If God is morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-good, then he would want to prevent suffering
If God is morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-good, then he has the power to prevent suffering — Ishika

I think God can be considered as a duality of A). Existence. The whole and B). A mind-state of "awareness of existence".

In this duality God is either omniscient (all information), omnipresent (all spacetime) and omnipotent (all energy and matter) but is not "agent". Thus omnibenevolence is not relevant nor is choice, free will.

The other end of the spectrum is God as a human being with awareness of the universes nature, truth or laws. In this case such a god is not omnipresent (humans are singular objects), not omnipotent (humans are restricted by the characteristic capacities of such an existant) and not omniscient (cannot know everything, everywhere all at once).

In this case God can understand core knowledge of self - where they came from (origin story) , how the system works (nature of the self), can experience suffering and pleasure and thus can navigate the two.

Ie they can understand fundamental "truth". As truth is the source of knowledge (knowing the truth) and morality (telling/describing or speaking of the truth) in a process of education.

This is where shamanism, chieftains, spiritual leaders and gurus as well as philosophers try to exemplify as best they can wisdom of basic truths and thus a very high level of self awareness, awareness of nature and awareness of harm, suffering and the mitigation of it. And teach others of the nature of self as a "oneness" - a concept where the only difference between the universe and the self is are boundaries. Boundaries being arbitrary mental constructions based off of perception. But as physics would show fundamentally there is just energy that makes up all things: material and thus invetibably space, and time as the ongoing change that energy confers to the system.

theism has no way of explaining the problem of evil, because God would not want suffering and has the power to prevent it, but He doesn’t — Ishika

Depends on the theism. If you anthropomorphise "God" as some omnipotent he/she, then sure, they're awful for letting suffering occur.

However if you take non humanoid God concepts...like gaia or mother nature or the universe itself. Then "who" is accountable exactly?

If the universe is "God" then all harm and suffering as well as "good/peace" are negated. There is instead only chaos and order, creation and destruction.

Suffering applies to living things that have a fear of death and can experience pain. If God is a universal, then humans are one part of the whole. Along with all living things. So only "part of the universe god" can actually experience suffering and have any agency towards or against it. But because this aspect of the whole singularity God concept means that humans nor any other living thing are omnipotent nor omnipresent. But can be benevolent as they have the capacity for knowledge, ethical considerations and choice.

So the only way he is freed is for him to stop making her the responsible party for his bad days. — L'éléphant

And how might he go about stopping her reign of influence over his bad days?

2. Their loneliness is transformed into misogyny by means of ressentiment — Jamal

Ah yes from Nietzsche. Sublimation of loneliness or envy into contempt.

Thank you for the link I shall have a read through

And then Jeremiah will hold her responsible. — TheMadMan

If he believes her curse. Sure. Which is what Beth wants because if he does her revenge is working. And there's a chance he also believes this was brought on him by his actions against her loved one - her husband.

in option one she will get an apology. How has she lied in this case? As the curse says if he apologises he is released from it and the curse ends

If he seeks forgiveness then the alternative never comes to pass and thus cannot possibly be proven to be the alternative ultimatum.

In the end she gets what she actually wants. A sincere or desperate apology rather than all out riot and being burnt at the stake.

Magical thinking applies as much to vengeful and cruel impulses as it does to acquisitive ones. — Vera Mont

Absolutely. Superheroes and Sci-fi are predominant film categories for a reason. They reflect our innate desire for superhuman abilities. For magic.

They also inspire tech moguls to bring about advancements that make what was once impossible, possible. The people of 1000 years ago would consider us gods for our technology, medicine and luxury. But it's relative. We take this for granted nowadays.

The only difference between the seemingly magical and the very real is knowledge/education and their applications.

The one constant is: you can't tell people anything they're determined not to know. — Vera Mont

Knowledge/wisdom falling on deaf ears is considered "ignorance."

For me society/social cohesion is born of and propagated by a permanent state of autocorrection. Re-evaluation and implementation of corrective measures to bring things back to balance.

On the other side, anti-social barbarianism is just a collection of myriad self-affirmed, self righteous and self interested groups at odds with one another. Where "others downfall is their success."

I for one prefer the idea of a united society based on compromise. It may not be perfect. And for sure it has made grave mistakes in the past. But any sign of actual progress is in acknowledging those mistakes, some apologies, some forgiveness, and ensuring as best we can that they don't occur again.

We live and we (hopefully) learn.
That is a society I'm content to participate in.

I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF. — BC

It's popular because it exemplifies common human fears: ugliness, unlovability, failure to thrive/prosper, social excommunication/pariahism, depression, inequality and failure to successfully bear children/propagate ones lineage.

This is human nature. No, not even human nature, just nature. "Survival of the fittest" and all it's catastrophic possibilities/implications for the supposedly "unfit".

Many other topics or subjects are also popular for the same reason: "if a good god exists why do children die of cancer?" or "antinatalism" or "the wealth gap" or "should euthanasia be a human right?" or "what do we owe eachother?" and of course "incelship".

All pertain to the innate inequality in "right to life" and "ability to survive and thrive" that we as humans face being biological and under the reign of nature.

All in all they come down to human morality. Do we simply look out for ourselves and our immediate people, let nature do it's thing and obey natural selection, or do we go against the grain/tide of nature and try to take control of our human fates. To establish a means to overcome the hurdles of living so we can be proud or free from shame/guilt that comes with being able to empathise with others of our species.

I think civilisation; tech, medicine, law and philosophy are symbolic that we as a species have opted to maximise knowledge, control and ownership of our collective trajectory, rather than let natural selection do our bidding for us as other animals do.

There is a point where compassion is not the appropriate response. — Baden

Compassion may not be appropriate sure, especially if it is seen to exonerate, permit, validate or encourage such harmful ideals.

But understanding them is not an issue. Offering healthier alternatives based on the understanding again also not a bad thing. If we ignore something entirely it goes left unchecked.

I think most people would prefer to know what's going on and how threatening an ideal may be rather than to simply dismiss it hoping or assuming it'll go away by itself

1. Is it true?
How many of the incels are really celibate, is it really involuntary, and how can you tell, — Vera Mont

We can't ignore the fact that sex has a price in some instances. Sex work exists everywhere, all nations - one of the oldest professions on the world and ofc there is tourism based around the areas or nations that have it legalised.

The Internet and strip clubs also cater not to sex itself perhaps but definitely to a lot of kinks and fetishes and teases.

So, involuntary? No. Not definitively. An obstacle. For sure, definitely for some as it becomes a financial, legal issue and personality concept of ethics/morality for such men.

Really? I haven't explored that online grotto. I just thought incels were disgruntled angry men who can't get a shag. They really want to enslave and rape women? — bert1

I wouldn't say all incels are like this. Ofc not. Some are just disgruntled. Some aren't even incels their entire life and it's just a phase they go through before finding a happy relationship with themselves and with a woman.

Having said that, just as dabbling in incelship can be mild and temporary. It can also be extreme and permanent. And probably there are some malevolent and caustic men in the incel sphere that do indeed propagate a handmaid's tale dystopia where men ought to have total control over women. That having sex is their right.

This is of course the vast minority of cases, the most extreme scenario. But one that likely does exist to some extent

what makes so many cis het white men hate themselves — fdrake

I think it's because most men growing up initially assume that everyone will have a partner. That there's a match for every person. This is ofc an ideal. Women believe similar also growing up - prince charming or such.

However it dawns on us as we mature that that is not the case. And not everyone manages to secure a partner nor the ability to have children even if they really want to.

For some this is devastating and the worst possible case scenario. For others they're fine with it and believe that life can be fulfilling without having a wife/ husband and children.

In the case of the former, people rationalise why they aren't in a relationship for all sorts of reasons. Often ones from self loathing or low self esteem. But perhaps more dangerously, they also rationalise why they deserve/demand or are entitled to one. How it is somehow societies fault and they are the victim.

Some men genuinely believe it's their unalienable biological right to have children. Which if course it is not. Having children is either accidental or mutually agreed but never forced (or should not be, morally speaking).

Having such an self proclaimed entitlement makes women the enemy in a society where they have their own rights to not have a husband nor have children.
And I think single women are often more likely to opt for no partner and children over settling for an undesirable partner.

To be consistent with that standard, you'll have to agree it's ok for me to claim to be a member of the black power movement. — T Clark

Firstly, its not for me to determine your claimed membership to a group. The one to approach in that case is the group itself and what they accept as criteria.

Secondly there are groupings based on innate characteristics of members - like groups for cystic fibrosis sufferers, groups for women, groups for the elderly, groups for certain ethnicities. So if you don't share these traits you can be an Ally or supporter of course but it's not like you can insist you have cystic fibrosis or are 85 years old when you don't and aren't just to be a member of the group.

Other groups are based on behaviours and beliefs. Like religions, language groups/dialects, sports teams fandoms etc. Nothing prevents one from joining any of these groups because the criterion can be met and is not innate nor biological.

I don't see how this relates to my earlier points. This seems tangential.

All I said is when a society behaves or is biased towards one groups favour. Any alternative groups are easily defined. Eg. Feminism exists much more easily and effectively as a movement in counter to an overtly mysoginistic society than it would if the society was already completely equal between sexes. If every had equal and fair treatment, what need would there be for any movements?

Well, why not then start with the obvious: the internet. The ability there to find your own echo chamber. — ssu

Probably the same reason flat earthers ramped up out of no where. In this hyperconnected era, thoughts and ideas run viral like wildfire. I doubt in a pre-internet era such echo chambers are that easy to come by. It would be like finding the other needles in a haystack.

But now the internet algorithms hastily match-make between groups with similar ideologies. On one side this is great for unifying like minded individuals. On the other hand it fuels cognitive bias and "justification by numbers".

Look how many of us there, thus we must be onto something/ correct. And that is a dangerous precedent

And I'm interested in what creates incels. How do you go from being normal to the resentment pit?
9h — fdrake

Part of it is sweeping generalisation and essentialising. Someone mutters a mere hint of anti-feminist or mysoginistic rhetoric and boom, people jump to conclusions like hopscotch. One becomes defined by what may have been a singular momentary thought or consideration.

The other part is attitude. If some does indeed have a consistent, enduring and caustically negative attitude towards dating or is preoccupied with lamenting over the quality of their sex life, people like to have words for such phenomena especially if they have seen a lot of people with the same behaviour. We by our very nature love to categorise everything from people to places to things into near little groups.

I didn't say BLM, I said black power. Saying you support equal rights for women is not the same as saying you are a feminist. — T Clark

It is feminism if the society is inherently patriarchal/misogynistic to begin with. Which it is. Equal rights in a male-biased system is feminist (supports/endorses conferring more power to women to equalise the status quo).

The feminist status ends when the mysoginistic one does.

. In tribal cultures, the mother carries a suckling babe wherever she goes — Vera Mont

Women in such societies even share the responsibility of breastfeeding. With a rotary system of feeding. I think this is great from a biological point of view because each babe accrues antibodies to an even larger set of diseases due to the shared collective immunity of all participant mothers in the breastfeeding process.

Secondly, though we may not have the same degree of communal upbringing that tribal societies have, the school system operates as a stand-in for "communal child raising" where the child has exposure to other teachings, nurturing and systematic education outside of the family unit.

Sure it may not be as fluid and diverse as communal parentage but it is better than nothing.

How many instances of violence by incels are there? — BC

Quite a lot actually. Several mass shootings. If you require references I can cite them.

Now that isn't to say other groups have not committed violent acts based on fundamental principles/beliefs. They range on everything from sex, ethnicity and class to political stance and religion. Not just incel-ship. There are many for sure.

My point would be that taking credence in any intractable definition/characteristic of a person as a basis for violence is always inherently wrong.

It denies the simple fact thay humans are diverse as a species in all areas of society, culture and being. And none of them are more just to impose on others than any other sect/facet of human society.

It is about tolerance and empathy at the end if the day. Without it, we are vicious barbarians, hardly a cohesive society at all. Diversity is the spice of life. And tolerance/understanding is the stability that permits that.

There is no place for extremes (self righteousness) in a group of many unique individuals just looking for a middle ground. You can't see eye to eye from the polar ends of difference, only from the middle - what unites us all. We are human, and deserve to be treated as such.

I'm white. What would you think if I characterized myself as member of the black power movement — T Clark

I would say that a "movement" (belief system/ideology) is not equal to your innate ethnicity/ definition or characterisation as a person.

I would say that being white doesn't mean you can't be a proponent of the BLM movement. Any less than being heterosexual prevents one from being an "ally" to the lgbt community or being abled prevents one from campaigning for rights for the disabled.

In essence, you don't need to be "X" to desire rights and equality for "X".

If we had a case where you cannot/have no right to campaign on behalf of a marginalised/descrimminated group if you're not from that group, then it is inherently segregated. Any chance at unification is hopeless. As everyone outside the group is an enemy by virtue of the fact that they don't share those traits. No integration can come of such a notion, only self propagating division.

Friends are friends despite their differences. Enemies are enemies because of their differences

I assume (maybe wrongly) that most people are raised by women in their "formative years". This suggests the influence of the mother at a time when a human being learns the most is at its highest, and in a way sets the conditions of the majority of human behaviors and impacts everything from simple relationships on down to the formation of entire societies. — NOS4A2

I see what you mean. However we must not ignore single mothers and single father's raising entire families alone. To assume that a mothers role in the early years of raising a child is the most influential not only negates the place of single father's and upholds the "nuclear family model" as the prudent one, but also doesn't reflect that the children of such single parent families are also just as well adjusted and capable of being decent citizens as their nuclear double-parent family counterparts.

For me, as long as a single father can adapt to provide the feminine qualities and impart those values to their children, and so long as a single mother can likewise adapt to provide masculine ones to their children, the outcome ought to be much the same as children raised by a couple.

And that I believe is proof that the feminine and masculine "roles" are more of an artificial construct than anything innate.

A society needs both kinds of agencies to function well — Vera Mont

They do. And sharing such responsibility, allowing them to overlap, requires breaking down prejudice and stereotyping regarding what it is/means to be a man, and likewise what it is/means to be a woman. What roles either ought to play.

So long as society perpetuates clear distinctions (roles) they pigeon hole both parties into assigned behaviours that they shouldn't deviate from.

In reality, neccesity is the mother (or father) of all dissolution of strict and pretty much arbitrary roles. Life is not a play with stringent character profiles assigned to players. The players ought to be free to act in a manner they deem fit to bring about benefit, regardless of whether people assume it is "un-lady-like" or "not manly enough".

Our greatest feat as humans is our adaptability.

No, no. I understand the ideology. Any man who doesn't toe the party line is misogynistic just like anyone who doesn't support Israel is anti-semitic, anyone who doesn't support the Black Lives Matter movement is racist, and anyone who doesn't agree with you politically is a fascist. — T Clark

Well this is called "essentialism". Reducing ones singular action or demonstration of behaviour to a permanent definition.
Social media does this all the time and it's the basis for cancel culture.

For example: John disagrees with one viewpoint of one member of the black lives matter movement. Ergo, John is a racist. Now, John is not necessarily a racist just because he objected to one person's views - a person that identifys with a group but may not neccesarily exemplify that groups values in entirety.

It's the difference between saying "Sam 'is' an assh*le" and "Sam did an assh*lish thing" or "Sam behaved 'like' an assh*le."
These are not equivalent. One acknowledges that behaviour or acts don't ultimately define a person. The other says a person is defined only by a single act.

What say you of people who are ambivalent to any given movements idealogies. How can one justifiably assign them to either parties/oppositions creed when they don't agree with either entirely.

To come full circle: I am a proponent of a male feminism ideal being a man. But this does not mean I agree with all viewpoints of feminists. That however does not make me a mysoginist. Nor do I agree with all viewpoints of those contrary/in opposition to feminism. But that doesn't make me a radical/extreme feminist. I think both groups have there internal flaws and idiosyncrasies.

To essentialise anyone to a given group, a whole lot of sweeping generalisations are made about them, many of which may not be true. There is fluidity/spectrum within definitions/assigned categories.

I can concede that some male feminism is bullshit. Other male feminism not so much. I like to think my reasons for being one are simple and concrete, despite what assumptions may be made about me for identifying as a proponent of it.

What I don't understand is that self perceived "incels" actively seek out incel platforms to voice their frustrations and lack of self worth to other people who are equally unhappy.

But instead of these being constructive platforms, where the members support and encourage each other, they're like a masochistic group of men tearing eachothers self esteem down to bits and propagating harmful beliefs about themselves and one another.

Why would anyone want to actively seek a place known for being highly critical and debasing?

Like I've heard of them posting pics of themselves just so other incels can point out everything wrong with them. Further reinforcing their state of feeling undesired. It's like virtual self flagellation.

Interesting I see your point

This sensitive-new-age-guy thing you've got going on is creepy — T Clark

Bit harsh but you're entitled to your opinion I guess.

They recognize how disrespectful the male feminist bullshit really is. Grownup women want to hang around with grownup men. — T Clark

Male feminism is bullshit? If that's the case it's just divisive and pigeon holing all men inti a category of inherently non-feminist in values. Or mysognistic by virtue of being a man. Doesn't seem fair or rational.

Ive had very different experiences of what women like or don't like. Perhaps you should ask them for their opinion? Just you know... A thought.

The world is changing. You can call new age more sensitive men naive, immature or whatever. I call it acknowledgement that the ways of old were cruel. What worked then doesn't now. And shouldn't now

Benj's guide to developing irresistible CHARISMA in 21 days!


Try these techniques to build DYNAMITE CHARISMA! — BC

Haha :) Alright I get it. Seems a bit personal. Not like I'm the only person that agrees that a lot of traits are malleable/workable.

absolutely. I agree. I think all in all values dont differ massively between sexes. However they can slowly migrate towards sex based extremes if not moderated by the other. Hence I think a matriarch and patriarch co-op may be a self moderating dynamic that ensures a society neither becomes too patriarchal nor too matriarchal but remains in a happy middle ground. Representing equally every facet of the nature of human beings.

Perhaps neither is neccesary. Maybe we can have one president or prime minister that is either or - male or female. But I don't see why 2 minds are not better than one. That's just personal opinion to be honest. And definitely not absolute.

At the end of the day, whatever works. But I am a proponent of trying new formats until we establish on that works best.

I very much favour the latter, as practiced by Native Americans.
Efficient and harmonious use of people-potential. — Vera Mont

Me too Vera. Absolutely. I think both sexes have incredible traits, ones that work best when in cooperation. I wish modern societies were run by co-op presidencies between one male and one female president or prime ministers.

In a way this sort of reflects a king and queen. But unlike kings and queens, I think the two rulers should be elected democratically from the entire of society.

I think the balance afforded by such a dynamic would be more beneficial than one sex having total control.

The woman embodies female values, the man embodies male values. And they both work synergistically to foster an equal society. It would be a sort of "parental framework" of governance.

That's not the question at hand here. The correct question is "What respect should we give people whose behavior we don't approve of or understand?" — T Clark

Understand it, and act accordingly. I believe in hearing people out and applying reasoning to show them the result of their claims/beliefs.

Often when someone sees the rational result of an idea, they change tact, if that outcome makes sense but the result is undesirable.

Yeah, big fat tongue in my cheek ... but I am intolerant of the intolerant (even antisocial with regard to the antisocial), what I call 'responsible freedom' (i.e. engagée). IMO, radicalized violent misogynists / racists / fascists ought not to be coddled or excused, medicalized or given any quarter whatsoever. — 180 Proof

I agree. You see a clearly harmful set of affairs that can come to no good. And have little tolerance for it. I would include myself in such urgent cause for reprimand of such groups.

However I'm a passivist. I believe the pen is mightier than the sword. That is to say, fierce, overt and public verbal humiliation and condemnation based on clear, well reasoned and articulate denouncement is often sufficient to placate such "nastiness" rather than getting physically involved.

If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better?

Restrain yes, harm no.

In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before). — ChatteringMonkey

Love thy neighbour (gender/sex unspecified). Spirituality and religion does something that science cannot, appeal to intuitive sense of moral and greater good. No objective proof required.

"The proof is in the (quite sensible/obvious) pudding"

People with guns have power. — RogueAI

Only the bad/criminal kind. Using the fear of death as an threat/influence may be effective temporarily, but long-term it is asking for intense revolt and ammendments to law concerning gun ownership.

It probably doesn't help that social media software is almost exclusively designed by the nerdy types that are mainly interested in numbers and maximizing the effectiveness of algorithms, and seem to lack awareness that their products are affecting are actual people — Tzeentch

Absolutely, at the end of the day social media is a business. It's about maximising engagement with products through advertisement.

Algorithms are preoccupied with ascertaining who is "vulnerable or receptive" to any given product. Thus maximising profit. What they fail to consider is the human component - that it is or ought to be a human right not to be manipulated insidiously towards any one political view, service or product.

This is why law is playing catch up to exaggerate/ notify reveal or clarify the product placement in social media posts. To highlight that such a post is designed as advertising. Misinformation is another target of law to reduce the radicalisation of the public towards specific political agendas.

If both of those are kept in check, then social media becomes at least a little bit more benign.

The fact is that people create culture and society, we form ideas based on either delusions or rationality and everything in between. And people can be downright stupid. — Christoffer

I agree. Reality is one thing. Delusion regarding it is another. It is part of reality for sure - delusion that is - but it isn't the truth of it, truth being how things actual are (reality itself).

We convince ourselves of all sorts of justifications for things, but if they aren't a). Coming from good intentions and b). Rational and logical in execution and expected outcome, then all we have is delusion - either conceptualised on poor intention, or with good intention but bad execution and thus bad outcome.

What respect should we give misogynist and racist people? — Christoffer

None. I look forward to the day that men are properly humbled by the clout of women - their intelligence, their strength and resolve - strong fierce mothers, exceptional wives, admirable daughters. Feminity has always moderated the testosterone fuelled recklessness of man. And it was always undervalued, considered weak for that fact.

How many wars have been started by women? I'm not saying they can't be. Of course they can. But I think the masculine and feminine are not at odds with one another, but an incredibly potent synergy. A symbiosis that ought to be fostered for everyone sake.

The most manly of men, in my opinion, are those that willingly submit to the power of the feminine. It's a demonstration of confidence and self esteem. Opposite to oppression and mysogyny which simply reflects the insecurity of man regarding their "manlihood".

Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more? — bert1

This is an interesting topic. I agree, that when the roles and responsibilities that used to be typically met by men are now met by women (more independence/ autonomy) the considerations they are likely to make become more about appearance, height, skills in the bedroom, personality, as you put it "the fun stuff".

The irony here is those were the expectations of men towards women when they had less independence and equality.

How does it feel to be objectified as a man, by women that earn more, have higher social status and influence.

Now we might finally empathise with what they had to put up with for centuries. It's not nice to be underestimated, undervalued or for all the value to be placed on superficial qualities like looks - as an arm piece.

We used to only care about whether they had child bearing hips, whether they had elegance, a pleasant and quiet demeanor while the men talked business.
Now they might expect us to have a whole set of head hair, some good brawn/muscle, to be tall.
It's tit for tat. Karmic really..

I have zero issues with that. It's merely the system swinging from one state of affairs to it's opposite. About god damn time too.

Patriarchies taste of its own medicine.

Luckily for us tho, I think women are more inclined to entertain our emotions and feelings on the subject and to support us in being equals rather then becoming as toxically matriarchal as patriarchy has been towards women in the past. We have shit to learn from women. We should listen up.

[

For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV? — Tzeentch

Yes but here's the crux of the situation. Never before have these things been as impossibly un-ignorable.
There has never been such integration of socialising with force-feeding of content.

Where once we had clear separation between beauty magazine, TV and social platform to contact friends. Now the social interaction is the magazine, it is the TV, the theater.

And when all your friends are on social media and demand that you are too, even to the point of finding you strange and socially outcast if you don't, it's either play game or be isolated, so logging on, you are sucked into the algorithm that learns you, your interests and hobbies, desire and dreams and starts you walking on the treadmill of personally curated content for your individual dopamine hits.

And thus depletes all your cognitive reserve, much like a drug does. Leaving you in your room, mentally exhausted by entertainment, and having done nothing else with your day. Withdrawal symptoms, that are avoided by going online again to get your next fix of wonder and awe.

And all your friends too are exhausted from intense scrolling. When all the dopamine and serotonin is used up, you're left in a spiral where comparisons have been made, self esteem dips and loneliness kicks in. That drives you back to the apps.

It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.

Social media plays a huge role in this. — Tzeentch

I think it's not even so much actively teaching children to be narcissists. I think it is the fundamentals of social media that alters our behaviour.

In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to be seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.

Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral.

When faced with myriad masteries of skills and beauty, it is hard not to compare it to oneself. The way we interact socially has fundamentally changed in a drastic way as of the last 40 years.

What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia.

tricky thing then is what the hell do they do about it? — bert1

Maximise the skills talents and positive traits you do have. No one, I think, is without any. They're just either not identified or cultivated.

The moral kernel here I think is that looks really are not everything. But they are the most initially apparent. So those without them need to nurture charisma to overcome the initial barrier.

I do believe women in general are the more empathetic gender. They are open to being shown kindness, humour and deeper levels of beauty than what's face value (excuse the pun). Thank yourself you're not trying to attract meaningful relationships from other men. I bet they're more superficial and objectifying toward eachothers than women are to men. And I hear lesbian relationships have the highest rate of fidelity/faithfulness. So there ya go.