Does it make a man feel masculine to have a big bank account?

Not in and of itself.

If men believe that a big bank account attracts women, then one believing they have a larger bank account than another man may lead one to feel more masculine than the other (and vice versa). Of course, it depends on the culture. This may very well be the case in some cultures and not others.

Whether or not you share in my specific understanding, it is well documented that masculinity is cultural.

Even if no one knows his salary or net worth?

It’s all about perception, so what is actually true doesn’t matter. Certainly if one portrays themselves as having a high salary/net worth - e.g. driving expensive cars, wearing fancy watches, living in big houses – that may lead men to believe it. No doubt that is why men do exactly those things (at least in my culture).

If no one sees your pink underwear in public would it challenge someone’s masculinity to wear it?

Anything is possible. Again, perception, not reality. No one actually seeing your underwear doesn’t mean one isn’t thinking about the possibility of it being revealed. What if it slips out? What if you get into an accident and healthcare workers need to remove your pants to save you?

Having shinier peacock feathers doesn’t necessarily mean you are the more virile bird, but if that’s what you’ve got you are going to play it up to make other males think you are the one who will win the female’s attention.

My understanding of masculinity is that it is the characteristics by which other men rate a perceived level of attraction from females through which they determine a competitive standing. Men often think big muscles brings all the ladies to the yard, for example, so that is one possible display of masculinity, leaving “weaklings” to feel inadequate and of a lower standing.

My impression is that men generally believe showing off boners in public scares away the females, so it does not seem like a good candidate for being a display of masculinity. But if we assume that showing off boners is something men believe woos the women, is the aforementioned difference noticeable in practice? Science can reveal a lot of things that nobody would ever realize living out regular day-to-day life.

It’s nice to have something to snack on that something didn’t have to die for.

At least nothing cute. As a grower of food for vegans, there are definitely animals killed in the process.

Fair, but it has also lost its connotations with being an insult over the decades.

Being a geek and/or nerd became economically useful when we moved into the information age, and thus is now considered in high regard. The average Joe is now envious of geeks and nerds. Most people would love to be able to trade places with Bill Gates or Elon Musk.

Of course, it wasn’t always that way.

Geek and nerd had negative connotations when geeks and nerds were commonly poor, but then things shifted and, notably with the rise of the Information Age, being a geek and/or nerd turned into being useful in becoming wealthy. Now it is a compliment.

True of all insults, really. Same reason, for example, words with associations to slavery are considered insults. Or those related to the sale of sexual favours. The implication is that one is poor. Any words you can throw at someone who is rich will be something most people will want to wear as a badge of honour.

Should definitely make an English word for exactly that.

We have! Teacher.

deleted by creator

What is insulting about geek and nerd?

Is it the biting a chicken’s head off thing? I’m not really sure how that translates to an insult, though. Maybe you are ashamed of biting chicken heads? But if that’s the case, maybe just don’t bite chicken heads?

Why is that?

As the word male most commonly refers to those who produce motile gametes, which is what such a product seeks to impede in some way, semantically it is quite aptly named.

I take that, given that you mention it would have been useful in the past, that your gamete production facilities have been damaged in some way and you are still coming to terms with that?

deleted by creator

but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.

Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.

Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.

Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.

I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.

When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.

Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.

My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account.

And that is because the good names are already taken. People are also paying stupid amounts of money to secure an already registered <desirable name>.com and it is clearly for reasons of vanity, not malicious activity.

Technically speaking, jfkldajflkdnalkmfq3u409ijaeklfja0ui3qjaklfa.tires works just as well as any other domain name. Cheap bastards like me would unquestionably choose that over paying millions for something that looks nicer, but those with millions to burn clearly have other ideas.

I’d say it’s not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.

The disabled and people with other life challenges will always exist. Call them swept under the rug or trash thrown around, but either way, why do you believe that is the right approach to dealing with them as opposed to accommodating them? Just because it is easier for you?

I think we’re just two people exchanging views on a certain question.

Wouldn’t you say that writing comments on forums is a solitary activity? I mean, there is good reason to believe you exist out there as another person, but is that not just an implementation detail of the software? Would it make any difference if the software quietly replaced you with something akin to ChatGPT? The answer is no. If done well, I’d never notice. The value is not in the exchange with another person either.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe there can be value in exchange with other people. But when one seeks that they go outside. This environment is quite different; it is very much designed around the individual.

But in certain cases, where persuasion leads to action, it’s different.

I didn’t mean to suggest that argument cannot happen, but I don’t see the value in it. I don’t find enjoyment in changing random interest stranger’s (or ChatGPT model’s) minds. And when I’m spending my precious free time, it had better be enjoyably spent. If they are “wrong”, that’s their problem. One needs to take some relaxing downtime just for themselves now and again.

that the responsibility lies in the person imbibing information.

Well, I suggest that the responsibility lies on us to create a world where people struggling with misinformation is not an impediment. I get the appeal of trying to sweep them under the rug. It unquestionably makes things easier, like not needing to accommodate those in wheelchairs makes things easier. But must we take the easy road?

arguing in good faith.

Well, I don’t know if I’d go that far. By common definition, argument implies that one wants to persuade another to share in their views. Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.

moderators and admins are two separate things

Yes, it is true that you can metaphorically “shovel the parking lot at Walmart” on Lemmy, but my assumption was that anyone who has an interest in moderating would also take ownership of an instance. That said, it seems we are moving past the question of: Who cares if they have to work like a dog? One does not become a volunteer moderator if they don’t like the work. Perhaps providing more moderator duties is actually providing them a service?

I agree, in principle, but in practice?

I took that you already suggested that some people just aren’t capable of understanding the seperation, and I acknowledged that as being a real, possible scenario. But I also questioned how far you can really go by babysitting them. At some point you have to accept the lost cause, no?

If the likes of you and I are doing our jobs properly, our world should be robust enough to handle those with such disabilities and other life challenges. Are you suggesting that you and I have failed?

I hate to say this, but are you willing to extend this reasoning to moderators here in Lemmy? They’re also giving their free labor here, right?

Sure. Although presumably they also own the instance, so it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour, being the benefactor of the capital ownership. That is different to volunteering to clear the snow in the Walmart parking lot.

Selling accounts feeds the misinformation machine.

Only if the moderators can’t keep up due to the aforementioned volume problem. The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message that gets delivered. A professional surgeon exclaiming that the world is flat wouldn’t make it any more believable than a homeless person standing on the street corner. The person delivering the message is irrelevant, hence why it is a logical fallacy to try and ascribe value to a person’s character in this regard.

My apologies if I have been combative in my tone

No need to apologize. Tone has no bearing on the content you are delivering. If I cannot separate the two, I have failed as a human and can be lumped among the braindead.

I agree. It is always good to remind that you’re dealing with crazies on the street corner. Although it is understandable why Reddit wants to silently walk back on telling the world that they are trying to profit off crazies rambling on about nothing. There is good reason why the real street corner is only viable through government agency. Throwing up some billboards for the crazies to look at isn’t enough for a sustainable business.

Why would anyone buy a Reddit account anyways?

Presumably because all the good usernames are already taken.

Because karma points and account age has been used as a proxy measure for an account’s trustworthiness.

For the sake of moderation effort, that is pertinent, yes. It is true that a new account is more likely to spam than an old, active account, so some moderators will choose to only allow the latter to post to make their lives easier, and this circumvents that. But if someone is foolish enough to give their free labour for Reddit’s gain, let them work like dogs. Why should anyone else care?

is a valuable thing for misinformation and/or campaigns.

Only if moderators stop doing their job. However, Reddit has made it pretty clear if moderators stop doing their job they will be kicked to the curb. It is doubtful that there is any material difference here.

Perhaps you are implying that the Reddit crowd doesn’t have the wherewithal to avoid the fallacy of authority, but if you truly think they can’t even work through a simple logic exercise, there is no hope no matter how hard you try to babysit them. At that point they are already certifiably braindead. Let them go.

Gold was introduced as a way to help sustain server costs

Surely it was to reenforce the idea that Reddit is the online equivalent of the street corner where crazy people ramble on about nothing, with gold replicating the bystanders who toss coins into their cardboard boxes/hats out of pity?

The pub staff have to keep working to serve you.

To be fair, I’m quite happy to pour my own beer.