Monday, March 9, 2026

My Adventures with Superman is ...a whole lotta wholesome nothing burger, mediocre (for now, hopefully) *2023*

99% of this is originally posted from 2023:


"I was curious at first. But now it's here, and it was:n't it.

It's the lite version of Invincible x New 52 Superman comics (which is where some of the inspiration for the show came from)

rich text editor image

Wasn't dogshit, let's get that out the way, it's only 2 episodes so far.

It means well, the execution/ order of events of the origin /how the show so far is written, are the biggest agitations for me.

EP1-2

  • Decent animation…✅
  • Jack Quaid works in some scenes, but others, he doesn't. But he's not a bad choice for Clark specifically, he's decent. I need to hear him as Superman when in rage, or a very dire situation with a rival.
  • LOIS-Chan, an aged up Luz Noceda + Genki Anime caricature = Lois parody/ She's underwhelming, bland
rich text editor image
  • Music is very underwhelming 90% of the time

Yet the music during the Jor-El scene EP2 was cool✅ Sounded creepy as fuck

  • The dialogue feels off✅ too current gen
  • How he got the suit is too rushed
  • Ma & Pa Kent✅ Ma Kent being chunky was a RANDOM design choice, but it's been done in the lore before and it reminds me of Inko (aka best mom), heavy built mums are cute sometimes. Realistic. I like that Martha is involved in Clark's discoveries also.
  • Clark doesn't have a grip on his powers, knows how dangerous he is, but goes to the city anyway. Odd.
  • Lois & Clark just have the hots immediately because, "purdy". They're cute, but it's shallow. Better to have an actual relationship first before jumping straight to that, forming respect, takes too long, too old fashioned but it works.
  • Jimmy, "James" is black for some reason. A conspiracy nerd, and that's his entire character. so far.
  • Perry White, is black, for some reason. Zero energy, just a lump of jadedness. Fine, whatever.
  • The comedy is well paced, sometimes, other times it's cringe. Sometimes very fasted paced, very modernized.

Snarky "lawl" humor, characters talking a lot but not really saying shit. Again, dialogue is very modern, thus very centered around being ironic, or overtly clever in some way, and it's forced.

Like a boomer trying to write "young people talk."
  • The villain is severely underwhelming, an alternate take on Livewire. Not impressed so far, she's not interesting at all.
  • Very little background characters on some settings, just empty husks of a city at times, DCAMU had the same issue, but the characters are just static cutouts. Budget limits. Looks odd in a city, but then in EP2 there's people around during Leslie's meetup sequence.
rich text editor image
  • The plot itself is standard, doesn't really kick off anything interesting, just The Animated Series Episode 2-3 again but more rushed. Except these kids have something to prove Scooby Doo adventures with the Lois-Chan squad
Not a fan of "slice of boring" anime. Unless it's unique like Usagi-Drop

The best praises I can give this show's first 2 episodes are:

SOME of the animation is ok, most of the character designs are dogshit, the sfx are sometimes good, then it's lacking in some scenes.

The Kryptonian Technology having an ancient vibe to it is cool, and I like that Jor-El isn't immediately speaking English. Makes him seem otherwordly.

As does the mysterious Bio-Boost (Superman Blue) effect this particular Superman has when his eyes glow and he activates some kind of augmentation power.

  • Can't wait to see what that's about.

Jor-El looking rugged is actually something i really, really liked.

rich text editor image

My biggest issue, is the handling of the introduction to Clark and the show's decisions regarding what exactly Episode 1 was and did in execution.

Again, The Superman Blue aesthetic with his electricity aura moment piqued my interest the most, cause it's different, but ofc they don't develop that in EP1 to reel you in.

rich text editor image

No explanation on his Blue aura, which is a new thing for Supe animation.

Have Clark ask what the fuck that was, pan the camera on Jor-El's face, cut to the next scene for dramatic effect, have the remaining events play out and then by the end of the episode show Clark learning what it is.
Boom.

And that alone would've been better, can't argue it wouldn't be interesting. Cause it's not a complete info dump, or instant gratification, cause it's not instant.

But it happens gradually in the same episode, not blue balled for another episode, and it's NEW lore, most importantly.

It's not something we've never seen before, at least in this medium.

  • Superman Blue hasn't been a thing in mainstream animation, not even in TAS. This is prolly just a visual coincidence or a easter egg, this likely isn't Superman Blue, cause Superman Blue is a mutation.

But exploring it, would've been enough to mix the formula beyond Office shit.

  • Cause another thing that i noticed, where are the other Planet employees, maybe i need to watch the episodes again, but Metropolis, feels a bit....empty.

Otheriwse very weird decision to withhold a more interesting element in the introduction to the series compared to Lois-Chan, James & Clark getting into trouble, which is less interesting.

That electricity superpower is something you do in the middle of the episode (SETUP) so that the rest of the episode is spent exploring and building up to what it could be then end on a cliff hanger after a reveal. (PAYOFF)

But most of the episode was spent on the mediocre slice of life plot beats, so the content that's actually interesting is left for the end, or a glimpse of it.

The point is to have an intrigue to begin with, and the Lois squad solving Scooby mysteries isn't it.

Part 1 Episode 1 felt like it jumped the gun, in a rush to go nowhere, because we're on adventures with a Clark we don't know.

He wasn't established first, he was introduced as a child, but not established.

  • AMERICAN ALIEN left a similar impression, i was skeptical at first.

But #1 impressed me. Spent more time with the Kent family than expected, Jon wasn't the biggest fan of Clark, they let it play out, and it was resolved through organic means. Jon grew to like Clark through a fun little sequence, after choosing to accept Clark for what he is, and not basing how he sees the boy off of paranoia:

rich text editor image

After reading that strip: If most of Episode 1 was spent setting up the Kent family/Clark like that before the time skip: It would be a better story/ stronger introduction to the character. And his parents to boot.

In just two episodes I notice the show's writing is in a rush to get somewhere, hence why 3 minutes into the show before we even get to know Clark he already bumps into Lois.

And in the process it overlooks the importance of slowing down and absorbing what was already presented to the audience. Just 2 min ago.

  • Non-linear storytelling is can be good, but it doesn't work for every story. Most times when you introduce something, it helps that element to commit and explore it before moving to something else. Cause that scene in Episode 2 with young Clark, should've been tied in Episode 1.
  • There's no downside to developing something thoroughly, but there is flaw, and a severe lapse in judgement to jump from one thing to the next.

The Intro scene of Episode 1 is perfect✅

Very much like RED SON movie, intro scenes with Young Clarks are majestic, well shot, good direction, good animation. Excellence.

rich text editor imagerich text editor image

Regarding "Lois-Chan",

rich text editor image

So far, Lois is essentially not "Lois Lane" in execution.

They're trying to "create" Lois Lane, present her coming up from intern status, fine.

And yet the result is literally not Lois, just a genki anime girl named Lois, that looks more like an aged up Luz Noceda.

Hereby dubbed "Lois-Chan"

And it pisses me off that people are thirsting cause Lois is a "tomboy" now, when she's been a Tomboy since the 40s.

This one has a haircut, and now magically she's a tomboy.

Dear Normies, please be seen and not heard.

Cause you same people will forget this show exists 72 hours after the finale.

People don't like my criticisms sometimes, that's fair, I talk a lot.

And yet I'll be the one still mentioning the show 2-10 years from now while everyone is hyping something else, forgotten it completely.
So who really gave a shit & who didn't?
Rhetorical. But think about it.

Part of the appeal of Lois is she's a tough city-girl tomboy that wears skirts and girly shit, whatever she wants.

The subversion is that she's not fitting the stereotype, independent, self-made, is the entire point.

But what people are going gaga for, is this version is basically being 2 stereotypes at once.

If yer attaching to the fact that she's an anime stock character, fine, but don't be one of those people that says this is the "better/best" version when the most you've likely seen of Lois is whatever you watched.

Lois-Chan & Clark,

One hand I like that Lois likes Clark, than Superman. She fucks up with her lies, and apologizes later after throwing a tantrum in James' ear about it. But she says sorry.✅

  • What I don't like is the over-emphasis of the attraction like this is a CW show.
  • Meaning, Its not subtle at all, less about her drive and agency & instead it just turns her into a Genki Senpai NPC, Haruhi clone, zero imagination was put here. And she has zero presence, this is not Lois Lane, this is Haruhi Suzumiya reincarnated.
  • (Again) a stock anime character.

For an alternate take, they waste no time, and they're almost immediately DTF, very rushed.

Not digging that decision, especially 3min into the show and we don't even have a grasp on Clark's roots and neither does Clark.

Very sloppy prioritization.

The new series Clois is the hallmark of modern storytelling in some ways, instant gratification: Rushed, they get along, they're wholesome and cute & yet have zero chemistry.

They instantly fall for each other and it's kawaii fodder that everyone's eating up because dopamine fest.

Which is where the "So wholesome", "wholesome this", "wholesome that" comes from.

Same exact feedback from multiple people, why? One trick pony.

Not earned. It's already established that they like each other within the first few seconds they see each other. Wow! Okay, that was quick.

They have zero chemistry, they just blush whenever they hear each other's name, and act cute. And that's all it takes. Superman's always been a Shonen Protagonist but this show in a good & cringe way , makes it official

She can't even send a text to the guy without trippin, mind you, she does NOT know this guy, she met him like what 48 hours ago.

He's just "beautiful", very surface level stuff. Very superficial, you're hot, so now you matter to me. One-dimensional

Too easy, Not earned. Not exclusive bad writing to modern writers but very very modern anyway.

Literally just happens, and i'm not exaggerating: He goes to a store, and she literally, LITERALLY just shows up. Before we even get to know the guy in isolation.

TAS, Smallville, L&C = Banter, back-and-forth, cheeky looks, competition and a rivalry, time to build the dynamic = Chemistry

The show's writing is overall rushed, safe, it's not setting groundwork it's just going full speed. Too eager to take off, with no foundation or hook.

It almost immediately has Clark & Lois ready to take each other's pants off with one look, they knew each other for what 2 or 3 days? And he's on the couch validating her and singing her praises- like they have history. (EPISODE 2 btw)
Of course she doesn't compliment him back. It's just him kissing her ass.

Which is a Red flag that you don't know how to write a relationship, a man just validating a woman in bulk isn't chemistry, feeding her ego isn't romance.

  • Just because they look cute doesn't mean it's selling anything.
  • A relationship is about 2 people, not just one being put on a pedestal.

And then before they could go anywhere with the scene, before she could reciprocate, take whatever it is they have somewhere, ofc James barges in.

Red Flag #2 that you likely don't know how to write a relationship: Interruptions

Because you don't know how to wrap up the scene properly or commit to it.

DekuxOchako anyone?

And it's fine if you don't know, there are things i'm still learning through fucking up & research.

But if it's new territory, look at better examples, like some 40s movies, look at the chemistry of those couples, the back and forth. The time the relationship is given to breathe, look at recent decent examples of smaller couples:

  1. Aang & Katara
  2. Marcie & Bubblegum
  3. Robin & Starfire 2003
  4. Makoto & Batou
  5. Eve & Mark (Comics version)
  6. Ashi & Jack
  7. Clark & Lois (Superman & Lois)

Clois so far, juvenile. forced. locked eyes once, now we're on the "you like him/her don't you?" phase of the game, literal middle school tier shit, and they met like way less than 48 hour span?

Maybe form an actual relationship first to warrant all this.
And i love wholesome, but i'm not a sucker for it. I don't take bait.
Not calling 2 episodes of a show the best version of something just because the characters blush every 2 minutes and stress over sending a simple text, it's cute, and it's fun. And it is, but at the same time, what is the mfing rush?

Otherwise, because Lois & Jimmy are stock current gen blobs, they're the epitome of typical. Lois was not written woke, that's a surprise, but she's not interesting.

She speaks her, she has drive, she's a leader type. Sounds like Lois, but it also sounds like Haruhi Suzumiya, which who she more accurately resembles, reserves a room for their little group and everything.
A Genki stereotype who just serves to have big eyes, bounce around, blush every time Clark is mentioned like this is a tween show because "quirky".
And that's all people care about beyond Clark being a "wholesome" hunk. And he is.
rich text editor image

She's quirky but she doesn't have the cut throat Lane charm, so she's not even entertaining, she's just short and cute.

  • But she's not a pet waifu (which is what most ppl are stuck on)

She's a woman. So I'm gonna need more than just cute and googoo eyes for Clarky boy. And hopefully we'll get that in later episodes.

  • In this regard, it felt like a teenager/ or fanfic writer in general wrote this version of the relationship, as it is in EP1-2, it's so rushed. With all the emphasis on the poorly paced romantic overtones, "Let's prove ourselves & get that story" this show reads like a CW script that got animated.

Raceswapping "Oh Noooo-",

Not wasting too much time with this, all imma say is, if the point of continuously recoloring white characters is representation, you're a tool.

Not impressing this poc with a DLC recolor of white characters, you're annoying me by doing that.

Why does that annoy you?
Glad you asked,
Maybe air another Static show, or a show for Rocket, Vixen, John Stewart, ICON, Mr.Terrific, N52 Solstice? (Indian girl), Cassandra Cain,
But instead you do the safe thing, and recolor cause all you'll get in reponse is detractors that complain but watch it anyway. Or nitpickers that complain and won't give it a chance.
Translation: ZERO Risk. Instead of making pet blacks, usually side characters or knockoffs.
Take a risk, and give the existing blacks, people of color a chance to reach broader audiences of all colors.
rich text editor image

Give Cassie Cain her own show, animated for god's sake, animated please (2026 edit: rated-R, don't be a coward DC animation)

Try that. Make it good. And then I'll bite.

rich text editor image


Clark's decision to leave, or the writers decision regarding Clark.

I'm confused as to how/why he's this old but still hasn't gotten a grip on some of his powers, let alone strength, one of his firsts.

The point of his time in Smallville to Metropolis is learning how to control it then feeling comfortable to leave after. Otherwise why have him discover his powers that early at all, with all that time passed and he's done what exactly?

  • This is why establishment first is key
And yes, I know we'll get context later- but that's the point. To get people invested "NOW", you don't rely on belated context later to try to be clever or something.
This is SUPERMAN, not Dr.Fate, Batman or Swamp Thing.
It's okay to be more direct.

Storytelling wise, makes zero sense to do that.

Otherwise think about what this is saying about Clark:

  • It's dangerous to leave the nest and still be this sloppy, and Clark would know that. A loose cannon like him with no grip on his potential, can kill someone.

But this Kent looks reckless and stupid to be a willful loose cannon.

(But this is what happens when the writers want a wholesome clumsy cutesy Clark Kent for the "uwu kawaii" audience, without thinking about ramifications) How it makes him look.

  • Otherwise him being clumsy was the act he puts on intentionally to misdirect people. An act, meaning he was in control.
  • Here, he's actually clumsy and he's destroying almost everything in his apartment lmfao. He's an actual danger, what happens if his Heat vision just spasms? We haven't seen that yet.

Very unwise decision on the writers part.

Revealing Omniman as a Hero, setup.
Then end with a twist slaughter as established in Episode 1, payoff, good.
The double twist that he's actually an agent is saved for later, good. Why?
Because he was established with the basic information first, so the 2nd twist is the double payoff. And we see his trying to mold Mark as hints, which is more set up.
Him being evil wasn't saved for episode 2-3, the HOOK was given to reel you in and it worked.

The hook for episode 1 was Clark glowing...ook, now here's the issue. If we knew what the hell it was prior, or he did. Or it was established that he couldn't control it earlier then it happens later again, maybe it would've had some more weight.

It's just random. I believe more set up was/is needed going forward.

rich text editor image

Now just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's bad, but the punchline, i don't dislike it.

It's not bad. It's just sloppy. under-written, bland and very rushed.

  • 2 Episodes in, a lot happened and it doesn't feel like anything.

And the most people keep saying over and over again is "Wholesome", there's been hundreds of wholesome anime that nobody gives a shit about anymore.

So that means nothing.

Wholesome for the sake of wholesome doesn't mean it's good. Stop repeating the same thing everyone else is saying, and actually have something to say that's not emotionally-centric or related to what gives you the butterflies.
Cause if a show is reliant on your feelings, instead of what it's actually doing right in execution, that's how a show becomes irrelevant in seconds when people stop typing the hashtag. Feelings are fickle.

Cause frfr, fuck me and what I think for a second:

If YOUR script is just plain surface-level shit that you can see in any Office Anime, but the content that would set it apart (The Alien lore), the good stuff is what you choose to hold back for some reason.

What exactly are you doing different or that's not beyond the formula? And why would you hold that back?

And if the entire point is the office shenanigans, why would you limit your show to what anyone could see by going to watch Servant x Service? Which is basically what this is lol.

It's been done and it's just underwhelming.

I get the point that him finding out is the arc, but if him finding out is just third party to the scooby gang mysteries, it's not really a main story development than it is a side story, isn't it?

Cause notice how that's the arc, title card rolls, then 3min later timeskip, and we're meeting Lois instead of establishing further Clark's motivations that we just got 2min ago-

Now we got Taskforce X, Amanda Waller, all of this but we don't have a full grasp on Superman's origin or what that blue shit is, which are the BASICS.
Jumping the gun across the board. What is the rush my guy?...

Again, plays like a CW show that's paranoid of cancelation at any second, so it's just firing on all cylinders to justify it's place. Except regarding the information that would make the show interesting. Cause again, Episode was prime territory to set up the lore, and establish Clark instead of nuggets per episode.

Clark gets the origin rundown in Episode 2, narrating it as it happens, which is distracting, he sees the ship launch. We get that, but nothing more than that. It's cut off again.

Then he just...gets the suit for some reason, he didn't request it, it just happens.

And Jor-El doesn't speak English, so why does he get the suit?

Martha patches it up, he gets a phone ring, then he almost immediately goes to save Jimmy and Lois.

Just quick quick quick, gotta go fast. Zero time to absorb any of what just happened.
Again, Speedster level pacing. Rushed, sloppy.

What's the rush.

Episode 1 gave me the impression, that they wanted to emphasize Krypton's lore.

Episode 2 has a very good scene with young Clark being spooked by the craft and runs to his parents, and i will assume he never went back to it in what.. 10 years?

They finally give us the rundown later in Episode 2, finally, yet it was literally the shit we've seen before already.

Not impressed. At all. Run of the mill anime with a super-powered person in it.

And ironically, I talk about instant gratification, but it sounds like I want the info dump of Krypton & other things at once. Have your cake and eat it took Eh ?

No, cause i already pitched how to do it and make it work.

It's not what you do, it's how you do it. That's why the Episode 2-3 of this (below) show wasn't a pacing nightmare:

rich text editor image

Cause it's not revealing everything at once.

After i watched "My adventures", i went to the original 90s series as an experiment (watched the episodes 2-3) We get to see the parents find him, some of his school life, using his powers, save a little girl, meet Lana,him finding out about his past flies for the first time, he moves to the city he meets Lois, meets Jimmy, meets Perry, and now we see Lex, Corben, a fight scene, Supes causes a Plane sabotage because he was also a SuperRookie at the time.

That's just Episode 2 btw, one Episode.

  • With everything I just dumped, you'd think The older series was rushed & sloppy with how i described it, but it was better in writing because of how it structured the events.

Slower paaace, it wasn't in a rush.

  • The origin wasn't chopped up and scattered, it was founded first like a cement flooring, then everything else was built on that. Thus better pacing. The current events wasn't hijacked by the past, and the past wasn't hijacked by the present.
  • One was established so focus could go into the timeskip events without disjointed transitions.

So much is done is less time.

Just poor decisions all around.

Not bad, mediocre. Sloppy.

Clark is a vacuum because we got see him as a kid, but before we could learn ANYTHING to get to know him, timeskip. Which defeats the point of establishment.

rich text editor image

So now all the info we get of his background is going to chopped up, diced, and edited all over the course of multiple episodes.

Main issue with this show so far, is a very sloppy script trying to do everything at once, at a breakneck pace and holding back on the potentially new lore/ content we should be getting exploration for.

  • It's not enough that Clark is adorable & Lois is "uwu kawaii waifu"

And i'm not speaking for myself, people, time and time again hype something up defend it religiously, then forget it 3 days after it's done.

Look at My Hero, after Season 6 ended, who was talking about it? No one.

rich text editor image

On a positive note, I am excited to see what they'll do (for better and for worse) with the rest of Superman's rogues gallery, and who they'll choose to use. Or if this series will spawn a TV-verse

Imagine Blue Beetle or Shazam in this style.

I would 1000% want that. Especially Captain Marvel/Shazam

Otherwise, this is the dumbed down version of TAS with some not so charming modernization, because as I watched TAS EP2-3, the similarities with MADWS is very apparent.

  • Homework notes were taken, and that's good, it's just they didn't copy the shit that worked in the original lmfao.

And the modernization isn't the entire issue, it's the writing decisions, as i've explained in full.

The modern animation is a testament of modernization, but that part is the better aspects of the show, ironically. As are the SFX, some of it, but those are aesthetic observations.

Everything to do with the actual show being good or bad, writing wise? It's basic so far.

rich text editor image

All in all, the potential is still there. Not impressed so far, but it's only 2 episodes.

We'll see where it goes, not tryna see this fail or be a bum take where the most people can harp on about is it's "wholesome" 24/7

Hopefully, like Invincible, it makes a tone shift and pops off. And Jake Wyatt, the writer, can probably change some writing decisions along the way, everyone does it sometimes.

Personally,

I'd love if they give us Helspont in this take, seeing the heavy inspirations of New 52 Superman in the show, i'd appreciate if they introduced a beastly Helspont to the normies.

He's someone that legit gave Supes a concussion with a bitch slap, into the moon, i shit you not.
Read that Annual if you don't believe me lmfao.



2026 edit: 100% Called it.

Wyatt & Comp. were a plot driven storytelling team. Even in Season 2, it remained rushed, poorly executed, memey, wholesome and absolutely mediocre; too focused on plot, barely any time to cook with trauma, or character elements. Too much in a rush to go absolutely nowhere; plot contrivances out the as, which is more likely to happen in plot driven storytelling vs character driven.

(ATLA Book 3 Finale had two of the worst contrivances in the entire show despite it's character driven storytelling, which is to make it clear that both plot & character driven stories can have contrivances. However, those two were some of the worst offenders. Unlike My Adventures with Lois-Chan, ATLA had a track record of very few contrivances, 99% of the show wasn't asspulls & convenience, very organic for the most part. So the finale's asspulls could be forgiven. After Three Seasons of quality, it could afford those contrivances.)

My Adventures however was too focused on tropes, moments & gimmicks to cook with the story, themes, subtext, source material (or IMPROVE said material aka Kara is a BORE-EL, and they had one of the best chances in her history to set a new precedent for the character and they whiffed it anyway, which I knew they would.) & neglected to cook with the characters to make the best journey possible-- with an ANIME SUPERMAN no less., how often do we get a shot like this? Two seasons in, no excuses.


What a waste. Saw it coming.




Watch Superman The animated Series' first two episodes, just the first two & maybe Season 2 Episode 22 as a bonus .

It's not the information given that's the issue entirely, because again, at the time It was only two episodes of a brand new series but even then I saw the signs.

For TAS: just pay attention to the pacing and how it's written. Notice how it's not in a rush to get anywhere, why? Because back then, that young Superman story was telling an actual story & not sprinting through a story to get to the plot. Called it.


You don't need to watch 50 episodes or read 200 chapters/issues to know what you're getting into. Writing is like food, you don't need to finish the whole plate to know it's spoiled or a culinary delight. A smell, an inspection, maybe one or two careful bites, a taste test: that's all that's needed.


Two words: EXECUTION & Priorities. As the writer: what are your priorities? cute moments to meme? Just having fun in the studio at the cost of the outcome? Making animated fanfic vs a 3-Dimensional Superman story, an airtight story, (not perfect, but well written), a competent journey for the characters.



I saw it even back then 2023, Jake Wyatt's priorities were misaligned, I saw it in plain sight. That has nothing to do with him being a bad writer or good writer, it means his talents needed better leadership vs his talents being the lead, which is clearly what shouldn't have happened.

It meant well, that's obvious. But it was a mess and still is a whole lotta wholesome nothing burger.


I guarantee you if Joe Kelly (Superman vs The elite & Action Comics #775), David Slack (Teen Titans 03') or Aaron Ehasz (ATLA): if one of them were the head writer but Wyatt & his team were the subordinates: not fired but instead worked under the oversight of a more honed-in writer & other co-writers they trusted and have worked with. The show would've been an easy recommendation at the time then, and even now going forward.




It's not always what you do, it's how you do it. Execution and priorities.

Sunday, March 8, 2026

/re "Dr Umar Johnson Creates Daffy DAFA Movement--" | Blacks built America Fallacy





 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COMTKL1a8c4&list=WL&index=12



Blks were major in boosting young Americas capital, (railroads, paving away wilds, cotton etc.), blks were crucial building blocks, non-debatable.


Otherwise, via building factories, homes, northern/western enterprise (because blks were still a minority & there's no logical or logistical way a 10-13% minority built a country beat for beat, especially a country that was founded & existed before blacks entered the chat) etc.

  • No, Blks did not literally build America. They boosted the capital & even that wouldn't have been possible if the other 70-80% of whites in the north and west just chilled on beach and burdened the 10-13% to do literally everything: Which would then be blacks actually building the country, but that's not what happened.

So it's more accurate to say blacks' slave labor (on top of the labor of the rest of the country) accelerated the capital growth to Superpower status faster than it would've; which is more than enough of a bragging right without embellishment;

-It makes for a nice headline tho-
Other than that, agreed. Dr.Umar needs to bow from the internet & just retire, should have more than enough by now to do just that. Done enough damage, that man. He's the type that can't perform on a council because he has to be the authority, can't have a person like that in a community and expect it to function. Blacks want a leader when they need to invest in an assembly, a core assembly. Not that much different from how some African sects operate.

Friday, March 6, 2026

/re " "Leslie Jones Fixes Male Loneliness-" | How she approached this is part of the problem


https://youtu.be/UfFaaiHm0lo

This is just controlling the narrative.

It’s a loneliness surge on both sides (though young men report it slightly more, yet women will have more friends than men and still report loneliness anyway & enough women pretty much live in therapist offices for it to show on statistics. One hand, take it with a grain of salt, but that specific disparity says enough by itself.).

  • TL;DR Everyone’s feeling it. Progress was flawed, feminism didn’t fail entirely but it needs serious help. It’s not a one-all panancea no more than patriarchy was, feminism never was ‘the‘ answer, it was part of the solution until it became part of the problem.
 Otherwise this is the same gaslighting as claiming men are “falling behind” because women own homes, throw their money at the therapy industry or / and have more degrees. (Real estate, education, professional lives.)

  • And thus, we gaslight men to think they’re falling behind because they’re not living their lives like women do. Which is what most of it boils down to.
  • When all you're really doing is teaching young boys to see women succeeding as a threat, instead of something to celebrate. 

Thus, allegedly “Women are ahead”--

When in reality, by this same logic: women are falling behind in terms of trade certificates, hard skill labor: building cities, building bridges, infrastructure maintenance.

  •  Technician trade skill fields, all the hard labor jobs that men still carry that women aren’t doing.
  • Mass Stock contributions, mass capital.
  • Women own more homes but men continue to dominate general land investment (agricultural, commercial, and mass acreage) in the U.S. and globally.

But we won’t report that as "women falling behind", as we shouldn’t; article outlets shouldn’t be assassination hubs against entire groups of people to demoralize them. Which is exactly what you do to men constantly "Mankeeping", "Redefine masculinity", "Men are falling behind"; authorities are out of control.

Because in reality women aren’t men, women live their lives how they want. But when men don’t fall in line to the feminized lens, aka matriarrchal rigid norms, then everyone has something to say about it, something negative and counterproductive.

Patriarchy is bad, even though it built your country. Matriarchy builds nothing but everyone must obey the feminized lens.  

How does that work? Notice how regardless it's patriarchal or feminized: you end up following a norm regardless? 

But the only norms being complained about are the patriarchal, but the ones declining everything resembles nothing of patriarchy. You need both sensibilities, not abolishing one to replace one supremacy with another one.




*This “loneliness epidemic” crap has the same exact dishonesty, and it just gives women a brutally dangerous false sense of security.*

So as usual, we save the negative narratives for men and gaslight them into thinking that the worst case scenario only exists for them.

And we make women think men are the only one’s suffering which #1 is not true and #2 why is that a thing ? Or something to make light of? 

  • And you think that cultural abuse doesn’t in any way just enables this loneliness or resentment men might feel towards a society that mocks them constantly?
  • OR PUSH men towards Redpill nonsense in the first place?!
  • At what point do people like Jones and her handlers take responsibility for their role in the situation? 

The tone in which outlets address the situation is part of the reason why this situation even still exists. A horrific abuse of power and extreme negligence on part of voices in media and even academia.


How women report burnout, isolation, loneliness, all kinds of negative outcome.

 Thats left out, very conveniently and Leslie won’t bring that up, which would humanize womens suffering and make men see they’re not alone & perhaps god forbid bring the sexes together to solve this situation together.

Vs sitting back and laughing at men as if women are okay when they’re not. It’s blatantly lying, Jones is telling half of the story. Women are not the full the package, upon a pedestal eating grapes while men crawl up the stairs to her level.


That's not reality, but that's the simulation the media industrial complex wants the world to believe.
 

*Constantly putting the ball in men’s court is why America’s declining and regressing.*

You cannot have a working team effort when half the team is getting held accountable by the coach and the other half gets a trophy for showing up. And then the team that got the trophy is resented by the berated team when the one at fault is the goddamn COACH in the first place for neglience, abuse, and sexism!


Because when you address women with more sensitivity you're actively communicating they can't handle being tried as adults & need scapegoats to justify why women's issues exist, even when women themselves are the cause of their own problems. It's perfect formula to stagnate women into a state of compliance, because if you continue to provide a false sense of security, women are never the problem, why would women not believe everything you see when it seems like you're on their side? 

It's Sociological warfare, it's the snake and Eve all over again. The downfall that began with flattery.




Fact is: American women are some of the least desirable women on the planet. Globally, men of quality overseas don’t defer to American women in terms of coupling or dating or serious marriage--- when your women should be the PRIME options, given the position that country has as a superpower. 

  • You’d think the women would be one of the reasons to go to America, not even close.
  • America in terms of female partner suitability, not even top 10 on planet Earth. Really think about that.


And the only the reason I bring that up is not disrespect, but a thought experiment, picture it:

If American men were really that pathetic and American women weren’t part of the problem. You’d think men overseas would see the value that American men are taking for granted in the women specifically. 

But the fact is, American women are just as incompetent socially & low quality in many areas, despite their political radicalization, education strides and alleged “empowerment“. It’s undeniable that American women are a beacon that feminism gets results for other countries to follow but in longterm social prosperity? 

  • America is a failed experiment regarding the modern woman. Because beyond politics, career, education— American women still report burnout, loneliness, isolation, etc. Turning women into men's rivals wasn't setting women up for failure, it was isolating them.

Replacing men as the dominant factor in capital, and even workplace will not make women happy, and it hasn’t. Because men will still carry in places women won't want to participate in. Men will always be relevant.

  • So this fallacious mindset of moving men aside so women can supplant them, just guarantees women sit in an empty castle. And how is that winning? How is that even feminism?

And that’s just as much the fault of their dishonest media enabling their unearned false sense of self-importance as it’s enabling men to be less like men and more like perpetual boychildren-- redefining masculinity a five thousand times just because rude men in the city are generally rude to women so that means masculinity as a whole has to go back to the drawing board. 

Allegedly according to VICE or The Guardian or whatever outlet this week that thinks they're your goddamn parents.



It's pathetic.



So American women literally have zero foundational ground to speak on as if they are the cream of the crop in terms of options. Fact is, nobody wants you either. You're a professional commodity but a social liability when you don't have to be .

And it has less to do with having a job, or money or agency or having an opinion as a woman and everything to do with that attitude; so much to spend, travel all over the world, buy whatever you want & still have nothing to offer.  Still empty, because no one sees you as a priority, no one but the soulless society that tells you you're the main character in every goddamn discussion, it's never your fault.


The delusional mindset that you are never part of the problem.

Jones is playing you, as is her employers’ employers’ employers’ employers.

This woman’s entire tone is part of the problem,

She’s an agent that just repeats accepted talking points. And if she held women accountable during this speech with that same exact energy, her job & position would probably be in jeopardy.

But as long as she keeps kicking men in the ass, which is the accepted cultural narrative of America, which is partly why you continue to fail---- is how she’ll remain in good graces.

  • Because one side can’t succeed. But everyone wins? That's psychotic.
  • Society can’t give a shit about only one side of the species and the other continues to fall & you mock them. And you think your civilization will prosper? it will never happen. I promise you that.


You’re damning yourselves by continuing the same misandrist dehumanizing shit you’ve been doing for the past thirty years. 

Solution? Stop playing into it. Treat men like human beings, not robots that just need to perform and everything gets better.

And when you do collapse, you’ll deserve every bit of it. But you can avoid the collision.


She’s just as pathetic as the situation she’s addressing.

A loud, obnoxious clown minus the red nose. Specifically because she fixed nothing. 


🚨I really want to make it clear that “Misandry” isn’t whenever anyone criticizes men ever; it’s the approach, the tone, the delivery, and your argument. What exactly are trying to say? And whether any of that is consistent whenever women are the topic of discussion, and it isn’t.

  • With women it’s usually an externalized narrative, just like how most women externalize their emotions, naturally; women’s issues are rarely introspective, especially as a group.

  • It’s usually someone else that’s always the problem that needs to act and perform for women, thus women have less agency & less proverbial capital of their own. And less weight to pull at the table when negotiating, making demands, or setting conditions.

Why? To reiterate: Solely because the narrative cultivated for women (constantly) says they’re never the problem, thus they never own their mistakes because there’s no incentive to do so— if you’re never the problem. And if there’s no ownership through accountability: There’s less to no agency.

That equation is not accidental, that’s precisely how you can stagnate a community into submission while you resemble an “ally” archetype, thus you have their trust through shallow validation. That is sociological warfare, propaganda, psychology.

Leslie Jones simply played her part in guaranteeing the problem continues. That’s why she’s pathetic, and that’s why she still has a job---

 she followed the script & agitated the group of people you're allowed to dehumanize.

I don’t know why I clicked on that video expecting a nuanced, reasonable, respectful take. Somewhere in my mind, I looked at that smile on the thumbnail and thought

“Maybe Leslie evolved as a person and won’t confuse yelling & screaming with being heard.”

Silly me.



Talking to women is harassment or unwanted, then Leslie says just go say “Hi“ to talk to women (regardless if the woman wants to be bothered or not, which is a very relevant thing to consider. A woman isn't just available for approach 24/7, so her advice is dogshit).




Make up your fucking mind: Are men allowed to even interact with the average woman or not? Mixed signals is why men give up on approaching, disrespect and double standards is why they harbor resentment or give up before they even try.

As serious as this situation is, for everyone’s sake, people still approach it with the least amount of humanity. 

And if this were a situation regarding women’s issues? It would be treated with a minimum respect and sensitivity & or blamed on men somehow.

And the people just listening to her & gassing her up in the comments aren’t even my problem here in this context. Standard buzzfeed "stay away from me, men" mob. 

  • It’s the fact that they just might think how she’s coming at men is okay when I repeat: this insensitive approach is part of what's pushing these boys to redpill in the first place.

Why is it that society and authorities, outlets, Academics with platforms themselves can’t take accountability and own their part in enabling the crisis in real time as they’re contributing to the problem in the first place? Even if it was out of good intentions, you can say that & still own the fact that you were disrespectful in your approach. Both can exist.

I see why women aren’t held accountable by the system that coddles their female lens, because the societal bubble itself doesn’t take it’s own power seriously or responsibly, thus doesn’t hold itself accountable.

So as I’ve criticized women specifically for not being held accountable, I usually add a condition as I’ve admitted often) that it’s 1000% not women’s entire fault because Society doesn’t try women the same way they do men.

And so to add to that: society and it’s powers apparently can’t teach to men or women what it itself doesn’t know or exercise.

  • How can it perpetuate what it itself doesn’t even recognize as a virtue or a value.

Men should show empathy, but we won't show them as much. Women should be held accountable, but we're the one's with the platform but we won't hold ourselves accountable.

Lmfao. It’s paradoxical.

  • If how you come at men is misogyny if you did it to women, then stop doing it to men.

  • Either keep that fire with women or share the understanding women receive whenever their problems are in a headline. 

  • Was "Equality" total bullshit? 

  • The tone in which Americans address men in the first place is part of the problem. I will keep saying this because it’s so so important. 

  • These aren’t dogs you’re talking to, these are human beings that are already committing suicide at dangerously high rates, show some goddamn restraint. Do we truly believe, this approach is helping?

    That’s why they cling to irresponsible podcasts and voices, because they don’t demean, and dehumanize the males.


We'll mock men for paying for courses but we won't mock women for funding the self-help book industry. Which is literally trying to buy a solution, a guideline, or a course to solve your life problems. 

You disrespect men as a norm, and then when you push them into the arms of toxic voices because they’re escaping your toxicity, then you blame men again for not wanting to be painted as the antagonists in their own lives. 

When you wouldn’t do that to women, so why is it okay to do that to your boys?


America: Your culture is psychotic.

Make that shit make sense to me.

People like Jones or at least the circles she might run with always talk about “empathy”. But as soon as it’s a conversation or topic regarding men, empathy is nowhere to be found.

We can’t do that and expect a prospering society, while men’s backs are carrying your civilization, still carrying it.

And we can’t throw empowerment at women, and then treat men as less than human. Its not right. 

This has to be a team effort or America will collapse under its own weight as a broken team. Either way, the consequence or the advancement will be a shared front. That’s what people are not understanding.


The women in the comments going “yaaas” don’t realize even if they’re content, their descendants (as femalekind, not just blood bound) will pay for their vitriolic arrogance.

I swear I saw a woman talk about men are jealous of women and just want to blame them.

 Pure delusion; the people keeping your country’s lights on are jealous of you? This is the false reality birthed from:

“women are ahead: because we selectively chose categories women dominate and ignored the one’s they’re lacking in— just so we can say men are ‘falling behind‘……because we’re HELPING! "— Academia probably

Jealous she says, men will never see women’s success as a “we win” as long as outlets (intentionally) weaponize women’s success as a threat or a foreboding of men failing---- when they’re not. "Jealously" is a strawman fallacy.


This is like saying: 'women are jealous because men do all the hard labor fields while women have the luxury to think men are jealous: when in reality women are the weak links of civilization that think they're invincible.'

When again, it's a strawman, who says that and takes themselves seriously? 


There's no contest. America: There is NO CONTEST. Stop trying to force women to be men's rivals, there is no contest. 

This is your problem. This is the basis of your headlines, your gaslighting, your abuse, your mansults.


You need women "the help" to be competition when they're supposed to be companions. You're violating the natural design, & you're only hurting the people you think you're protecting, women. 


How is it authority of society tells women they have "autonomy" & "agency", but owning their worldview through flattery, and making men the scapegoats. It paradoxically guarantees women remain slaves to the system that provides their false sense of security? And thus ergo owns their worldviews as long as it proclaims women aren't part of the problem. Which guarantees stagnation, complacency, thus women don't question anything, don't evolve.


All it takes is just making women believes they're always in a good place, always on top, always ahead. And men are always fucking up or behind or below them. Beautiful lie. Never beside each other, someone has to be on top and on the bottom: Very patriarchal mindset with a matriarchal twist.


Pure sociological warfare, part of breaking free is simply seeing it. You don't have write essays or make videos, at the bare minimum: Simply see what these narratives are doing to you as a people & then ask: 


🚨"Are they (outlets, academia, media-- authority) actually trying to help us?"🚨

It's not conspiracy because it's a relevant question.


TL;DR “Us vs them” will never solve the problem, enabling the problem is all Leslie did successfully, getting beside the point.

Thursday, March 5, 2026

/re ""Toxic masculinity" has no coherent meaning-" | It's a Red Herring, not an extended hand

OP: "No one who uses the term "toxic masculinity" has any coherent underlying thought which is consistent with the way that anyone else uses it. The concept holds as much water as "original sin" on a logical level, and we can see this from the way that it is applied anywhere and everywhere that anyone wants to malign men.

Even at the most charitable interpretation, swigging the silly, gender-studies kool-aid about masculinity being purely "performed", it is still slurring a class of people by labeling their identity to be (at least partially) "toxic". Try that with any other class of people, and the bigotry is obvious. Yes, this applies to nonsense like "toxic femininity" just the same. It also applies to anyone who wants to label any aspect of blackness, latinity, Jewishness, or Asianness as "toxic" as well.

Anyone who uses these terms is engaged in irrational, incoherent bigotry. You might not have a problem with bigotry toward men as a class, but that doesn't make it bigotry any less." - "Toxic masculinity" has no coherent meaning and amounts only to a bigoted slur used against men.


https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18g1cqh/toxic_masculinity_has_no_coherent_meaning_and/?sort=new






   Ideally it's about "patriarchal" norms reinforcing toxic behaviors in boys, which affects male decline later in life.

The issue: these are the same academics that label men as committing "avoidance" by not going to therapy; when in reality the therapy model is outdated, rigid, inflexible; and female lensed.

Sitting in a position & dumping about one's issues is easier for most women to commit to. Most men actually require DOING something about their problems, hands-on; most boys are the same way in school.

  • The point of putting the ball in men's court is to distract from the fact that the industry is incompetent & is a business, not a charity. They do not care.
  • Men should just express themselves like women, so the model of therapy nor society has to evolve to help everyone via a true egalitarian standard.

🚨"Toxic masculinity" the address aims to critique "societal pressures" that amplify bad traits in men, which in practice is literally about the system of parenting than it is masculinity. The term exposes itself.

Which includes out of control boys raised by single-mothers that DO NOT say "don't cry" but instead enable emotion indulgence by a woman's standards; without a stable, healthy male presence or mentorship.

  • This conversation rarely explores that despite how more prominent single mothers are now compared to the 1950s.
  • This isn't moving the goalpost to say it's worse with single mothers, this is establishing what always was reality: that this isn't about patriarchy or masculinity; it's about parenting and the ultimate wildcard of human nature--

 "Testosterone" the element ppl rarely bring up.

The inherent flaw of the label is the frequency of the behavior is irrelevant because the sole fact of the matter is:

  • bigotry
  • prejudice
  • violence
  • domination
  • misandry
  • misogyny
  • stoicism
  • repression

Aren't male exclusive flaws, and academia can't disprove that.

  • Repression of expression posed as strength, or control of emotions being stigmatized as "repression" through a female academic lens.
  • Telling boys not to cry is not going to create a Jack the ripper; not teaching boys the golden rule, how to respect people, how to respect women without omitting his own agency & confusing being a boytoy with serving a womans needs as a man./Teaching boundaries, professionalism,/ integrity, empathy: Not installing that is what creates an anomaly. 
  • Slapping a little boy in the face or throwing him because he cried is how you create a future destroyer, just telling him not to cry, or teaching "time & place" is not toxic masculinity.

🚨If we want really have that conversation: Instead of pressing why men tell boys not to cry (misleading, I've heard women in their 50s comment on how emotional men are now), instead ask why men AND women thus society doesn't take male pain or men being violated as a seriously as they do women. And then you gaslight yourselves as to why men read the room & keep it to themselves because they know the collective does not care.

Why is it we then focus on men's reaction to biological bias, instead of addressing the bias itself? NOBODY wants to have that conversation.

🚨On the basis of suicide: Blatant societal neglect that empowerment is very brutally gendered by aiming it at women specifically/ Women are tired, mankeeping, & vindicated constantly, no accountability.

Justified in opting out because men are burdens who don't reciprocate & women reciprocate everything that's done for them at all times, 365 days a year, 24/7 (likely story)

In the next breath boys & men are "falling behind"

TL;DR men are just always screwing up, America specifically does not honor men, the closest it gets is superhero movies & even that fell off----that cultural, smothering abuse, bombarded for 40 years+ will initiate more thoughts in a boy that his existence doesn't matter, that there's no hope, no support, no empowerment for him & there's no positive INCENTIVE in opening up to society.

And society doesn't care to make any effort to try to help on men's terms, not because he was told not to cry but because society proudly, boldly, doesn't give a shit And it's always his fault.

That will erect more suicides than telling a boy to how, when, & why to regulate himself.

"Men & boys are falling behind": a misrepresentation.

  • They're just not living their lives like women according to society's modern rigid parameters of success--- like going to college. Men not having degrees is men "falling behind". A lot of Men have more trade certifications, licenses instead of degrees, are women falling behind?
  • Despite males still building every city that cradles your every need. Are women falling behind by that standard because men are still carrying civilization by a brutally huge margin?
  • And not because women are being kept from something, they're not victims here, women CHOOSE not to help in hard skill fields--- Are women therefore falling behind or Or is it that women don't live their lives like men do & spoiler alert: there's nothing wrong with that.
  • So why is it we ignore what women aren't doing to focus on what men aren't doing, spin that as males falling behind--Then tie it to masculinity & patriarchy or men resisting or clinging to how things were?
  • When what's happening is men are only relevant mainly when it's a problem, mainly when men are painted to have scorned women in some way: never to empower, uplift or support.


🚨Much of Academia will kindly ignore that concern on purpose or unintentionally. Either way, that's the level of dishonesty and incompetence that we consider to be the "experts", at least in this topic.

In fact, the "strong female character" archetype is usually, actively masculinized. Often very hostile, very bigoted, stoic, toxic, domineering, neglectful, insensitive (including to other women)--- all the things that make men a threat are sold as virtue to women.

Point being: Toxic masculinity is a red herring to gaslight men into believing certain bad human behavior is patriarchal, when in reality: "toxic masculinity" is "dysfunctional parenting", "maladaptive dysfunction" regardless of the person misbehaving.

So "toxic masculinity" works better in concept than theory by virtue of women doing the exact same things.

When women put babies in ovens, garbage cans, drownings; mutilating partners, calculated false allegations, keying, vehicular manslaughter, r*pe, drugging, harming themselves to frame people, putting glass in partners food (because women possess testosterone as well just a lesser volume); is that toxic femininity? or is that bad behavior exhibited by a woman at the time?  

TL;DR Dysfunction is human, not feminine or masculine. Values and parenting plants the seed of builders or destroyers.

Testosterone in isolation- is drive, not a threat. The key to raising a little boy is what you choose to install into that mini nuclear reactor before it goes off during puberty: Will it be a means of clean energy or a goddamn warhead.

  • Stop trying to tame boys to sit still like girls do, stop trying to get them to vent & dump like women do; Men ARE NOT WOMEN. Because of that is why you have most of advanced civilization (stop taking that for granted.)
  • Stop trying to masculinize women to be the modern man their grandmothers wanted to date but most men on planet earth (not even overseas) doesn't want to deal with that and stop feminizing men to be a burden women didn't ask for & then women then ask "what happened to men?" AFTER you redefined masculinity five thousand times.
  • Redefining masculinity stems from phobia, not understanding or even humanization.

🚨There's no version of masculinity. The end.

If you're a violator, that's not a bad or toxic masculinity because not that is not masculinity in any form. Period. Just like getting a sunburn isn't the sun being a "Toxic Sun" the Sun is the Sun regardless of how you interact with it.

  • For boys specifically, testosterone amplify values or a void.

The label is a red herring because it doesn't capture the full picture, let alone nuance. Fallacious & moot: The traits listed are not unique to men, and at worst? The label is antiquated. By definition: Obsolete.

And ironically, was not created by a woman but gratefully opted by modernity outlets to do what they've always done--- not help the situation.

Categorical judgment that fails to establish a Functional understanding.