this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
371 points (94.9% liked)

People Twitter

9998 readers
895 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 34 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Art on the wall? Rugs? I'm from Eastern Europe, best I can do is rugs on the wall

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 5 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 minutes ago

They can really tie a room together.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world -3 points 6 minutes ago

The left: "We have absolutely no idea why young men are drifting to the right in droves. No clue. It must be that they are evil and want to preserve their male privilege! It couldn't be our own actions and how we treat them, no way!"

[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it's this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. "tHeY'rE jUsT pUnChInG uP" NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term "mansplaining". Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn't come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they'd rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like "but what if it could be two problem?" Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go "men should suffer, too", then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].

Fuck the patriarchy.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 14 minutes ago)

God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it's this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world.

To start with..... Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it's an epidemic.

The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term "mansplaining". Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men.

I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don't see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.

Because, of course, feminism didn't come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives.

How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?

The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.

Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go "men should suffer, too", then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].

I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn't claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It's a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 1 hour ago

They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

nobody should be punching anybody

I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.

A newly wed couple is going on a 14-day cruise for their honeymoon. The husband pulls over on the way to the Port. "Why are you stopping?" asks the wife, "Oh I'm just picking up some condoms from this pharmacy - although we just got married we said we'd wait a year before starting a family?" "OK, but pick me up some dramamine too so I don't get seasick." So the husband goes to the pharmacist and asks for a 14 condoms and 14 dramamine tablets. The pharmacist says "If it makes you feel so sick, why do you keep doing it?"

Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?

Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.

[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

I think you completely missed the point. "Nobody should be punching anybody" isn't about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn't to add discrimination against men. I'm pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the "right group". The system should be the focus, not the people.

Also, it's not all victim this, winner that. It's not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it's the system that's the problem, not the people.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 minutes ago

I'm speaking dramaturgically. There's no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.

That's what is meant by "punching."

Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 3 points 35 minutes ago* (last edited 35 minutes ago) (1 children)

There's no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It's just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 minutes ago

it's "winner" and "loser" not winner and loser.

If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince's affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.

It's a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.

[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 2 points 27 minutes ago (1 children)

I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.

You either don't hear enough jokes or you have a bad sense of humour. Either way this is just objectively wrong

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 29 seconds ago

it's not just jokes - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.

"Punching down" means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.

Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a "straightman" or "fish out of water", commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 79 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe the dude was just... you know.

Poor.

Came from an environment that was usually a mess, chaotic, disordered, and he was genuienly impressed by how simple things, in order, can give a significant sense of safety and stability.

Maybe he'd never seen that before, maybe he had no model of a tidy and peaceful living space.

The same scenario could happen with anyone, of any sex or gender.

Man, broad societal levels of narcissism are just off the fucking charts these days... its the literal opposite of solidarity, of empathy.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 7 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago) (1 children)

Or maybe he was just being nice? I can't imagine being invited to friend's new house and not giving compliments unless im like worried about them moving into an unsafe situation.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 minutes ago* (last edited 20 minutes ago)

Sure, maybe he was being performatively praising when he didn't actually care that much at all about the home's decor itself, but wanted to affirm the resident's decor choice regardless.

Aka 'being nice'.

Maybe a million different possible things.

Why do you imagine its a new house, like the resident just moved there?

You could just... be going to someone's home for the first time. Maybe they've lived there for years, maybe they just moved in, who knows?

My point here is that there's a lot of additional context required for your interpretation. Your interpretation also manufactures and then ascribes an intent.

My interpretation only requires that men who were raised poor exist, and does not manufacture or ascribe an intent.

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Growing up my house was always trashed. Parents with depression and full time jobs don't leave much time and energy for cleaning up, and there's only so much children without guidance can do.

So once I had my own defined space, it was basically minimalist to expedite cleaning. I didn't start getting more stuff, even clothes, until my partner moved in.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 41 minutes ago

Me growing up, it wasn't quite that bad for myself, but some of my neighbors were from... way more fucked up families.

They had basically this exact same 'Wow.' moment, just... coming over, and seeing that... order was possible, things could be put basically back in place after use, etc.

They had no previous concept of it.

I remember going over to one of their houses once and literally stepping in dogshit, inside.

They just... forgot to let the dog out, I guess. Regularly enough that this was annoying but basically normal.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 79 points 3 hours ago (7 children)

I keep seeing this content that’s “men are so stupid and inferior and awful” and it’s grating on me.

Like, yes, there’s definitely a strong toxic subset of men, but most of use are just… normal?

I’m in my mid 30s, when the women aren’t around we’re mostly talking about kids (those who have them), hockey, finances, house stuff, and weird health issues. Depending on the group, how stupid politics/government shit is lately.

I don’t know. It feels like the toxicity that came for incels is coming at women hard these last few years. Reddit really pushes this stuff lately.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 52 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

I keep seeing this content that’s “men are so stupid and inferior and awful” and it’s grating on me.

That's because it's troll bait. Just like all generations have a bigger than wanted set of shitty people. I don't feel like I can take this shit down because it's not breaking any rules. You all can help by not falling for the bait though.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I appreciate you following the rules but tbh ragebait should be on of them. Lemmy is getting flooded with it lately. So many old, stupid social Twitter posts that do nothing but rile people up

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 49 minutes ago

This has 300+ upvotes right now though. I ethically agree with you, but I took over this community. If the community upvotes this sort of thing, I don't feel like I have the right to remove it because I think it's stupid and causes harm. I really want to, ha ha.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Definitely this. It circulates widely because it generates outrage, even though the number of people who actually believe this is miniscule. This is the same technique right-wing media uses

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It might even be the same people. I suspect that, but don't have any proof.

[–] Town@lemmy.zip 3 points 31 minutes ago

Russia has repeatedly and explicitly said they are playing both sides of the US/Western political divide against each other in online rate campaigns.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago)

I will say i have zero appreciation for "nice" things and the house looking cozy or whatever. If it were up to me I would live in a bare apartment with everything painted white and minimal furniture. And there's nothing wrong with that and i have no reason to change.

Of all the things that are wrong with me and perhaps other men, this is just not one of them, it's just a style preference, there's zero morality involved. Whoever doesn't like it can just not fuck with me, just like i dont fuck with decorations.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 2 points 34 minutes ago

I upvoted because the two panel underneath is mocking the ragebait post.

[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 0ops@piefed.zip 16 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I hate to use that term though because I love femcel communities here on fediverse. They probably got the best memes in the verse.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I still haven't figured put what the deal is with that place, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Just remember that nothing online is real and this 45 year old Chinese/indian/russian/israeli man masquerading as a woman to induce social discord won’t be able to affect you!

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 minute ago

What you percieve as reality is real, to you.

Its... this is the basic functional mechanism of propoganda, advertising, marketing, etc.

It does effect people.

No one is immune to propaganda.

That's like, the entire problem.

You might as well just say 'the internet doesn't exist, you've never seen a movie or a tv/netflix show, you've never seen an advertisement.'

That's about as absurd as what you are saying.

Also how do you know this isn't genuine?

How did you determine that?

Is... everything you don't like, a psyop?

[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Well, the problem isn't that this is being manufactured, but rather exacerbating already existing problems. The Russian IRA didn't start racism in the US around 2013-2016. 4chan didn't found fascism in the west. North Korea didn't originate the very first crypto scams. You're absolutely right that the problems are blown way out of proportion and there are so many trolls out there, it's hard to tell if any one asshole is paid to be an asshole online or not. However, it's best to not over-correct and deny these problems exist at all, even with hyperbole.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago)

I do, personally, feel it’s best to simply disregard online rhetoric entirely. It’s genuinely a perfect catch all for 90% of people. You spend more time with actual humans and you maintain a grounded perspective while chiseling those of others. I’ve lost nothing since turning everything besides Reuters into fiction. You carve your own space out of the people around you.

Which is to say, my vaguely meandering around your point is more cheeky than antagonistic.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 59 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks! I’ve put a bit of work into the place lately

Pretty difficult to say, I know.

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 hours ago

But then we wouldn't have rage bait for engagement.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 hours ago

Plot twist: the dude is an interior design elitist and was being sarcastic, and the poster cannot perceive sarcasm.

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world 30 points 4 hours ago

this is tumblr level insufferable.

load more comments
view more: next ›