>The MSM has its problems, but a half hour reading the NYT on a particular issue – as long as it’s not related to race, sex, or gayness, where they’re completely deluded and make people dumber – will give you a lot more information than a half hour keeping up with what people are saying about the topic on Twitter, and without the distractions.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
You're not wrong, but what else is there? Right-wing papers don't do investigative journalism much unless it's about embarrassing lefties in this country. Tucker Carlson, in a prior incarnation, actually tried to make a right-wing outlet with good fact-checking, etc. and it failed financially. The closest thing is the Wall Street Journal, and they're not that conservative and mostly focused on business news.
On the other hand: “I’ve decided to quit Twitter. I’m only going to use it to promote my articles, post threads summarizing my work, and for professional announcements. And for personal announcements. And I’ll keep using something called “the DM system”, because that part is great. I’m going to unfollow everyone except for some people. I’m still going to read Tweets but will somehow keep myself from not reading replies or retweets, because that will totally work and is not the kind of “compromise” that 12-Step programs warn addicts against. And I’ll read tweets other people send to me and tweets linked to in articles.”
To a layman this sounds a lot like “being on Twitter”. Or maybe more like a drunk swearing off all alcohol except beer and wine.
A drunk swearing off alcohol except for beer and wine is fine. Pure abstinence is for those who lack self-control. My version of quitting Twitter reduces probably 95% of the time I spend on it.
I learned from South Park that quitting something 100% means that you have let it dominate you to be point of deciding to never touching it again. Instead, reducing consumption by like 90% means its you who are in control.
The only reason I still have a Twitter account is that I don't want someone else taking my screen name. I never was very impressed by Twitter to begin with. The censorship just makes it not even worth it.
My feeling is that Twitter realizes it leaves itself open to accusations of hypocrisy and being anti-white and anti-right whenever someone on the right is kicked off for “crimes” against a protected groups. So if you point out a hate fact--like certain groups have lower average IQ than other groups, or that trans women are not actually women--they know it makes them look bad because they’re lying for ideological reasons.
But when they get a chance to kick someone on the right off *for saying something bad about white people or America more generally* they’re handed a golden opportunity to rid their platform of someone they dislike for reasons that even milquetoast Republicans would be okay with.
Richard: I think one of the worst things about Twitter usage, and you touch on this in your comment about how vapid your group chat’s Twitter commentary tends to be, is how it makes you seem/feel smarter and more knowledgeable than you really are. Whenever I use Twitter a lot, I feel like I’m basking in referentiality. I’ll go from a thread about dietary habits in classical antiquity to another thread about the follies of Biden’s student loan giveaway to a dunk on some liberal and I get such a thrill, such a rush from being able to incorporate so much disparate information in such a condensed manner. Of course, that’s only possible because the underlying content is like intellectual BABY FOOD: smooth, yummy and easy to digest! There is nothing impressive at all about consuming a bunch of shallow pablum! It’s HARD to read a multi volume history about the Greeks. It’s HARD to really dig into the nature of universities and how they get away with charging their students so much. Twitter gives college educated people a steady diet of information that is just substantive enough to make them *seem* like an informed person at the office.
Have you considered the possibility that tolerating these people is destroying western civilization? What if the libertarian approach to total free speech is bad because bad ideas win in the marketplace of ideas? Maybe the arc of the moral universe bends towards decadence and civilizational collapse.
The problem is that many leftists have concluded exactly this, that ideas like 'free speech' and 'meritocracy' are destroying civilization, and it is one reason some are intolerant of dissent.
When you are so convinced that only your ideas are good and the ideas other people have are so bad that they must be wiped from the face of the earth, then you become part of the problem.
Can a private business kick out black people just for being black? I don't see how a public facing website is any different from a public facing retail shop.
Private websites are subject to public regulation. We can tell private businesses whom they have to serve if they want to remain in existence, and we do so constantly (no "private website" is long for this world if it makes fun of trannies, for example - just ask Kiwi Farms). Public forums should be forced to allow all activities compliant with the First Amendment on their platforms if they would like to not have their assets seized. It's just common sense.
I have never tweeted anything and have no regrets about that. Twitter has never been and is not now a legitimate medium of communications. I recommend everyone get off it, and rebuild their audience here at Substack or elsewhere.
Totally agree! I never succumbed to FakeBook either. Nor IG or Snapchat or the spying Tik Tok. They are all total time suck, spy and data mine operation!
>I don’t feel particularly oppressed by leftists. They give me a lot more free speech than I would give them if the tables were turned. If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. Why should I? They’re wrong about everything and bad for society. Twitter is a company that is overwhelmingly liberal, and I’m actually impressed they let me get away with the things I’ve been saying for this long.
>I would bend my libertarian principles to be in favor of using government to take away Twitter’s power to censor, but not based on some broadly applicable principle, because principle points in the other direction. In fact, I’d hate to see a social media website completely devoted to free speech. Already, my replies were polluted with ad hoc attacks, insults, and anti-vaxx nonsense. I couldn’t imagine how unpleasant Twitter would be right now if they didn’t already purge the most defective personalities. As I’ve pointed out before, the problem with modern liberalism isn’t its intolerance, which is mild by historical standards, but the fact that it is wrong.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Epistemic arrogance is rarely rewarded with a better understanding of reality. The problem with intolerance is that it makes correcting mistakes harder than if you were to tolerate dissenting views.
I can't imagine that you made it this far in life without encountering the above line of thinking, so I'm curious to know why you've dispensed with Mill and sided with (((Popper))) instead.
This part also threw me off a little, but I followed his link to another of his pieces in Quillette, then another of the links from that article and I think I understand the core of what RH was trying to say. He seems to reject the cult of anti-truth that characterizes the modish part of leftist Twitter. There are ideas worth responding to and people who can even question and debate their ideas, but the followers of the "succession ideology" ("electism," wokeness or whatever else you want to call it) are religious zealots who can't be reasoned with. And they aren't afraid to use repressive tolerance to harass or censure any perceived heresy, no matter how small.
I understand what RH was trying to say as well. It wasn't terribly complicated - he doesn't think free speech is valuable because he doesn't think that the speech it enables is necessarily valuable. This is always and everywhere the justification for censorship: "We will only censor that which is morally or factually wrong, for the greater good."
As I mentioned, John Stuart Mill laid out the seminal counterargument over 150 years ago in "On Liberty." RH sides instead with (((Karl Popper))), who argued (in classic Semitic fashion) that censorship was justified if one could claim that the people being censored would censor you if given the chance.
The argument is camouflaged in fancier language than this, but I have not substantively misrepresented it. In essence, the disagreement boils down to how confident you should be about what you think you know. If you think that you should have complete confidence (what some might fairly call "faith") in certain things, then censoring dissent can be morally righteous, because it prevents lost souls from falling into heresy. If instead you think that reality should be the ultimate arbiter of our beliefs, and that everything should be subject to questioning and criticism, then censorship (defined as preventing others from sharing their thoughts or opinions) is always wrong, because it artificially prunes the search space for ideas, potentially preventing the correction of errors.
Being opposed to censorship does not require you to think that there is value in every question or opinion. One may (and probably should) be quite closed-minded on an individual level about many things, because your time is limited. But this need not (and imo should not) result in treating your conclusions as tenets of faith to be protected from disagreement. RH feels otherwise because he is overwhelmingly confident in the conclusions he has reached. I'm telling him to eat a slice of humble pie.
How does “conjectures and refutations” (Popper) conflict with epistemic humility? The Popperians I know who were taught by Popper’s students are free speech absolutists.
>How does “conjectures and refutations” (Popper) conflict with epistemic humility?
Wouldn't know, I never read it. Was referring instead to the view he espoused in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" about what he called "the paradox of tolerance," which gets cited ALL THE TIME by antifa types to justify silencing/censoring/murdering even extremely milquetoast right-wingers. After all, if Ben Shapiro can say that men aren't women, it will result in another Holocaust, so anything necessary to limit his reach is acceptable.
>The Popperians I know who were taught by Popper’s students are free speech absolutists.
Have they ever seen you persuade a room full of people that homosexuality is best modeled as a harmful mental illness and should be outlawed, or that Jews have a genetic propensity for anti-social behavior and should be forcefully expelled from all first-world countries? Liberals only like free speech when they mistakenly believe that open dialogue and honest debate will result in a consensus they agree with. When they belatedly realize with slowly dawning horror that free speech results in radical traditionalism sweeping the populace, watch how rapidly they morph into the very fascists they pretend to oppose!
I read NYT, and I’m not on Twitter. But I don’t read NYT for information about the world. I read it purely as information about current establishment narratives.
Good for you. Your Twitter comments, while amusing, are hardly the best of your oeuvre. I, too, am finding the wasted time vs. gem in the dung ratio getting a bit high.
It's funny how Twitter's rules seem to mimic those of the American justice system in that if you accept the plea bargain (i.e., remove the tweet and lower your head) you will be let go with a minor sentence (1st admonition, sit on the bench for 24h), but if you dare challenge their accussation you can expect a much heavier sentence if the Algorithm-Judge (there's no way that tweets are beng reviewed by actual people) should find you guilty. Ironic, because this very same system ends up sentencing thousands of innocents to unjust penalties, just because the accused (often minorities, whom probably the Twitter overlords would complain for being unfairly treated by "The System") don't want to risk a much disproportionally heavier sentence should they be (unjustly) found guilty.
If there is an algorithm, why not run it at the time of post and warn the auttor then. The author can then consider their tone and correct for misinterpretion.
Use of Twitter violates a core principle of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Don’t engage the enemy on their battleground. As long as good people wallow in ego and/or addiction to social media there will be no victory in this war. And yes, this is war.
It’s important to remember that no matter what information can be found there it is still being sifted. What is found is also a shield for what isn’t there. It’s not advantageous for leftist Twitter to allow certain things to gain traction. I’m banned there. I never posted anything that wasn’t informative and sourced on purpose. I tested them with my posts. What legitimate sourced bit of info will trigger them?
Megvii. Openly reported prior to the rise of the Democratic Third Positionists. Joe Biden’s son and brother doing business with a company under sanctions by the US. Circumventing these sanctions by registering BHR in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone so investment can be made in mass surveillance which is being tested on the Uyghur population. Twitter doesn’t like that easily sourced information posted on their platform.
The second time was information I gained from a quote from a WTO official. This official used a strange word I had never heard. The media outlet that caught it does have an interest in exposing globalist corruption. Russia Today. One of the best available media sources. Why else would the West be so threatened by it?
The word was “Polycrisis”. It has a source. The source is connected to a mountain of money. A Google Trends search of the word shows it is not in wide circulation. Yet very rich people use it in their discourse. The site of origin has a definition of the Polycrisis. Read the last paragraph. It sounds like a lot of people are going to have a bad time. But not them. Hmmmmmm
Philippe Lemoine has recently posted about some of the things he got wrong (and right) about the Russia-Ukraine war. Any plans to do something similar?
Good for you Richard. If more people I know with something interesting to say would make the same decision, my life (and the world) would both be better off.
>The MSM has its problems, but a half hour reading the NYT on a particular issue – as long as it’s not related to race, sex, or gayness, where they’re completely deluded and make people dumber – will give you a lot more information than a half hour keeping up with what people are saying about the topic on Twitter, and without the distractions.
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
You're not wrong, but what else is there? Right-wing papers don't do investigative journalism much unless it's about embarrassing lefties in this country. Tucker Carlson, in a prior incarnation, actually tried to make a right-wing outlet with good fact-checking, etc. and it failed financially. The closest thing is the Wall Street Journal, and they're not that conservative and mostly focused on business news.
Every time someone quits Twitter an angel gets its wings
On the other hand: “I’ve decided to quit Twitter. I’m only going to use it to promote my articles, post threads summarizing my work, and for professional announcements. And for personal announcements. And I’ll keep using something called “the DM system”, because that part is great. I’m going to unfollow everyone except for some people. I’m still going to read Tweets but will somehow keep myself from not reading replies or retweets, because that will totally work and is not the kind of “compromise” that 12-Step programs warn addicts against. And I’ll read tweets other people send to me and tweets linked to in articles.”
To a layman this sounds a lot like “being on Twitter”. Or maybe more like a drunk swearing off all alcohol except beer and wine.
A drunk swearing off alcohol except for beer and wine is fine. Pure abstinence is for those who lack self-control. My version of quitting Twitter reduces probably 95% of the time I spend on it.
I learned from South Park that quitting something 100% means that you have let it dominate you to be point of deciding to never touching it again. Instead, reducing consumption by like 90% means its you who are in control.
The only reason I still have a Twitter account is that I don't want someone else taking my screen name. I never was very impressed by Twitter to begin with. The censorship just makes it not even worth it.
No doubt. I’m just joking around - I don’t really know much about Twitter.
That being said, if Elon's suspicions are correct, your Twitter audience is mostly bots. There are more effective ways to get your message out.
My feeling is that Twitter realizes it leaves itself open to accusations of hypocrisy and being anti-white and anti-right whenever someone on the right is kicked off for “crimes” against a protected groups. So if you point out a hate fact--like certain groups have lower average IQ than other groups, or that trans women are not actually women--they know it makes them look bad because they’re lying for ideological reasons.
But when they get a chance to kick someone on the right off *for saying something bad about white people or America more generally* they’re handed a golden opportunity to rid their platform of someone they dislike for reasons that even milquetoast Republicans would be okay with.
Spot on, recall that r/The_Donald was banned from reddit for "calls for violence against police officers"
I would assume they're just relying on algorithms that don't distinguish between "punching down" and "punching up".
Richard: I think one of the worst things about Twitter usage, and you touch on this in your comment about how vapid your group chat’s Twitter commentary tends to be, is how it makes you seem/feel smarter and more knowledgeable than you really are. Whenever I use Twitter a lot, I feel like I’m basking in referentiality. I’ll go from a thread about dietary habits in classical antiquity to another thread about the follies of Biden’s student loan giveaway to a dunk on some liberal and I get such a thrill, such a rush from being able to incorporate so much disparate information in such a condensed manner. Of course, that’s only possible because the underlying content is like intellectual BABY FOOD: smooth, yummy and easy to digest! There is nothing impressive at all about consuming a bunch of shallow pablum! It’s HARD to read a multi volume history about the Greeks. It’s HARD to really dig into the nature of universities and how they get away with charging their students so much. Twitter gives college educated people a steady diet of information that is just substantive enough to make them *seem* like an informed person at the office.
"If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. "
Really? That seems really intolerant.
Yeah, the point of free speech for all is that you can't count on the speech regulators being correct.
Have you considered the possibility that tolerating these people is destroying western civilization? What if the libertarian approach to total free speech is bad because bad ideas win in the marketplace of ideas? Maybe the arc of the moral universe bends towards decadence and civilizational collapse.
The problem is that many leftists have concluded exactly this, that ideas like 'free speech' and 'meritocracy' are destroying civilization, and it is one reason some are intolerant of dissent.
When you are so convinced that only your ideas are good and the ideas other people have are so bad that they must be wiped from the face of the earth, then you become part of the problem.
What's your solution? Intelligent Republicans in power forever? And all social media and large corporations owned by smart conservatives?
A culture of free speech is the least bad idea, since you need to accept that idiots and people with bad politics will have power most of the time.
Well said - free speech isn't ideal in some sense but it is stable.
I'll add that I think folks in these groups are often wrong but preventing discussion of these ideas is a bad move.
Twitter is a private internet forum. It just got very big, but it is a private website like any other, so they can kick out anybody they want.
Can a private business kick out black people just for being black? I don't see how a public facing website is any different from a public facing retail shop.
Private websites are subject to public regulation. We can tell private businesses whom they have to serve if they want to remain in existence, and we do so constantly (no "private website" is long for this world if it makes fun of trannies, for example - just ask Kiwi Farms). Public forums should be forced to allow all activities compliant with the First Amendment on their platforms if they would like to not have their assets seized. It's just common sense.
If I were arguing that it was illegal you'd have a point, but I wasn't. I was arguing that it would be intolerant.
I have never tweeted anything and have no regrets about that. Twitter has never been and is not now a legitimate medium of communications. I recommend everyone get off it, and rebuild their audience here at Substack or elsewhere.
Totally agree! I never succumbed to FakeBook either. Nor IG or Snapchat or the spying Tik Tok. They are all total time suck, spy and data mine operation!
Richard, will you please open a betting market for:
"How long does it take RH to get back on Twitter"
Let's see what the audience thinks.
>I don’t feel particularly oppressed by leftists. They give me a lot more free speech than I would give them if the tables were turned. If I owned Twitter, I wouldn’t let feminists, trans activists, or socialists post. Why should I? They’re wrong about everything and bad for society. Twitter is a company that is overwhelmingly liberal, and I’m actually impressed they let me get away with the things I’ve been saying for this long.
>I would bend my libertarian principles to be in favor of using government to take away Twitter’s power to censor, but not based on some broadly applicable principle, because principle points in the other direction. In fact, I’d hate to see a social media website completely devoted to free speech. Already, my replies were polluted with ad hoc attacks, insults, and anti-vaxx nonsense. I couldn’t imagine how unpleasant Twitter would be right now if they didn’t already purge the most defective personalities. As I’ve pointed out before, the problem with modern liberalism isn’t its intolerance, which is mild by historical standards, but the fact that it is wrong.
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Epistemic arrogance is rarely rewarded with a better understanding of reality. The problem with intolerance is that it makes correcting mistakes harder than if you were to tolerate dissenting views.
I can't imagine that you made it this far in life without encountering the above line of thinking, so I'm curious to know why you've dispensed with Mill and sided with (((Popper))) instead.
This part also threw me off a little, but I followed his link to another of his pieces in Quillette, then another of the links from that article and I think I understand the core of what RH was trying to say. He seems to reject the cult of anti-truth that characterizes the modish part of leftist Twitter. There are ideas worth responding to and people who can even question and debate their ideas, but the followers of the "succession ideology" ("electism," wokeness or whatever else you want to call it) are religious zealots who can't be reasoned with. And they aren't afraid to use repressive tolerance to harass or censure any perceived heresy, no matter how small.
I understand what RH was trying to say as well. It wasn't terribly complicated - he doesn't think free speech is valuable because he doesn't think that the speech it enables is necessarily valuable. This is always and everywhere the justification for censorship: "We will only censor that which is morally or factually wrong, for the greater good."
As I mentioned, John Stuart Mill laid out the seminal counterargument over 150 years ago in "On Liberty." RH sides instead with (((Karl Popper))), who argued (in classic Semitic fashion) that censorship was justified if one could claim that the people being censored would censor you if given the chance.
The argument is camouflaged in fancier language than this, but I have not substantively misrepresented it. In essence, the disagreement boils down to how confident you should be about what you think you know. If you think that you should have complete confidence (what some might fairly call "faith") in certain things, then censoring dissent can be morally righteous, because it prevents lost souls from falling into heresy. If instead you think that reality should be the ultimate arbiter of our beliefs, and that everything should be subject to questioning and criticism, then censorship (defined as preventing others from sharing their thoughts or opinions) is always wrong, because it artificially prunes the search space for ideas, potentially preventing the correction of errors.
Being opposed to censorship does not require you to think that there is value in every question or opinion. One may (and probably should) be quite closed-minded on an individual level about many things, because your time is limited. But this need not (and imo should not) result in treating your conclusions as tenets of faith to be protected from disagreement. RH feels otherwise because he is overwhelmingly confident in the conclusions he has reached. I'm telling him to eat a slice of humble pie.
Thanks for explaining. I haven’t read the sources you mentioned so I totally missed your point.
How does “conjectures and refutations” (Popper) conflict with epistemic humility? The Popperians I know who were taught by Popper’s students are free speech absolutists.
>How does “conjectures and refutations” (Popper) conflict with epistemic humility?
Wouldn't know, I never read it. Was referring instead to the view he espoused in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" about what he called "the paradox of tolerance," which gets cited ALL THE TIME by antifa types to justify silencing/censoring/murdering even extremely milquetoast right-wingers. After all, if Ben Shapiro can say that men aren't women, it will result in another Holocaust, so anything necessary to limit his reach is acceptable.
>The Popperians I know who were taught by Popper’s students are free speech absolutists.
Have they ever seen you persuade a room full of people that homosexuality is best modeled as a harmful mental illness and should be outlawed, or that Jews have a genetic propensity for anti-social behavior and should be forcefully expelled from all first-world countries? Liberals only like free speech when they mistakenly believe that open dialogue and honest debate will result in a consensus they agree with. When they belatedly realize with slowly dawning horror that free speech results in radical traditionalism sweeping the populace, watch how rapidly they morph into the very fascists they pretend to oppose!
“as long as it’s not related to race, sex, or gayness, where they’re completely deluded and make people dumber”
Umm. Or war. Or Covid. Or politics. Or the economy. Or basically anything else that matters.
I read NYT, and I’m not on Twitter. But I don’t read NYT for information about the world. I read it purely as information about current establishment narratives.
Dear Mr. Hanania,
Good for you. Your Twitter comments, while amusing, are hardly the best of your oeuvre. I, too, am finding the wasted time vs. gem in the dung ratio getting a bit high.
It's funny how Twitter's rules seem to mimic those of the American justice system in that if you accept the plea bargain (i.e., remove the tweet and lower your head) you will be let go with a minor sentence (1st admonition, sit on the bench for 24h), but if you dare challenge their accussation you can expect a much heavier sentence if the Algorithm-Judge (there's no way that tweets are beng reviewed by actual people) should find you guilty. Ironic, because this very same system ends up sentencing thousands of innocents to unjust penalties, just because the accused (often minorities, whom probably the Twitter overlords would complain for being unfairly treated by "The System") don't want to risk a much disproportionally heavier sentence should they be (unjustly) found guilty.
If there is an algorithm, why not run it at the time of post and warn the auttor then. The author can then consider their tone and correct for misinterpretion.
Use of Twitter violates a core principle of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Don’t engage the enemy on their battleground. As long as good people wallow in ego and/or addiction to social media there will be no victory in this war. And yes, this is war.
It’s important to remember that no matter what information can be found there it is still being sifted. What is found is also a shield for what isn’t there. It’s not advantageous for leftist Twitter to allow certain things to gain traction. I’m banned there. I never posted anything that wasn’t informative and sourced on purpose. I tested them with my posts. What legitimate sourced bit of info will trigger them?
Megvii. Openly reported prior to the rise of the Democratic Third Positionists. Joe Biden’s son and brother doing business with a company under sanctions by the US. Circumventing these sanctions by registering BHR in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone so investment can be made in mass surveillance which is being tested on the Uyghur population. Twitter doesn’t like that easily sourced information posted on their platform.
The second time was information I gained from a quote from a WTO official. This official used a strange word I had never heard. The media outlet that caught it does have an interest in exposing globalist corruption. Russia Today. One of the best available media sources. Why else would the West be so threatened by it?
The word was “Polycrisis”. It has a source. The source is connected to a mountain of money. A Google Trends search of the word shows it is not in wide circulation. Yet very rich people use it in their discourse. The site of origin has a definition of the Polycrisis. Read the last paragraph. It sounds like a lot of people are going to have a bad time. But not them. Hmmmmmm
Philippe Lemoine has recently posted about some of the things he got wrong (and right) about the Russia-Ukraine war. Any plans to do something similar?
Good for you Richard. If more people I know with something interesting to say would make the same decision, my life (and the world) would both be better off.
Twitter has simply used AI to enforce the sensibilities of gay women on everyone. It is a living Hell for men.