Thanks to @doctorow.pluralistic.net, I learned a new word today: schismogenesis.

It describes the phenomenon where a group is created out of opposition to a thing. The group's entire purpose and identity are set on antagonism, forsaking all reason or merit.

Is this the word of the century? Maybe.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the manosphere is sparking a new crisis in mental health. These guys keep inventing new kinds of hierarchies that they -- and their audiences -- have to measure themselves against, and (pretend to) be superior in.

It's absolutely disastrous for mental health.

Words mean things. Except for "political" -- that word means anything.

The strategy is already being manufactured to scapegoat the current president for everything. And truly, he does hold the highest responsibility for all of it.

But the system is gearing up to continue business-as-usual with whomever is next, and that's a grave problem.

"I didn't vote for this."

Voting is the way you delegate your power to a person. You give them authority and permission to express their priorities and character. That is why voting is so serious.

The USA desperately needs grassroots-level education about what democracy means, and how it works.

Not exactly sure which of these is the "one other thing" -- it looks like most of it qualifies...?

That was *exactly* the thought I had. Right up to and including the "never mind" bit.

Hopefully celebrities, especially celebrity comedians, who don't yet understand that impact is more important than intent will soon have an earth-shaking epiphany.

You don't get to pour blood in the ocean and then act surprised when all the sharks show up.

When I was a lot younger, I remember reading fashion and lifestyle magazines aimed at men, noticing that they were just as prescriptive as the women's magazines, and I had so much power in being able to ignore all their smug opinioneering.

Too many young men have not experienced that power. Yet.

The manosphere's declaration of dominance is happening in lock step with rising masculine insecurity; (especially young) men don't feel the connection/disconnect here.

The influence industry works like addiction.

True freedom, true power, is being able to ignore any and all influencers at will.

It is embarrassing for them. Whether or not they realise it is another matter entirely.

It's a surprise and a relief to me that MAGA is standing up against this. It means that they're not as indoctrinated as they have appeared to be for the past decade.

It means that there are limits...somewhere. Not anywhere close to where they should be, but somewhere is better than the alternative.

Almost every time I've seen "amoral" used recently, "immoral" would have been more appropriate.

When facing evil, neutrality doesn't exist.

If he had been a whole lot more private, he might be able to pull that off.

I haven't once regretted turning off autoplay for gifs and videos on here.

I want this to be my default everywhere -- a small way to reclaim my attention.

It truly seems like all of that is changing now.

At every scale, US solidarity has been cobbled together out of every scrap of antagonism it can monetise.

This bewilderingly powerful country has spent decades casting the myth that it is the moral centre of the world. The world has always known better, but needed to play along for money and power.

When you start seeing that US politics has unlimited time, energy and money for making people's lives worse, you can't stop seeing it.

The country can't get its collective head around (for example) healthcare because that's about improving things, and that goes against the grain.

All the people taking victory lap after victory lap over a government loudly and proudly declaring its value in christianity while it actively corrodes all the actual value of Christianity should physically feel how this stains them.

Their loss of public credibility is incalculable.

The people most responsible for a particular form of discrimination are also the loudest in insisting that no-one make a big deal about that particular form of discrimination.

It's so common, that it's pretty safe to assume the former is true whenever we see the latter.

Every political issue is also an emotional issue. Trying to separate logic and emotion is a fool's errand.

The current "resurgence" of stoicism suggests that we're entering a new time of logic and reason. In reality, stoicism has already failed us. Badly. We need not fall for it again.

This point is crucial, and still far too often overlooked.

Even when there are actual people with actual feelings involved, it's worth keeping in mind that it's possible the controversy in question was initiated -- and is fuelled -- by bot swarms.

This works as both self-fulfilling prophecy and signifier.

If you're seeking to build solidarity, avoid the chronically aloof, detached and disassociated.

Look for the people whose passion is fuelled by experience. Look for the people who believe in change because they've seen it; they've felt it.

Here's my observation: People who believe that boycotts and other forms of social #activism are effective are more likely to be highly invested in the matter at hand.

People who aren't convinced are generally less connected to the matter.

In other words, it's an extension of egocentrism. #apathy

I just started playing this, and everything else in my life needs to shut up and listen!

I think advertising has taken a real turn recently. It's always targetted the overtly gullible, but I've seen a shift toward ads that are joyless, sarcastic and demeaning recently.

With all their focus groups and media anaysis, I have to believe that this is a working strategy.

That's plain weird.

It's a low-res image, but it looks like a wrap to me.

"When in doubt, any pithy, halfway-intelligent statement can be attributed to Mark Twain."

-- Mark Twain

Have the "it's only $3M, that's nothing" people never heard of lawyers?

Social media companies are way overdue for this comeuppance, the way they've harmed individuals and the common good, and they have unbelievable amounts of money.

Litigating them could very well be this generation's gold rush.

I detest subscription pricing in general, but especially the deceptive trick of "$40/month billed annually" needs to die.

That is a yearly cost; name it as such. It's not a surprise. It's what the amount on the bill is going to be. Trying to be sneaky about it is just messing up credibility.