You can draft a doctor, from pool of doctors. You can't draft ATC, because there is no pool of spare ATCs. It would be like drafting air defense operators - there is no pool of them outside military.
I'm implying that Trump is the paragon manosphere avatar, and his administration is filled with little versions of him. The purpose of the entire administration is to challenge incumbent government apparatuses (it opened with DOGE which broadly did precisely that, they reoriented the DoD from defense to committing war crimes, they took over DOJ and turned it into a personal law firm for Trump, etc.) for the benefit of Trump.
The men in his cabinet like Hegseth and Kennedy try to appeal to the testosterone laden (and deficient) crowd. Women like Bondi and Noem also tried their best manosphere impression, but of course in classic manosphere fashion, both women were booted out of the cabinet first.
To the extent that the military believes, as its leader does, that they are not operating under "stupid" rules of engagement, and their purpose is "maximum lethality" with a policy of "no quarter" for adversaries, the US Military is currently a defacto manosphere army.
In your view, what would a manosphere leader legitimately challenging an incumbent government apparatus look like?
You have completely confused manosphere and far-right authoritarians in your mind.
The manosphere movement is about fighting misandry, for men's rights, and, to be a little reductionist - how to get laid easily and avoid committing resources to women. It's basically the fan club of Andrew Tate and the likes. They are not competent or resourceful enough to take control of a government.
There's an overlap in the venn diagram, sure. But it's much smaller than what you think it is.
No my friend, it is you who have the manosphere confused. Because the manosphere is not a sphere at all but a pipeline to right wing authoritarianism. It's not separate and apart from far right authoritarianism, it's what creates far right authoritarianism. It starts with the "fight misandry" and "men's rights" but it quickly leads men toward MAGA grifters. It's not a men's rights movement it's a movement that exploits vulnerable men.
> There's an overlap in the venn diagram, sure. But it's much smaller than what you think it is.
If the overlap is small, you'll have to explain why there are no major left wing manosphere personalities. Everyone on the left I know and follow who are fighting for men's rights and fighting misandry (a fight I've joined) does not consider themselves "in the manosphere".
> They are not competent or resourceful enough to take control of a government.
They definitely have resources -- more than a few billionaires were responsible for that.
But taking over the government, apparently, does not require competence. All it takes is a thirst for violence, a willingness to break the law and constitution, the backing of major corporations and the richest person in the world, and for enough good people to do nothing.
Manosphere is a symptom, not a problem. And manosphere is a boogie-man nothing burger that has no leverage over men, since it's co-opted by grifters and scammers trying selling you courses. There's no actual "leader" there that men recognize.
Manosphere is perfect breeding ground for your own private army since a neolith. Currently manosphere is abused by grifters, but put there somebody with ideology who actually wants to do as much damage as possible, pool money together and you have terrorist training camp.
And just to be clear, it really does not matter what ideology you will wrap your targets into.
Some of those that you'd call grifters are actually seen as leaders by those who claim to be in the movement. That's the problem. If they admit it or not, that's besides the point - if young men look to the likes of Andrew Tate or Clavicular as thought leaders, then they look to them as thought leaders and thus said actors are leaders if they want to be or not.
It's similar to how some athletes are viewed as role models even if they outright tell people "I'm not a role model, I just happen to be good at a sport".
The problem is that it became really hard to lead society into a war. See support for Iran war. It started basically on zero and kept cratering.
Now you want to lead these males to die in war, while they are fully aware of what you are doing? At best you will get dysfunctional army fragging itself constantly. At worst you will trigger unrest because males would rather should they have an agency than be sacrificed as cattle.
Which will likely be immediately called out as so. See recently (few days ago) when Orban's goons put explosives on gas pipes in Serbia going towards Hungary and then loudly blaming Ukraine.
Everybody immediately knew that this would make no sense for Ukraine to do that - i.e. Why would they just plant explosives to be found, when they would blow it up on spot if they really wanted?. Whole thing kind of fizzled out because nobody took the bait.
Unions are reaction on bad conditions in workplace. Europeans aggressive busting unions in 19th century effectively went to Marx writing Capital and Lenin building communist empire which you have known as USSR. Continue with this rhetoric and experience communist revolution by people having nothing to lose.
UK and immigration is actually very bipolar affair. They don't want to live without migrant labor but they dislike migrants so much. And they persistently do nothing about migration or are actually encouraging it.
While they were in EU, Home Office always had a tool to deport EU migrants - if person from EU is not self reliant after 3 months since coming to the country, EU law allows the host country to kick such person out. Home office never did anything and did not wanted you to register yourself.
And then they committed Brexit instead of applying 3 months rule.
After Brexit UK started rapidly importing migrants from South East Asia. And I expect that Home office will do nothing about these migrants as well.
This British ICE is pointless because Home office already have all the tools necessary, they just don't want to use them, because UK economy is reliant on cheap migrant labor.
Because IPv4 is logical and makes sense. First thing which IPv6 came up with? No NATs everything will have a public address. It turned out that this was hare brained idea so let's just cover it up with firewall. However misconfigured firewall means that everything is open... IPv6 has been designed by people who were unable to think further than what is going to be tomorrow for a lunch.
IPv4 came out in 1982 and was designed for every device to have a unique public address. Protocols like FTP were designed to literally pass an IP address to connect directly to.
As addresses started running out, the NAT RFC was published in 1994 and described NAT as a "short-term solution". NAT was never meant to be an integral part of IPv4. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1631
NAT broke a ton of things which required more and more hacks piled on, making it more complex to build services on top if it (e.g., a server in the middle to proxy all the traffic needed between peers is a 100% requirement, with all the maintenance and scaling headaches that come with it).
So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with. It was stupid on IPv4 and it remain stupid on IPv6, yet we already have experience from IPv4 that it was stupid.
> So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with.
If an address is not public how can you start an connection from it, or end a connection at it? A web server needs a public address if you want to have people reach it. And you, at some point, also have to have a public address if you want to connect to pubic services: either on your end-host, at your CPE/router's WAN interface, or on an interface of your ISP's CG-NAT box.
But having a public address on your end-host also allows for much more functionality than if you were stuck behind CPE-NAT or CG-NAT. Now, you don't have to use this functionality—just like how I didn't when my printer gets an publicly addressable (but not publicly reachable) IPv6 address—but it opens up various possibilities.
Well, actually it will. In fact, even correctly configured NAT won't stop connections into your network.
On top of that, it lulls you into a false sense of security, so you confidently think it's protecting you even when it isn't. At least not having NAT makes the actual state of your network clearer.
Port forwarding requires a port forward rule that matches the inbound connection. If there's no such rule... NAT won't stop the connection, it will just ignore it.
If no other aspect of your setup blocks the connection, it'll be successful. If you were deploying NAT because you thought it would function as a firewall then this part is probably not intentional.
Isn't that the first thing that IPv4 came up with as well? One publicly routable address per device that wants to access the Internet (or the network of universities or military installations or whichever network you were on pre-Internet).
You see and IPv6 was not able to learn from the failure - people does not want to have all computers in one network, same like people does not want to live in one skyscraper.
Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6. If IPv6 and IPv4 would be essentially the same from the get go, IPv4 would be a niche 20 years.
Sure everything above IPv6 have, but it took years and years of screaming to get it.
> Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6.
All of those things exist in IPv6.
And it is physically impossible for DNS to be the same, as you have to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.
reply