(We’re all gonna get super downvoted anyway)

I’m not sure where you got your definition of fascism, but I think the more formal definitions of it would say otherwise. But! Your definition, I think, is more in-line with how we use that word in the modern times. So, I’ll stick with it.

I think the left side fascism is lot harder to spot whereas the right side fascism is very obvious.

The extreme rights literally go around waving the nazi flag. They’re obvious fascists.

The extreme left has a different approach to fascism. They’re like, “Oh what you say is offensive, and it’s not nice. You need to be nicer and say these things. You’re hurting people’s feelings.” But by doing that, they’re effectively taking away speech and enforcing their world views on others. They’re just as intolerant of opposing views and will happily snuff them out. The cancel culture that has become the main weapon of the extreme left is most certainly fascism.

I also don’t believe extreme left are for being actually nice, they only want to push their specific agendas in a fascistic manner since they happily ignore other marginalized population and will even make fun of them. They are not nice people. For example a straight white man (which I am not) could be struggling to live for any reason. Could be illness, could be abused, anything really. But just because he is in the category of the straight white man, they’ll just insult him and how he deserves what happened to him, all the while ignoring everything else about him. He isn’t the oppressor, he isn’t the one who did wrong. Does it matter? No. That’s prejudice. And no one will defend those people, because if you do, you’re also not a nice person and must be cancelled. Guess which group does defend them? The extreme right. I wonder which side he’ll pick then.

Edit: Grammar

That’s exactly why I also bought a gaming chair at first. But eventually got the $1200 chair and the expensive office chair is clearly better. But at $400, I would agree some brands of gaming chair offer good solution for the same price.

I agree with all your points. I didn’t intend to imply that dating apps are the only at fault, merely the one that came to my head after reading OPs post.

Slightly in tangent. But I think problem of finding a partner these days is that most of it now happens online, though dating apps. And they are a breeding ground of the most shallow and judgemental viewpoints in human history.

I forget the exact statistics, but according to some dating app, men swipe “yes” to like 60-something percent of the women. Women on the other hand swipe yes to like 4%. At a glance, while that does have a large disparity, you just think… Oh, women are more selective. And I think that’s fine and they should be. But problem is that all other women are selecting the same guys. So the top tier men, whether in looks, height and/or wealth are banging 100s of women. While the bottom majority of men are never getting any matches. From the woman’s perspective, every man they date is a cheater. That’s obvious, these guys have girls lined up as far as the eye can see. They have zero reason to settle with you. From majority of the men’s perspective, they never get any matches or get constantly ghosted and get angry. Majority of men don’t cheat, frankly they don’t even have the opportunity to cheat.

Men get angry at incredibly high standard of women which keep rising since women doesn’t have problem sleeping with men higher in social ladder, albeit briefly. And women get angry at incredibly high number of guys who are just there for sex and have no interest in you as a person.

In real life, you see people first, build an understanding about them and start consider dating. If you know that guy is a cheater, a woman wouldn’t pick them. A guy could go up and get to know them instead in dating app world where seemingly every woman ghosts you.

I think dating apps are ruining the “finding a partner” problem.

I’m sorry to hear that you’ve faced hardship. But if you don’t learn to feel empathy towards others, you’re going to continue to live in hate. Your continued hate towards men and men’s issues are not going to make you a better person and you will die alone. And you might be fine with that. Your pedophile father is not a men’s health issue. He’s just a shithead. Your CEO sexually assaulting you is not a men’s health issue. He’s just a shithead. Everyone dislikes them. Men and women.

Also, people are learning. The result of that learning is people learned to stop interacting with the other gender more. Men just don’t talk to women anymore on workplaces for fear of backlash. And if there are very small number of women is said workspace, they feel isolated because men don’t want to deal with potential behavior like yours. More and more people are just choosing to be single from both genders.

The fact that there is asymmetry in genders will always exist. And frankly, I don’t think there can be complete equality, I think that’s neither attainable or desirable. Are we going to start demanding 50% of construction workers need to be women too? Are we going to try to have 50% quota of people in prison be a woman? That’s insane, right? The best we can do is to empathize as much as possible with all other humans and understand both men’s issues and women’s issues. Validating a men’s issue doesn’t devalue a women’s. You are being an unempathatic whataboutist because you feel your issues are more important to you. We are not saying your problems didn’t exist nor should we not try to do our best to solve future issues of that nature. All problems should be fixed the best we can.

If you can’t empathize with men’s problems. The men who face these issues will refuse to empathize with women’s problems. That’s how relationships between any sets work. It’s a two way street. You’re working to create a segregated sets instead of trying to find the middle ground. You’re actually directly working against your own goals by being like this.

He’s not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:

Claim: We don’t need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.

Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.

This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.

Here is an example of whataboutism.

Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He’s even more wrong!

This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They’re both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden’s incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.

It’s also possible person2 could’ve said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!

It’s easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words “what about”, and it is done so commonly. That’s why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.

A person3 could say: What about 3?

This is not whataboutism. He’s showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like “what about 2?” It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.

Edit: Grammar

This isn’t whataboutism. Whataboutism isn’t about using the words “what about”, it’s about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It’s a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.

The person you’re responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I’m not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.

I love adding kelp to any seafood based ramen.

Eggs pairs very well with anything that has drawing of egg on the bag. Basically, adding more of what ever is drawn on the bag seem to be a very solid pairing choice.

Pet friendly hotels aren’t even more expensive. There’s one that’s pet friendly hotel I went to half dozen times for work just because it was good value, and I wasn’t even bringing any pets.