enjoying that kind love).

Overpopulation and regression of social advances.

Feels more like an explanation looking for a question that otherwise. Explanation doesn’t seems to emerge from the problem, but from the solution.

Again not talking about the main issue that every men that feel alone will tell you as the root of their problem:

-Lack of a relationship.

-Lack of friendships due other friends being invested in their relationships.

I haven’t meet a man that accused male loneliness because “others expect me to act manly” or because “I don’t know what I want because toxic masculinity”. Toxic masculinity may cause anxiety, discomfort or things like that in not complying men, but I don’t see it causing lack of romantic relationships. The cause of the former must be other.

The whole “men are wrong for wanting to be loved and they should be happy being alone” feels a little too much invalidating on people’s wants and desires.

While sexism and male toxicity is bad I don’t see how ending that would improve in anything male loneliness as it’s solution does not address what’s making many males feel lonely.

I’m actually using searxng and just blocking any website with blatantly written AI shitcontent.

I think that many of the approaches that tried to explain it are mostly dangerous.

Like blaming it on gender norms, and toxic masculinity, the most common answer. Because plenty of men who do not comply to gender norms or toxic masculinity (or masculinity at all) still feel alone. And their experience get invalidated by this explanation.

I think a more neutral approach is needed to explain it. Instead of trying to take some explanation that fits your political views and then try to push it as a solution to the problem, the problem should be investigated by itself, and once an explanation is reached accept it even if it does not fit your political mindset.

One hint is that most people that feel alone lack a romatic relationship, the most common approach seems to be that “nah romatic relationships are not needed and we will not even consider them part of the problem”. When it’s pretty obviously that the lack of this kind of relationships is fundamental in male loneliness.

Buying a 16 TB hard drive for… purposes.

Plenty of workers can save that money in 5 months. I don’t even think that someone need a high paying job for that, depending on your expenses. Problem is that that money buys you little nowadays.

What’s that? No even a 1% of an average house anyways.

What’s important is what you do.

Not what you claim to be, or what others say you are.

That’s why identity politics are a failure. Classifying people between good or bad by a bunch of meaningless labels. The only classification that matters is what one is doing or not doing.

A lot is confusing.

What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?

How it’s supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?

How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?

Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?

I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.

And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be “giving jobs”, by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.

Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.

Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.

Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.

The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that’s being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.

Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.

I think that’s a faulty interpretation of what an UBI should be.

Universal Basic Income should mean everyone Human has at minimum that basic wage. By their own means or with help.

Meaning ultimately that there are no humans living under X amount of money.

Giving everyone, even millionaires, 500€ a month is an unreasonable application of UBI. It makes no sense doing it that way. No sense whatsoever.

Traditional welfare can run off, as it’s a program with X amount of money attached to it, UBI is not linked to allocated resources, so it doesn’t run off.

This the difference between traditional welfare and UBI is that UBI is given to EVERYone who needs it. As before welfare programs traditionally ran of of money before reaching everyone. There’s no need, and it makes no sense to just give everyone money that it’s going to instantly vaporize (via taxes or inflation)

Spain.

It’s known as “Ingreso mínimo vital”. It’s money given to everyone under X income. Without any other considerations. Everyone who doesn’t have that money by themselves is given it by the government.