@Typo-MAGAshiv Theroux is not actually that bad. Yes he is a liberal but he did make some more sensitive stuff in the past. I think this time Netflix commissioned a credible liberal known for interviewing outsiders to do a hatchet job on the manosphere. They wanted a hatchet job and they needed someone to give it some credibility. Theroux is definitely one of them -a liberal metropolitan muppet and he had some credibility as an authority in the field. I feel they used him badly.

What I find hilarious is how the liberals marked their own homework on this. Check out Wikipedia's reviews of the documentary. They don't say "He found some easy and quite obnoxious targets who were not representative of the manosphere and took some easy shots at them. A more representative sample of men interviewed and an attempt to understand why the men feel the way they do might have worked better with Theroux's empathic style of interviewing would improved it considerably". Instead they say "not enough women, not enough push back on the manosphere."

Anyone on here know how to add to wikipedia or change parts of it?

"Initial reception of Inside the Manosphere was mixed. Some commentators criticised the lack of female voices in the documentary and felt that it did not break any new ground in coverage of the manosphere. Others said that it was essential viewing for anyone unaware of the pervasiveness of manosphere content online and its direct link to misogyny.[10]

Adam White of The Independent labelled the documentary a "failure" by virtue of its subject matter, since Theroux's "methods of gentle, observational needling prove no match for an online culture defined by its apathetic immorality". The review stated that Theroux's attempts to intellectualise his interviewees' views and point out their hypocrisies mean little for a sub-culture which "positions personal financial gain above all else". For White, the documentary's ultimate failure is that it contributes to that gain, providing "maximum exposure to individuals who consider any kind of attention a win. It leaves a bitter, nasty taste in the mouth".[11]

Lucy Mangan, writing for The Guardian, similarly criticised Theroux's typical documentary technique as incompatible for a manosphere focus: "the silent supposed bafflement and dependence on giving people enough rope to hang themselves, which are such a large part of his arsenal, look like increasingly feeble weapons when the matters are of such increasing importance in all of our lives". Mangan noted further that the appearances of the women in the featured creators' lives were "potentially very interesting" and something Theroux should have pursued further. His alternative focus on the men's childhoods, for Mangan, "begins to seem a lot like excuse-hunting instead of an interrogation" of their views. Mangan also stated that Theroux was "a bit late to the party", with so many other manosphere documentaries already available, and questioned whether a documentary on this theme fronted by a woman "might yield something new".[12]

Annabel Hoare's review for The Conversation aligned with White's view that the documentary amplified the profiles of manosphere creators without providing appropriate pushback to their views. For Hoare, "the danger is that viewers may come away with a clear understanding of the style and aspirations of the manosphere. But they are left in the dark as to its harmful effects both to young men and women – and how this harm occurs"."

@Bozza I think that socialist and capitalist are really a bit 20th century. They were part of a class struggle that is over now. The socialists largely won the moral argument and their views became the accepted moral views of the establishment. This was not because they were right about notions of universal equality but in fact was because they stood for the working man who was the crucial foundation of capitalist prosperity.

Capitalism did not work without the worker and so it was fair that the worker was compensated. Then socialism got on top and the doctrine of universal equality took it to places its founders had never imagined. Socialism tried to make people who were not contributors equal to those who were, it even tried to make those who were not in the group equal to those in the group. Socialists were now burdening the worker, the contributor, unfairly not rewarding him. The worker was returning to where he started -working for the big state and not seeing a fair share.

Mean time there was an computer revolution. Less skilled jobs were being mechanised, some middle class gate keeper jobs were also under threat. The world that gave socialism its power is crumbling.

Something new is needed.

@Kloi Hope the eye is OK. I hate eye injuries too. I know how worrying it is wondering if you might have done something permanent.

On the plus side, so long as its not in the centre of vision, its usually no problem even if it does scar and eyes heal really fast.

Last time I hurt my eye it was working for a madly selfish old woman who I swear sent her husband to an early grave. He was a a true blue pill saint saint. We would never have taken her on to start had she been on her own but it was hard to refuse to go to her when she was widowed. Anyway I was standing there with blood actually coming out of my eyeball and the white of it had gone completely red. (First time its ever done that). "Sorry I have to go to the hospital now, I have evidently cut my eyeball." "But you can't. I was expecting you to do the job today!" "The job is outside. It is cosmetic not essential. It is winter. You do not even go outside in winter and I have hurt my eye. I am sorry but I am going to the hospital" She did apologise when we went back to finish the job but really! I just can't imagine a man saying something like that.

@Bozza I think both countries have systems that are close to failing the normal people. The west is due a reset. I may not be pretty when it happens.

AI in prescribing is scary. Not so much because it may mess up -it will soon be better statistically than a human and that should reduce one smug set of the liberal middle class. What worries me is who will be funding the AI development? -large companies, probably already in healthcare. They need to see a return from it and they will have an unconscious (or conscious) bias towards money -either cost saving or revenue generating for pharmaceutical companies.

Our health is not a product or a component but it is an essential component and product of the current model where all the research is done by big companies. You can't patent health or the natural things one might eat and do to promote health, so these things are barely on the radar of the companies.

Britain got its NHS at the wrong moment in a fit of optimism. It has become like so many nationlised things amazingly inefficient. You want to see your GP about a problem. To do this you know you must phone the surgery at 8.00 am. You are actually starting work at 8.00 or driving to work but you know that if you call at 8.03, all the appointment swill be allocated. So you screw your clients about or drive distractedly and probably illegally trying to toggle the keypad options the surgery give you just to get in the god cursed queue to see if you get an appointment. Good news, second day of trying you score an appointment! woo hoo!

Your GP, who statistically is a woman who works a 2 or 3 day week because why would a well paid woman who has a happy middle class life and a rich husband want to work more than 3 days? This means you may wait a bit to see her and you will probably have to take the morning off work to do so because she wants to work when everyone else works and to be home to make avacado salad to go with the dinner her husband will cook, before she must take Tarquin to his piano lesson.

GP taps her keyboard and computer says "yes" "Ah Mr Bozza, you need to be referred" Then she writes (yes well into the 21st century she writes to the local hospital). They then write back to you and her to give you an appointment. At least this keeps the ailing Royal Mail in work (if they deliver it in time for you to read it before the day of course). You take another day off work to go to the appointment "Thank you Mr Bozza, we will send the results to your GP" You fight the 8.00 scramble to make a third appointment to see your GP "Ah Mr Bozza, good news, all clear on the tests from the hospital, lets try a different drug/ different hospital department" and so on. You are 6 weeks down the line. You have missed 3 days of work and you have a prescription for a different drug but you are not actually any weller.

The NHS in Britain is a self greasing machine to devour tax revenue. It works very well by the time you are unable to work and are on benefits or have stage 4 cancer. Then you can miss as many work days a you like but probably they will see you at once by then. They have prioritised those people as really needing care. They never prioritised health when it actually mattered, only the care of the very sick. The rest of your life they just ate your tax. Imagine if women could easily get free appointments in this system. They burden the current system as it is but if you cut out the faff, some women would be there weekly.