yeh but nah

they infiltrate our environmental groups. legally and illegally coerce us & our our “leaders”. have been systematically attacking, undermining & removing funding for renewables & climate research for decades. environmental protesters are “legally” assaulted, kidnapped, beaten & sometimes killed by their hired goons, meanwhile neo-nazis march with impunity.

it’s not simply a matter of them offering one alternative and just letting the market decide. they engage in unbelievable levels of corruption, coercion, deception, even genocide to steal natural resources from first nations people.

meanwhile the public, barely keeping their heads above water, exploited, subjugated & worn to the bone, oftimes struggling to survive, make almost the only non-choice they can barely even choose from.

yes the majority are to blame, for alot, but also recall we’re talking about an average, likely poorly educated person going up against billion dollar brainwashing machinery (oftimes utilising research paid for with our tax dollars initially performed for therapeutic use, now weaponised in a twisted perversion of their original intent)

like you aren’t wrong. but there is alot more to the story.

carlin is certainly on point in his quote you cited, and you are right this is perhaps the most difficult to reconcile aspect.

let us weigh this alongside another poignant quote of his:

The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.

for alot of people their relationship with windows is like that of an abusive partner. which is why you see alot of the same excuses pop up

honestly surprised to see so many downvotes.

I’ve been trying to compact my writing lately, and perhaps failed to communicate clearly. because i really felt like i’d already pre-agreed with everything you wrote when i said

society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.

obviously i didn’t communicate properly, because imo that’s in perfect agreement with what you said here

how we’re socialised to handle our feelings also plays a big role

this is what i meant about society projecting an ‘incomplete’ image onto the male identity. i want to stress here, this isn’t a statement about any man, or even men as a group. imo it has nothing to do with “maleness” and everything to do with an impossibly hamstrung identity being thrust onto people. by impossible i mean it’s literally impossible for any human to exist as an emotional shadow like that. no human can do it & we’re expecting 50% of the population to magically achieve it. whatcouldgowrong.jpg

i’ve spent quite some time trying to work out exactly where it comes from, i’m still not sure but i feel like a big dose of victorian era repression sure didn’t help, plus perhaps alot of unprocessed trauma from the men who went to WW1 and experienced an entirely unprecedented form of PTSD en masse (what at the time was called shellshock) those men who came home brought it into their families and became our fathers fathers fathers etc etc. it’s definitely intergenerational imo.

i also think as society progresses technologically, there is less need for ‘male brute force’ to ‘provide’, so it will naturally create a bit of a vacuum in the perceived “male role”. i can easily imagine an alternate history where something positive and strong had filled this vacuum instead of the poisoned version we got.

i personally deeply do not believe it is something inherent in men, and i think this is supported by the stats you raise which shows a disparity in the distribution vs world average.

rather i very much see this as a deep flaw in our current society, men are emotionally hamstrung and have dangerously impossible emotional expectations placed on them (again, this isn’t the fault of any one gender or group, it is society at large to blame here). (and of course equally insane but different expectations are thrust onto all genders)

a huge part of the problem imo is when boys are taught not to cry - actually wait, it’s even worse, they’re taught “boys don’t cry”, this is an unbelievable absurdity. crying is natural, normal & healthy. not only denying boys & men this natural emotional outlet, but tangling it up with the idea that “boys don’t do it” therefore if one does, some part of their supposed identity is under threat. it’s quite simply unbelievably toxic, it’s literally poison. and. it. hurts. everyone.

but that’s fundamentally why i think calling it ‘The male loneliness epidemic’ is hurtful to everyone. alongside all the usual ragebait hooks, there’s the sleight of hand of reducing a monumental issue to a fragment of the actual scale of the problem.

Short Answer

imo the rise of loneliness effects both women & men about equally in terms of scope.

the push to strongly gender the ‘epidemic’ one way or the other is classic ragebait.

Longer Answer

Yes society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.

and it’s causing alot more suffering for all genders than just ‘loneliness’. calling it The male loneliness epidemic is just loaded with so many hooks, it’s just classic bait.

men vs women is “powerful” for ragebait because it’s literally half the population vs the other half.

no problem solving in bed when you should be resting. if something pops up, identify it & make a note (mental or otherwise) to address it at a later time.

i’m not an expert, but here’s my take.

personally i question when such movements take power that we should interpret it as consent by the public majority.

part of the reason the public apparently bestow power to the machinery of government is because the machinery is supposed to protect them from this very thing happening.

the fact that it is happening, means such a rise in fact did not occur within the correct functioning of that machine.

therefore we should probably question whether we should interpret it as consent by the majority.

and if its not consent by the majority, then in some ways the picture is both bleaker and brighter.

brighter, because you’re not surrounded by quite so many evil fucks as they wanted you to believe

bleaker, well, probably don’t need to explain that bit

ok fair enough, sorry i may have misinterpreted what you meant.

it sounds like your argument is that if the attacker doesn’t know the service is running then the assertion that this reduces the risk profile is classified as an obscurity control - this argument is correct under these conditions.

however, certain knocking configurations are not obscurity, because their purpose & value does not depend on the hope that the attacker is unaware of the service’s existence but rather to reduce the attacker’s window of access to the service with a type of out of band whitelisting. by limiting the attacker’s access to the service you are reducing the attack surface.

you can imagine it like a stack call trace, the deeper into the trace you go, every single instruction represents the attack surface getting larger and larger. the earlier in the trace you limit access to the attacker, you are by definition reducing the attack surface.

in case i’ve misinterpreted what you meant. susceptibility to a replay attack does not mean something isn’t a security measure. it means it’s a security measure with a vulnerability. ofc replay attacks in knocking is a well known problem addressed long ago.

perhaps the other source of miscommunication is for us to remember that security is about layers, because no single layer is ever going to be perfect.

if you can’t work out what port knocking might have to do with whitelisting then i’m not sure what you hoped to contribute towards reducing misconceptions in the conversation

would you classify out of band whitelisting by IP (or other session characteristic[s]) as having no security merit whatsoever?

would you classify it as purely a decision regarding network congestion & optimisation?

you’re ofc free to define these things however you wish, but in a form which is helpful to OP’s question i’m not sure i follow you.

it’s funny, i visited there once with a friend, we also discussed fairies in that area. i wonder what is the cause of such a seeming coincidence.

while the most bare bones knocking implementation may be classed as obscurity, there’s certainly plenty of implementations which i wouldn’t class as obscurity.

People iterate through all the IPv4 addresses since there are only 4,294,967,296 possible addresses. There are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible IPv6 addresses

i love your thinking!!

do you have a backup in case you accidentally find yourself locked out from an ipv4-only network?

i feel like this is a good place to mention the ship shipping ships

https://www.superyachtshipping.com/

searching for ‘phpbb <topic name>’ can usually bring up a few struggling to dead forums for niche communities which are being sadly absorbed into bigtech monoliths

no, that illustration apparently came 12 years later

anyway as an 1800s fairy tale for children, imo i think it’s fine to view it through the lens of whichever culture you want. the trouble imo begins when trying to ascribe something to the story which it certainly did not contain - even that is probably basically harmless if you’re just confused or something, but it certainly becomes a problem when it’s used to justify unfairly shitting on someone else for a slightly different yet completely harmless alternative depiction.

it’s even worse than that cos the original text never said ariel’s human version race, they just assumed it lol.

and before anyone says yes but its written by a dane, my response is yes but it’s a fairy tale, anything is possible. why assume and then get angry based on your assumption?

well yeah most of its operating software was derived from opensource projects, but capitalists exploited those opensource project without giving much if anything back, so…

a ridiculous number of arguments are because people misunderstand what they’re actually arguing over.

it’s crazy how helpful it can be to stop, and check what they meant before responding to it.

apart from the obvious benefits, it can also make a nice pause for everyone to calm just a little, and also shows you’re making an effort to understand which can be helpful too.

anywhere shit gets cliquey it gets toxic real fast - and that goes for ANY and ALL organisations.

safe-space concepts often inherently deals with an “us/them” dichotomy, which is unfortunately fertile ground for things getting cliquey.

it’s not that one must lead to the other, its just that the foundation is there so the risk is higher if it’s not managed properly.

this is why safe-spaces need to be protected from within and without. regardless of whether you’re in the clique or out of it, it hurts everyone in the end.

who?