Cat_Hoarder0

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_it8ezxv wrote

> Not at all. He wants answers to questions that are both unanswered and irrelevant.

All he wanted to know was if the history was explored. Nothing more, nothing less. He wasn't asking about what is thematic in the book or not.

Get this. Some people are interested in the world building aspects of books, and want to know more about that part of the world.

2

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isamnue wrote

> How can you claim something to not be based on reality without even reading it?

I read the review; that was enough to determine the author wasn't arguing in good faith.

>news article based on the actions of the president?

I actually read the editorial piece that was suggested. The author is arguing based on a definition of toxic masculinity that dates back to the 80s, and not how it is used today.

> Every writer and journalist of The Atlantic is invalid and wrong, and seemingly complicit and guilty by association?

Nice strawman argument you have that. Why don't you actually argue against what I said?

16

Cat_Hoarder0 t1_isaaqgu wrote

>Reeves reviews the political discourse that’s poisoned our society the past several years. The left has vilified and turned their backs on men, and mistakenly and stupidly treated all forms of masculinity as “toxic”.

This right here is enough to tell me that this book isn't worth reading, seeing as how the author doesn't understand what toxic masculinity is.

54