[flagged]
Perhaps because your exceedingly-vague conspiracy theory is full of holes? For example:
1. Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even know, or are you just assuming somebody must be doing the thing?
2. Exactly what mechanism of foreign "grants" is being used to force the hiring of certain staff or educators, and where are they being hired?
3. What makes those individuals "demoralizing" actors, and why do you believe they have a significant effect on "young men"?
4. On what grounds can it be anything but noise, a tiny droplet in the heaving cultural ocean that is "current gender roles and expectations"?
_____
Truly nefarious foes would probably have much better results (for less money) just pumping out catchy songs with demoralizing subtext and hoping one gets popular. Heck, maybe they even spread a dogma of powerlessness by funding US Christian Radio stations, constantly telling people they are nothing without Jesus.
I've yet to encounter a scenario in the last year where filling in that blank with "Russia" wasn't considered an objective fact by most.
Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:
A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."
Believing A does not imply B.
The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
And that chance is: "probably", where "probably" means it is "basically" a fact. (Specific example: the same historic evidence of Russian trolls/hackers is regularly re-used as proof of new accusations, if any evidence is even provided that is.)
And any challenge to the claim? "Pedantic." (or: silence, highly predictable memes, insults, deflection, etc - ChatGPT would know better than me)
> Believing A does not imply B.
There are (at least) two kinds of imply (and "does not" for that matter):
- the correct, literal, logically perfect interpretation (typically (depends on the claim, of course) "pedantic" and not allowed)
- the colloquial/experiential interpretation (the right way to interpret it, that is probably correct)
> The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
What version of "is/isn't" is being used here: literal, or colloquial? :)
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/magazine/the-unbelievable...
The author had to run his book by the CCP - you get the sense this hints at an accepted strategy in the Chinese mainland. It’s an interesting read.
Also it's complete nonsense because if anything, the CPC is afraid of those trends happening:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033687586/china-ban-effemina...
I think you misunderstood something here. The links you posted affirm the premise of the book.
It’s no one’s plan but we do need to find the cause and deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine
I’ve been reading is a potential candidate. Any opinions?
> Its use was banned in the European Union in 2004
If so this should be something that's possible to control for in studies. I can't find a lot of data from Europe newer than about that date, even suitable for casual discussion.
I read Death's End, and I don't remember that.
The trilogy talks about human society ebbing and flowing between "tough" and "sensitive" over the generations. Mostly, the Trisolarans rely on the Sophon lock. With superior technology, the masculinity of your prey is totally irrelevant. And, in Death's End, everyone's in an Australian penal colony anyway.
1. Who is doing the funding?
2. How are they doing the funding?
3. What message are they spreading, and what proof do you have the message has an effect?
Calling it a conspiracy theory does not mean it is instantly wrong, but it is a correct label - the accusation is hidden (or perhaps not, apparently it's obvious) wealthy foreign funders controlling American society. If that doesn't look like a conspiracy theory (which again, does not mean it's wrong immediately!), then I don't know what you expect.
> By offering its education institutions large grants if they agree to hire the right ideologists.
Are you referring to the "Thousand Currents" program? Now referred to as United Front Work Program?