Someone else's words about a SMU failson and other losers like them.
"Thereโs a substantial cohort of people (some "men") who use social media as a tool for motivated perversity. The goal is to generate disagreement.
The goal of posting isnโt to engage with ideas, but to perform knowledge and mastery over masculinized areas of expertise.
That includes politics, economics, sports, video gamesโฆ Men can demonstrate their masculinity by showing off how much they know about these topics. But if you agree with someone, or embrace widely accepted views, you donโt get the chance to show how much you know!
So, men looking to perform these masculinities *have to* disagree with conventional views and/or offer up increasingly extreme views.
What does this mean for how we should treat these posters? Thereโs no point in engaging. Their motivation isnโt to learn, or persuade, itโs to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. They are, in a very real way, getting off on your engagement, disagreement and disgust.
The experience of some menโs lives, such as SMU failson Johnny Sack for example, hasnโt kept up with their expectations of masculinity, so theyโre flailing around for some way to demonstrate their perceived gender.
It is possible to structure political and social discourse to eliminate negative motivations and make everyone more comfortable sharing ideas. But folks, social media isnโt that. Let them have their spaces to spiral into the most offensive things they can think of, but thereโs no reason to help."