Feb 29th. I'm 7 now.

j/k

Liberal in the traditional sense, as in, believing in liberty, I'm being technical. Not meaning "leftist" the way the word has been rebranded by right-leaners. So, their adoption of "no rules" is ultra-liberal, or libertarian perhaps.

And all social consequences are social. Drawing a distinction between legal and social is arbitrary. Suffering is suffering, and employing it to control dissenting voices is fundamentally illiberal. If you can prevent certain messages from appearing on your platform, you have successfully executed a form of control.

Thus, their ultra-liberty is an illusion. It's not real.

Sure. Go over into 4chan and try any behavior they would describe as "white knighting" or "simping". You will rapidly experience some social consequences intended to dissuade that behavior.

So, I'm not a woman, nor am I overly feminine, and I still call out toxic bullshit when I see it. If you want to say the problem is women/feminists though, fine whatever, if we cleaned up our own shit first, we might be able to make that stick. But when we're bastards and they're bitches, and we complain, we're kinda the fucked up ones, y'know? Since we were supposed to be strong in the first place.

Unless you just think life is shit and everyone should get used to it. Then, just move to Russia or something, for everyone's sake.

So, spaces that encourage toxic masculinity do exist, and they are fully aware of their ruination. See: 4chan.org.

edit: I see some of the confusion here, since 4chan is seemingly liberal, due to having no formal rules. However, that is an illusion. A man is not actually free to say anything they like without consequences there. It's just that the norms will be enforced by the community, instead of any kind of authority. This is not actual liberty and freedom, simply indoctrination cloaked in an illusion of freedom.

Real freedom would allow a man to express something like sympathy, or being against gamergate, and express that opinion in peace. The reality of such spaces does not actually permit this.

It seems liberal and free, but in effect it is not. This is similar to how Trump seems to be strong sometimes, but in reality is weak and cowardly. Toxic masculinity loves its illusions.

Liberal, as in, believing in liberty. Freedom. How many mens spaces do you know of, where a man is completely free to open up, with full liberty and freedom from immediate consequences, about feelings they may have inside of them?

There's actually not a lot. It's a reflection of masculine indoctrination, where men in many places are made to feel like they almost need to be ready to become a soldier at any moment. Guarded, careful. It's no good, unless your country is actually at war.

Just out of curiosity, what's the advantage to them having their account on the same Instance as the community?

We do not "know" one is true. This is exactly what blind faith is.

I can admit when I do not know something, I have admitted that I do not (and cannot) know the truth of if Stalin attempted to resign or not. He may have, he may not have. I do not know, but it sounds suspicious. I am not the one with the problem admitting ignorance though. I simply do not share your faith in the source.

A possibility does not require evidence. It is a "could be", a hypothetical proposition. I do not need evidence an undiscovered planet lies in the Oort Cloud of our solar system to wonder if it is possible for one to exist there.

If one cannot admit a possibility and can only come up with excuses for why, then what you are dealing with is faith, the same thing within people that creates religions. It's how people can read the Bible or Koran and simply believe it, while being unable to admit the possibility it could be false.

When someone has faith like this, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, as their faith blinds them to certain possibilities. This is why I do not think I can get through to you, unfortunately. It's just like someone saying "I need evidence for why the bible is false."

So, you cannot admit even the possibility it could be false.

This is faith, no different from religion. I do not think I can get through to you.

That evidence was collected by people, and can be falsified. If it had all been gathered by one group, that would be a problem. The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.

Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?

You asked, why didn't he? I'm saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might've tried, or he might've not. It's not a question of which side says what, it's the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.

We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.

I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.

Again, that is not fact. You can't just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn't a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.

We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.