The fact that these things are being expressed on social media is way more important than the undertone to me. Ofcourse I agree, the tone of the tweet I have quoted can be modified and be made less hard. But I don't agree with the part of not teaching sons about our experiences.

A very small proportion of men become cold by hearing to the experiences of the previous generation. No being can close itself when it comes to love. The roughest of creatures understand love through their senses.
What you are implicitly suggesting is that, let's invalidate all the thoughts of men since some of their thoughts is highly patriarchal and chauvinistic.
Let's just talk about the tweet I've quoted here and the couple of tweets I had posted on Instagram yesterday. If you haven't seen them I'll attach a screenshot.
The fact that these things are being mentioned in such a small proportion on social media is way more important to me than the rough undertone. I don't align with all the thoughts of the said person, it would be wrong to generalise that way.
Another question that was being raised was that we're teaching boys to be emotionally unavailable. It's a wrong statement. A very small proportion of humans are emotionally unavailable from the beginning, most of us become emotionally drained & unavailable because of our...+
Rough experiences in terms of romantic relationships. A heartbreak, being cheated, etc.
Almost all men, that I know, including myself have learnt this through experience. Not all men become cold because of "emotional social barriers" created by patriarchy.
The problem started for me precisely after I crossed those barriers and I didn't have the knowledge of what bad exists beyond those barriers.
I only knew of what good is beyond these chains and one doesn't need to be tough when dealing with the good.
Whatever number of women I've met/interacted with, a very small number of them are naive when it comes to romantic relationships. Many are very shrewd while choosing from men. This is precisely because they possess the knowledge of what's bad in men. Do they apply that generally+
To all men? I don't think so. Knowledge can ofcourse be used in bad ways. That doesn't imply to not providing them.
When humans possess knowledge only then they can use their reason to differentiate and make distinctions.
Coming the point of "men being vile to women", do you really believe all the men will be vile to all the women? That would be a foolish belief. The post no where says, "what not to teach to boys"
"It says what should be taught" & what should be taught can always be used in+
Addition to other things, isn't it ?+
I've interacted with a lot of girls, who say they're emotionally unavailable. When I asked them why, they said because of my "last relationship". We've never been taught that an romantic endeavour can go bad? Can it not? Ofc it can. Then why not possess the knowledge to bad in+
Other gender/people beforehand? Why wait for experiencing it. Many people fall in love with evil partners, & when they are cheated/disrespected many end their lives.
My point being, relationships are a subjective phenomena, for which subjective knowledge is necessary, and that includes knowledge that sounds evil/disgusting.
The point I'm willing to accept is that generalisations are a bad thing. And tone must be improved.
But many women have been vehemently speaking against this & saying, that you should endorse thoughts that are generalised and "toxic" in nature. +
I've a question then, why are all men dragged in rape cases then? That's a way bigger allegation than calling a potential romantic partner evil. And I'm not saying that all women support those allegations but I don't understand the big fuss over this.+
I understand, the language is rough, it's disgusting, it's foolish but are we expressing all our thoughts on social media through essays & paragraphs written in sophisticated language?
If we're taking it to that level, are we willing to voluntarily give in to regulations?
I also understand that making such an argument, "where they step in garbage, so will you step too?"
But what is seriously up with the outrage? It's alright some people are hardcore patriarchs, I agree.
But everytime someone bashes anyone who posts such things on social media+
he/she might be going through some kind of a trauma, caused by the "opposite gender", where does the beloved empathy of the 'wokes' goes then?
Men are terrible are expressing their feelings in articulate ways, most people are if not only men. They see something, they read something, it connects with them immediately, they feel like quoting it.
About 8 people yesterday asked me a "rationale" behind having so and so belief? Really? How many of you truly have rationales behind your beliefs based on emotional experiences? Don't expect people to behave in a way that won't be possible for you.
That's all I can think about rn, I've had about 15 conversation with 15 unique individuals on this and I would not engage with anyone on this topic. I'm sorry if your turn for conversing with me on this didn't come. Please find your answers in this thread+
& a couple of screenshots that I will be posting.
Some more.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.