Comments by "Charlie Kahn" (@charliekahn4205) on "ContraPoints" channel.

  1. 111
  2. 100
  3. 67
  4. 55
  5. 43
  6. 43
  7. 41
  8. 19
  9. 18
  10. 17
  11. 17
  12. 14
  13. 14
  14. 14
  15. 10
  16. 10
  17. 10
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. Personally I feel like there's another component here, which was essentially glossed over in this video as societal/psychosomatic. I hereby propose Supplementary Postulate 2a: The Real Component. It is a well-known fact that (Postulate 2a-i) any sort of hurtful stereotype, expectation, or assumption that gains a large following is able to gain that following because some see in it a kernel of truth, and in fact, the targets of this hateful thinking may in themselves find some modicum of the claims these judgements make. This is especially evident in cases where the "othered" group is significantly biologically different from the "main" group, to the point that it could affect behavioral patterns. This pattern of thinking has been explored in countless works of fiction and nonfiction, to the point where it is even emphasized in content which young children can understand, such as the 2001 feature film Shrek. It would therefore logically make sense that the assumption of virulence that accompanies the male form would incidentally be compounded within the mind of a man by the results of said man's personal introspection of his subconscious, as a result of the, due to our current circumstances, rightful, problematicization of heterosexual masculine thinking. Upon hearing the stories of hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of women who have had traumatic experiences with the actions of men, he may decide to, in other words, take a look inside himself, and find, lurking beneath the surface, that same potential for violence, forceful sexuality, and mindless impulse, that they know has been the cause of the trauma of billions over the centuries. Alluding to the aforementioned Shrek, the ogre will be hounded and feared by the villagers to the point where the ogre resorts to the very thing those villagers fear, in order to survive, and loathes themselves for it. It would make sense that a man, seeing in himself that little seed of truth in what others fear him to be, may in turn retreat into self-loathing and self-repression in the same way that Shrek isolates himself from society. In order to continue logically, this train of thought requires input on human internal morality and intention. However, that is not the topic being discussed as of now, and it has been explored countless times before. So in order to continue logically, I am going to assume that the overwhelming majority of humans have, at their core, some good intentions for their fellow humans, and wish the best for the people they know (that is, until some sort of stress overload causes them to abandon this notion and become a cynic). With that out of the way, assuming that most young men, at this phase in life, generally want to do good for others, knowing that they have, deep within themselves, the potential, nay, the instinct, to commit savage acts against the ones they love, in the name of perverse satisfaction, having been told this throughout their lives and also seeing it within themselves, would naturally set them to at least begin trodding along one logical path, which has one conclusion: that they are, deep down, monsters, and must keep their impulses completely repressed to keep others safe. This logical chain applies not only to sexual immorality, but, I theorize, to all preemptive assumptions which have the effect of making their target seem a danger. For instance, a man, knowing that men have the potential to easily overpower women, may see that latent physical potential in himself, and thus seek to never raise a finger. This phenomenon, which I dub the Reflective Warrant Effect, is, per my theory, the cause of the social, emotional, and physical repression, not to mention competition, redirection, and seclusion, that together make up what we know as the masculine cultural pattern. This unwritten code dictates that due to men's innate physical potential, men must never be emotional, angry, or violent, except as a last resort, in order to prevent harm to others. It then goes without saying that this repression, which many men see as necessary in order for society to function, will eventually take a toll on the repressed party's mental health, leading them to seek new means of self-gratification, backpedaling into violence and objectification. In conclusion, it is not only societal norms of masculinity which leads to the distress of young straight men, but also the real component that they see within themselves; it is not possible for this outcome to be reached with just one or the other. EDIT: This analysis may be slightly skewed by personal philosophical experience, as I may myself just be feeling guilty about my own subconscious. I don't know if it's a male thing or a teen thing but it's making me feel like I'm a danger to society please help.
    1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1