I am speculating that all the ridiculing and questioning Mark Zuckerberg’s masculinity over the years made him so insecure that he turned to the manosphere. We only have ourselves to blame.
I have only seen him be referred as a robot, which is fucked up to robots.
Lizards too
He’s just sucking up to the people currently in charge, that is all this is
This kind of thing is an interesting topic. Obviously Zuck is a shit bag but that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m not one to say that men are being repressed or that masculinity is under attack, although I do think elements of both of those things are true if the statements are interpreted in a generous fashion. I’ve found that people will accept the general statement that men have problems but talking about men’s issues in any detail is usually met with scorn. You can say “men have problems like everybody else” and that’s generally tolerated but if you say “X Y or Z is a problem for men” then all of a sudden you’re misogynistic or otherwise associating yourself with team white male privilege. I see this happen essentially every time the topic comes up. The vibe seems to be “we’re dealing with everyone else’s problems so we don’t have time to listen to your complaints”.
People like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate have made a career out of listening to those problems. They offer shitty solutions and horrible explanations but they’re paying attention and in return they get views from people who don’t feel like anyone else is. There are a lot of guys out there doing their best to be good people who need to feel like their problems matter to society. You don’t have to abandon the things that are important to you to listen to them. Just commiserate a bit and a lot of them will be happy to listen to your problems in return. That’s how empathy is supposed to work.
I cannot think of a bigger cuck move than bending over to court bad faith actors and suckling at king maga’s sweaty little man nipples for $$
You’re on a website where people come out of the woodwork to defend “ethical polyamory” and the biggest cuck you can think of is a CEO trying to curry political favor with the current US president?
…, Being poly doesn’t make you a cuck
I hate everything about this comment, but you’re not wrong.
deleted by creator
You have to eat it to gain its power!
The gender identity of your work places energy is not the damn problem. Raise the damn pay. People will work in a sewer if you paid enough.
People working in a sewer should be paid the most.
I think meta pays pretty well
He doesn’t even give off “human” energy.
Does he even give off heat?
I mean yeah he needs to cool his personality emulation chip somehow
He does when his cpu starts to overheat.
I hate this, because the idea comes from Hermetic spirituality, but from a very cherry picked version of it that basically says “Be as shitty a person as you want, give into your natural inclinations and vices”
I know because I’ve seen this A LOT!
Because the actual Seventh Principle of Hermeticism does not say to do this, it actually says to balance the masculine and feminine within yourself to acknowledge both as being geniunely within you. It also encourages that the two shouldn’t be seen as opposites but rather two endpoints on a vast spectrum, the same way we see hot and cold.
But sadly too many “Gurus” somehow warped this into
“Reject femininity, see it as weakness, and be a massive chauvinistic asshole.”
When that couldn’t be further from what it’s saying.
So I watched the entire three hour interview.
Technically speaking, Zuckerberg emphasizes the need for balance. He on multiple times either emphasizes that both men and women should feel comfortable in corporate environments, and explicitly says something like “there has to be a balance” on at least two occasions.
The issue is that other parts of the interview don’t really match that idea of balance. Zuckerberg and Rogan spent like a third of the entire interview talking about bro culture stuff. I’m not even talking about “bro culture in the context of corporate America”. Rogan spends like a full ten minutes lecturing Zuckerberg on the proper way to bow hunt.
Overall I think the media is focusing outrage bait while ignoring the serious implications of the interview. Zuckerberg is clearly lobbying the Trump administration to prevent meta and other US tech companies from being subject to EU regulatory security. It has serious implications both as a consumer and in terms of geopolitics.
I really wish CEOs would stop and ask “If I wasn’t the CEO, would I want this regulation to exist?”
But that requires them to have empathy.
I hate outrage bait, as you pointed out it makes us blind to the REAL danger, which is… Zuckerberg trying to get out of playing by the rules.
I agree. Ironically he also went on a bit of a rant about how the traditional media outlets whittle down interviews to the most salacious bits, and that’s part of the reason the American public is slowly losing trust in them.
While the reason for him saying this is to discredit his previous perception as robotic, he’s also not wrong. All the articles I read “highlighting” the interview hyper focused on a few lines, and in doing so left and incomplete or dishonest impression.
Maybe, but he’s damn sure cucked. Dude 100% has a chair in the corner of his bedroom facing the bed.
It fits his whole revamp with the judo and working out and human haircut. I assume in the near future he’ll go on Rogan and then end up launching a podcast of his own.
He was on Joe Rogan a week or two ago
That’s a bingo!
I believe “shirtless photo on horseback” might be the next stage.
What a fucking joke, he wouldn’t know masculine energy if it roughly penetrated him from behind whilst lovingly whispering in his ear what a good boy he was.
The fact that a load of billionaires are now embracing the far right to protect their arses sure seems like a familiar theme.
It’s crazy that they could lose 90% of everything and still have more than 99.999% of the population of the planet, yet they keep fighting to make sure they have more and more and even more.
“To speak of ‘limits to growth’ under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society.”
- Murray Bookchin
I think the mistake here is thinking it’s about “things” or material objects. Most people interface with money at a basic level: you can buy a new jacket, reliable car, a sizeable home, etc. However, at the level that you are with these billionaires, it’s no longer about having things or owning things. It’s about having more power to do things.
For example, there’s are some fun little calculators where you can calculate all the things that some could spend their money on https://neal.fun/spend/ https://www.spend-elon-fortune.com/
At this point it’s an imperialist kind of mindset, where you want to own multiple corporations, properties, and show it off to your wealthy colleagues that you are the best at X. It’s probably not unlike how professional athletes will destroy their bodies with steroids to become the best in the world, just the negatives are externalized.
It’s a mental illness. They have to have more power, if not money…
Can anyone who upvoted this explain what’s actually wrong with Zuck’s comment?
"Masculine energy I think is good, and obviously society has plenty of that, but I think that corporate culture was really trying to get away from it […] It’s like you want feminine energy, you want masculine energy […] I think that that’s all good. But I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung toward being this somewhat more neutered thing,
Its ironic because theyre trying to project masculinity without doing anything worth a fuck. If zuck wanted respect he would have done something beneficial with his position like a real man.
It has the vibes of run-of-the-mill toxic masculinity trying to categorize behaviors based on gender and then make it subtly clear that only the masculine category is good and acceptable, or in his words, not “neutered”.
Or at least that’s how understand the outrage but it doesn’t mean that’s exactly what he’s saying because his statement is plausibly deniable. He needs to clarify (but does he really, given his latest activity around prez Musk & Co.?).
It’s nonsense.
Ok but you can’t explain what’s wrong with the comment?
It’s easy to get offended and think it’s wrong, but considering my comment is at +1/-6 yet no one has actually explained what’s wrong reinforces my belief it’s actually sensible. Something that’s obvious nonsense can be debunked with no effort, yet here we are
I’m not gonna get into it with sea lioning.
A good start would be defining what those words mean to him and to his company.
For instance, given nothing but the recent news about Meta and the quote from the OP, it sounds to me like Zuckerberg thinks “masculine energy” means “act overtly bigoted, and punch down whenever you can.”
I’m a man, and I like to act masculine in the “help those around you” way rather than the racist, napoleon complex “I am a strong boy because I offend people and I have good taste because I hate everything” way. And I don’t appreciate him putting more negativity on the word than there already was!
I think what most companies actually need is more QA energy 😅
Zuck: “we never let gender play a role in our hiring process.”
Also Zuck: “yeah, we need to hire more men.”
It’s the old “Male is normal, Female is special” logical fallacy, he only wants to hire people who’d get hired under “Normal” circumstances
I don’t think he even cares. He wants to appeal to MAGA’s bosses.
In 4 years, if Dems take back power, he will make a vibrant speech about the need for diversity and to tackle fake news.
Agreed, he’s just picking which side he thinks is currently winning the cultural war… and “Woke” being universally considered a bad thing does point to the Right winning that war, but… there are Leftist Arguments against Woke as well so not really.
(Replace the word “Woke” with “Rainbow Capitalism” and you have the Leftist Argument against it)
This is dystopia. The people in control of society pushing insane spiritualist cult mentalities to obfuscate their role in a genocidal empire.
