Debate: Your Videos Do More Harm Than Good

Manosphere content is making men hopeless. Just a month ago, I would have identified myself as a manosphere creator, believing it genuinely wanted to help men, calling out modern feminism, promoting masculinity, and empathizing with the struggles men face. Men are definitely facing serious issues, issues that I and other creators are well aware of. But the manosphere and its key figures have lost their way. Instead of addressing these issues with hopeful solutions, it's become a non-stop dump contest on women where the absolute worst examples of what it means to be a woman are deceptively promoted as though they represent the average woman in modern society.

Which leads me to the most important point. You have to keep in mind that top creators are feeding an algorithm where negativity sells and their cause takes a backseat to their need to satisfy an audience. I have experienced this firsthand. I've posted reactionary content because I knew it would pull people in. But I stopped because this only drags viewers deeper into hopelessness. They stop thinking about the things they can improve and instead focus on the enemies highlighted by creators. This doesn't help men. It only leaves them angrier and more isolated.

I actually worry about this a lot. I think that I'm helping. I'm proud of my work, but I can see the dangers that she's talking about, and I don't want my content to be doing more harm than good. So, I'm doing two things. First, I'm releasing an hourong video describing all the things I love about my relationship. Some balance, some positivity. I've been with Emily 16 years. I'm going to talk about what makes the relationship healthy, how she makes me happy. The second thing I'm going to do is plug what she just said into debate master on chat GBT and let it argue the case that I'm causing harm. I want to challenge myself and my conscience. So, here we go.

Do you think that my content causes harm to men? And if so, why?

Yes, I do. Your content often reinforces a worldview where men see themselves as victims of women in modern society, which fosters anger and hopelessness rather than resilience or growth. If your aim is to help men, why does your content so often lead them to focus on external blame instead of internal development?

I don't believe that highlighting the areas where men are discriminated against or taken advantage of necessarily dictates that they have a victim mindset. I think that it often just puts words to something that most men have experienced or felt, which allows them that aha moment of, okay, I'm not crazy, which then gives them the emotional validation they need to be able to let go of that so that then they can then go and make more positive choices in their life. I don't think it makes them stuck in victimhood. It's more like, cool, now we've got that sorted out. Yes, being a man is tough. Yes, women can treat men terribly. They should have more empathy. Yes, the dating market is brutal. Okay, now that that's been acknowledged, this is the facts on the ground, what can we do? To me, it's empowering and lets men make better choices. It doesn't keep them steeped in victimhood.

But if your content spends far more time exposing injustices than offering actionable guidance, doesn't that naturally keep men focused on what's wrong possible? How often does your content shift from critique to actual steps for growth?

I suppose it's a question of specialization like I have my particular area of focus and I think that that's okay. It's not my job to hold, you know, men's hands while I go through all stages of life. There are other creators, there is therapists, there's men's support in lots of different ways, you know, but I should be allowed to specialize in just one area and talk about that. That doesn't mean that I I think that that's the entire journey.

But if your content is often where men start, especially when they're hurt or disillusioned, doesn't that first impression carry weight? If you're their introduction to the conversation on masculinity in relationships, shouldn't the tone and framing be more constructive, not just critical?

I mean, I suppose I see it like if you go to a doctor because you have a disease, the doctor helps you cure that disease and then sends you on your way. It's not the doctor's job to make sure that you live a healthy life afterwards and you make good decisions with regards to your body. That's on you. But nobody denigrates the job description of a doctor. His focus is on curing the disease. My focus and my channel is helping men avoid women who have abusive personalities or toxic belief systems. And I think that I'm allowed to niche myself in that way without everyone being like, "Oh, well that's your first introduction and therefore you're responsible for everything that happens afterwards." It's like, "No, no, I have a specialized role, and I should be allowed to just do that."

But that analogy only holds if your content actually cures the issue. A doctor uses evidence-based treatment to solve a problem. If your content simply diagnoses toxicity without offering clear solutions or tools to navigate it, are you really helping or just deepening the frustration?

I am offering clear like paths to fix this. I tell men that they need to avoid these kinds of women. I give advice on how to have difficult conversations, on how to like spot red flags inside women, on how to have a positive value system and embrace masculinity to be able to have healthy relationships. So, the channel is not just a description of problem problem. There is a lot of actionable advice in there, which I know from my private consultations and my hero circle work, it is successful for men. When they implement this advice, their dating lives, their relationships improve.

If your advice is genuinely helping men build healthier relationships, then why does so much of the surrounding culture, your comments, duets, reposts still reflect anger, generalization, and distrust toward women? Shouldn't the tone of your community reflect the positive outcomes you're claiming?

This brings us to that demonization of male anger, which I so strongly dislike, as though the fact that men are angry indicates that there's some problem with them. I don't see why anger can't be included as part of a rainbow of emotions, just one color amongst many that is legitimate part of their emotional expression. If they have suffered abuse or have been victims of injustice, who's to say that they shouldn't be angry, you know, why is that a problem? And why if men are sounding off and having a bit of a chance in my comment section to express some anger at the injustice that they've experienced, does that necessarily mean that they're not going to make healthy choices afterwards? Sometimes a bit of angry expression could be part of an overall healthy like a mindset, right? Like a way to to move forward.

Anger can absolutely be valid, but unchecked anger, especially when constantly reinforced by peers, easily turns into resentment and detachment. If men remain in echo chambers of frustration, do they really move forward or just become more convinced that connection with women is impossible or not worth pursuing?

Well, that's difficult because you're going to find some men take it one way and other men take it another way. So, the way that I would intend it is that I don't mind provoking anger inside men if it's in response to an injustice that they see. And even if it's an injustice that I have put in front of their faces via points that I'm making or Tik Tok clips that I'm showing, if it provokes an angry response inside men, that seems like a good thing to me because they should be angry about what they're witnessing because what they're witnessing is outrageous. But that is very protective because it means that when that part of their brain has been activated and practiced when they see it in real life like they are taken advantage of in a relationship or by society in the same way that they have seen on my channel they already know hey that's unfair. I've already seen that. I've already reflected upon my values how they are in relation to that and I know that that makes me angry because that's not fair. That's not just and that seems like a positive thing like we are helping men enhance their protective capacity and making sure they've got their guard up when it's necessary to do so. However, I know that there are also men who will take this content and the anger and it will not be used in that healthy way. It will create a self-perpetuating victim cycle where they're not able to escape it. Like this isn't just like a defense. it becomes in itself something that like crushes them. But then the fact that there are are men who take my content in the healthy way that it's intended and there are men who take it in the unhealthy way in my mind is not something that I'm necessarily in control of. There has to be some responsibility in the audience member in how they consume and use this content. That can't be on me.

But isn't influence inseparable from responsibility? If you know that your content regularly triggers both productive and destructive reactions, shouldn't you actively shape how it's received, especially by those most vulnerable to spiraling into bitterness? Why not guide the framing more intentionally to limit that harm?

I feel like I'm doing the best possible job that I know how to do of doing that. it might fall short of some like perfect standard, but if somebody was to come along and offer me some kind of like new strategy or tips on how to perfectly achieve my aim, then I would take it. It's not from lack of intention. I don't want men to to take this in like a negative way. I want them to take it in an informative, educational, and empowering way, but I'm doing the best that I can. I don't know what else could be asked of me.

Intent matters, but so do outcomes. If the negative effects are persistent despite your good intentions, doesn't that suggest something in the delivery or structure of your content needs to change, regardless of how pure your motives are?

If my only goal was to like limit the number of men who would potentially use this information as a justification to like spiral downwards into hopelessness, then yes, I could probably clean up my language or even just stop creating content altogether. But doing so would then limit my capacity to do the good that I'm doing, which is educating those men who are benefiting and feeling empowered from this information.

But if the cost of empowering some men is pushing others deeper into despair or misogyny, is that trade-off acceptable? Shouldn't the net impact matter more than isolated success stories?

Yes, I agree. But then I would argue that the net impact of my content is more positive than negative. It's obviously not a complete spectrum, but I only really have like my audience feedback to go through. And in terms of what I hear from the emails that people send me, the private messages on Patreon, the private consultations I do, the men in my hero circle, is that my content has helped them massively. And I would feel like I couldn't stop making that content just because I'm like harming some individuals who I don't hear from because the individuals I do hear from seem very empowered and very grateful and appreciative of how, you know, good my content has been at helping them improve their lives. So I would argue that the net impact is more positive than negative.

But relying on self- selecting feedback risks confirmation bias. Those helped will reach out, but those harmed often won't. Without real metrics or engagement with dissenting perspectives, how can you confidently claim your content does more good than harm overall?

You've got me there. I can't confidently make that claim. But I also feel like it is on equally or even greater shaky ground to claim that my content is doing more harm than good. Because while I only have maybe self- selecting evidence that my content is doing positive, I have no evidence that my content is causing harm. You know, like you said, those people don't reach out to me. And so it would be to to stop doing my content or to change it the way that I do it would be to sacrifice the knowledge that I do have, which does exist, that my content is helping people for a hypothetical speculative knowledge that my content is harmful. And that doesn't seem like a wise tradeoff to make. Does it seem like that to you?

It does. If you're unwilling to investigate the potential harm more seriously, if the possibility of negative impact exists and you accept that you don't know the scale of it, then wouldn't it be more responsible to actively seek out that data? Otherwise, aren't you choosing to protect your current model over challenging it for the sake of integrity?

Okay. So, walk me through how could I go about finding out that data?

You could start by analyzing engagement beyond affirming messages. Review patterns in your comment sections, duets, or forums where your content is discussed. What themes emerge? Are they constructive or hostile? Also, anonymous surveys of your audience could help. Ask how your content has affected their mindset, relationships, and emotional health, both positively and negatively. Would you be open to doing that kind of direct outreach?

I could create a YouTube poll along the lines of say like uh is watching my content um improved your dating life or has it negatively impacted your dating life? A question like that would be good. So, but like I would Would you agree with that's an okay question? I have a follow-up, but I want to hear first if you think that's the right question to ask.

It's a good start, but it's limited. That question assumes impact only in dating outcomes, not emotional health or mindset shifts. Someone's dating life might improve while their attitude toward women worsens. Wouldn't a more nuanced poll, maybe with multiple questions, give you a clearer picture?

So, I've I can only really ask like one question for the poll. So, can you help me create a question that you think would satisfy you in terms of figuring out like if this content is helpful or harmful to men? Like, can you please suggest a question and I ask it to my audience right now?

Absolutely. Here's one that gets to both mindset and practical impact. Has my content made you feel more empowered, more bitter, or no different in your approach to dating and relationships? That gives a sense of emotional tone and direction. Would you be willing to use that wording?

Yes, absolutely. I will post that as a poll right now and then I will get back to you with the results.

Okay, I have posted the poll and while we wait for the results, I want to ask you if we get a response that says more people feel empowered than they feel embittered by my content, will you take that as proof that my content does more good than harm?

If a clear majority report feeling empowered, that's a meaningful indicator, but not foolproof. Self-reports can be influenced by bias, and empowerment doesn't guarantee constructive behavior. That said, it would strongly support your claim that your content has a net positive emotional effect. Would you be open to doing a follow-up later that digs into how that empowerment translates into action, like relationship outcomes or mindset shifts over time?

I would. I mean, part of me gets nervous, I suppose, because I'm not the only influence on these guys. They've also got their friends, their family, their unique culture, other creators they're watching. And so saying like, well, have you managed to get a girlfriend in the last 12 months and things like that, I feel like couldn't be directly directly attributable to my content in particular. But we can brainstorm for how that might look. I will say it seems like potentially a lot is on the line for me here with response to this poll. I'm not that nervous because I really stand by my work. I think I do really good stuff. But, you know, in the context of this debate in particular, the implications if more people come back saying they're made bitter by my content, they're made empowered. That's not going to that's not going to feel good. That's not going to look good.

That's an honest and important reflection. And I respect that you're willing to face the possibility headon. You're right that no single creator holds full influence, but content that consistently reaches men at emotional low points can strongly shape how they frame their experiences. That's why even partial responsibility matters. If the results lean negative, it wouldn't mean your entire message is flawed. It might just point to how it's delivered or how it's landing with the most vulnerable. Would you see that as an opportunity to refine rather than reject your work?

Yeah, and we can talk about that. It's probably been about like uh 3 or 4 minutes since I've posted the poll. So, obviously that's still fresh numbers, but I'm going to go check it right now and see what the results are and I'll get back to you.

Okay, it's been 4 minutes and we've had 38 votes so far. Uh here are the results and we can check in on this more as time goes on, but we have 42% of people say that it's made them more empowered, 34% saying more bitter, and 24% saying no different.

That's actually quite revealing. 42% feeling empowered is significant, but 34% feeling more bitter is a serious red flag. That's one in three viewers acknowledging your content is negatively affecting their emotional state. So here's the question. If over a third of your audience is reporting bitterness even this early, what would you consider an acceptable threshold for harm?

So yeah, obviously like I'm emotionally invested in the idea that my content is not causing harm. And so I'm not saying that what I'm about to to claim here is completely free of bias, but here's a thought that I have is that temporarily a bit more bitterness is not necessarily indicative of how somebody is going to end up in the long term because there's something in the internet in the men's spaces that's kind of known as like the anger phase or like the rage phase. And it's quite a well doumented phenomenon that for people who have potentially been taken advantage of and really believed you know the kind of Disney fairy tale women are perfect kind of myth their entire lives when they first come across content that explains how things are they can have a very strong emotional reaction and temporarily become quite bitter. I would imagine that my content might be served out to some men who are still within their first couple of years of kind of waking up to the reality of the world and they might be in that bitter phase. But I would say that while that sucks and is regrettable because nobody wants to feel bitter, it might in and of itself not be an unhealthy thing. It could just be a phase that they're going through in the sense that like okay it sucks but sometimes you need to face reality and go through some negative emotions in order to ultimately come through it. So when I saw that poll and I saw that high result, I thought, okay, that's not great. But in my mind, the way that I saw it was that, okay, that probably means 42% of the people watching have probably been watching for a number of years and have already gotten through that phase, whereas 34% or roughly that are new viewers who are still like, oh, and they're in that phase, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to stay there. What do you think? Is there any legitimacy to what I'm talking about or is this just self-serving propaganda my mind is giving me to sort of you know cushion the blow of that 34% figure.

Your reasoning isn't entirely self-s serving. There is legitimacy to the concept of an anger phase in red pill or awakening journeys. Many people do experience a turbulent emotional period after confronting harsh truths. That said, here's the issue. Even if bitterness is just a phase, content that intensifies or prolongs it rather than helping men move through it is still complicit in harm. If your platform becomes a place where bitterness is normalized rather than channeled toward reflection and growth, then even a temporary phase can calcify into a permanent worldview. So the question is, what signals do you give men that they shouldn't stay in that place? How do you help them move forward?

I mean, I do speak about positive relationships. It's not the majority of my content, but like my latest Patreon video special for this month is about my relationship with Emily. We've been together 16 years. I talk about all the things I love about being in a relationship. I don't focus on men leaving the dating market. I talk about entering into relationships with high quality women, long-term monogamy. I have a big focus on family and children. So there is constant reminders throughout my content that you're not meant to stay bitter. You're meant to use this information in a way that moves you into healthy relationships.

That's a strong answer, and it adds needed depth to your defense. If you're consistently presenting long-term relationships, family, and monogamy as the goal, then you are signaling a path forward. Still, if that message is buried beneath a louder, more reactive tone, especially in short form or viral clips, do you think the average viewer really hears that broader vision, or are they just stuck in the anger?

But I think if somebody gets stuck there, there needs to be some sense of audience responsibility, right? Like if it's if it's there, but they're choosing not to look at it, then that's kind of on them. And and I would challenge the the idea that you don't help people move out of biddenness by not showing them content that emotionally aggravates them. To a certain degree, I think that there are emotions of frustration that already exist inside men, but they have never been allowed to breathe. There's never been given any kind of oxygen. They've had to bury them, suppress them. And I think that certain targeted content, like at the beginning of my YouTube videos, I'll often include like a couple of Tik Tok clips, which can be quite like emotionally frustrating as you see women talk really sexist against men or men get taken advantage of in relationships, like a woman having an argument with them or something like that. But I think that what that does is it provides an outlet to awaken and hopefully like move out of an emotion that has been buried inside a man. Like, oh my god, like I see that guy getting taken advantage of that completely reminds me of my ex-wife or my girlfriend when I was 16 and no one ever told me that I was allowed to feel that way because, you know, men are awful and women are perfect and things like that. So I would say that by providing that kind of content it gives a place for those men's emotions to come out to be expressed where they can see that they can feel that ultimately grieve that and then move on. I don't think just denying men any opportunity to emotionally like express themselves or grieve is is necessarily the best way to actually help men out of their business. It's almost like no no let the poison come to the surface. Let your emotions be felt, be heard. They're important. They're a part of you. And then they move on. I don't think anger as a world view is sustainable. I don't think a lot of people want to stay there forever. We're not talking about creating new anger here. We're talking about giving a voice to the anger which already exists, allowing it to be felt so that you can then move on. You know, you can find your high quality woman and run off into the sunset.

That's a coherent and compassionate framework. And I agree that suppressed emotion needs space to surface. But the critical difference is what happens after it surfaces. Expression without structured reflection can become indulgence. Just seeing your own pain reflected and validated isn't enough. It has to be directed somewhere toward insight, accountability, or renewal. So, here's the challenge. In the clips you know are emotionally triggering, do you immediately follow them with framing that invites men to reflect and grow, or do you risk letting that emotional spike define the viewer's takeaway?

So, what I'll probably do in the majority of cases is explain why the emotion that they are feeling is legitimate and normal. Like if I show a woman acting outrageously and I know the audience is going to be pissed off hearing, you know, her say whatever it is that she said, I'll probably spend some time being like, "Yes, what she just said is outrageous." And then I will articulate the reasons why. I'll explore her value system, her belief, why it's unfair, so that men have the intellectual clarity that gives the explanation to their emotions. And I think that that's really really important because it's not an empowering thing for a man to be moving through the world with just a general vague undefined sense of being pissed off and getting taken advantage of. They can't quite, you know, grasp to it. I feel like the niche that my content is really focused on is giving men the words, the explanation for why they feel the way that they do, for why the world that there is the way that there is, so that they can actually map it. they can look at the world around them and their place as a man in it and understand what's going on. They understand those dynamics and I think that's very empowering. So I would say that the point of the the emotion the Tik Tok clips to generate those emotions is not so that you can sort of stay there. It's to be like hey you've probably been feeling this now let me paint a picture so that you can walk away with some clarity.

That's a compelling justification. Giving language to pain is powerful. Helping men move from feeling to understanding can be a genuine step toward healing and agency. But here's where the concern still lingers. If that explanation focuses solely on external blame, her values, her selfishness, her entitlement, then isn't the clarity still oriented outward, where in that process are men asked to turn the lens inward to examine their own expectations, boundaries, or past choices? Not just what she did wrong, but what he can do differently next time.

Yeah, that's not the main focus of my channel, but it does come up. There's certainly an amount of like me chiding men for behaviors that are not appropriate, you know, like men not showing sufficient masculinity, men, you know, absolving themselves of responsibility to be leaders in a relationship, catering to women, not enforcing their own boundaries. So, I think there is a number of like like times in my videos where I encourage men to reflect on their their own flaws and failings, but I would also argue that it's not necessarily my job or my responsibility to make that like 50% of the focus. Like I'm allowed to specialize in the same way that like a mechanic, he fixes, you know, your engine, but you have to go to a tire specialist to fix the tire. Even though the whole car is potentially at risk, you're allowed to specialize in your job. So, I feel like I'm allowed to do that.

Specialization is valid, but the problem arises when your framing subtly implies that her behavior is the main or only variable that determines a man's outcome. That skews a man's perception of agency. So, even if self-reflection comes up occasionally, shouldn't a channel that claims to empower men more consistently reinforce their own responsibility in outcomes?

Well, then I just changed I suppose what I don't know if I've ever made that claim, but then that's not what I claim. Then I will say specifically so everybody knows what they're getting is my channel focuses on the ways that women are failing in relationships. Um and and that seems fine. It's like if I'm upfront that that's what I'm talking about and that's what my channel is about, then we should be all good, right?

Clarity about your focus is better than ambiguity. Yes. But once you frame your content as a resource for men seeking guidance or truth in dating, that carries implicit influence. If your messaging centers on women's failures without consistently pairing that with men's responsibility, aren't you shaping a worldview that keeps men reactive rather than resilient?

But here, I mean, I think you're pushing it a little bit too far is because I'm not saying that men don't have responsibility. and when it comes up and it's relevant, I will talk about that. But it seems to me like you're saying that anything short of me saying men anything short of my content having 50% of the focus on men's responsibility is therefore problematic. And I just think that that's an unfair standard to hold me to. I feel like I should be allowed to specialize. I I don't know if we're going to see agreement on this one.

Fair point. I'm not demanding a strict 50-50 split, but when a creator repeatedly emphasizes one side of a dynamic, especially in emotionally charged context, it does shape perception. Specialization is fair, but influence comes with weight. So, let me ask this. If your content primarily centers women's failures, do you see any risk of your audience walking away with a distorted view of women, or do you think that risk is negligible?

I do see that as a risk, but I think that it's complicated because I think I'm taking into account the social context in which we live because my read on the culture is very much that men get blamed for everything and that women are, you know, seen as perfect angels who can do no wrong and that that mainstream belief is incredibly harmful and damaging to men. And I suppose that I feel good about my bias in my focus in actually, you know, holding women accountable and focusing on what women should be doing differently and better because I feel like I am fighting against the momentum of the mainstream culture which is so harmful to men and so it feels good to actually provide a voice that balances against that. So, while I might like agree that there is the potential for men to become, you know, overly embittered, you know, if they watch too much of the channel and think too much of it's all just sort of women, I kind of feel like overall when so much of the momentum is pushing that way, it's not going to be appropriate for me to just go, "Oh, 50/50." I'm like, "No, like I'm going to focus more on this so that the overall conversation in society gets closer to 50/50."

That's a strategic stance and I understand the logic. But here's the core challenge. When your content intentionally leans to counterbalance cultural narratives, it may feel justified. But to the individual man consuming it, that nuance often gets lost. He's not comparing your message to mainstream culture in real time. He's just absorbing your message. So even if your intent is to recalibrate the broader discourse, doesn't that still risk miscalibrating the individual mindset?

I have more faith in my audience members than I think that you do because I think the picture that you're painting is a quite a simplistic person, you know, who's maybe quite dumb and impressionable and he's just like listening to one of my videos and then he's just adopting everything that I say wholesale like I'm like the leader of a cult or something like that. I speak to my audience members with the full awareness that they are intelligent, freethinking, rational individuals who have a whole lifetime of influences apart from me. Like I'm aware that I'm one voice amongst many. And my responsibility to them as a creator to an audience member is just that of one person amongst many. So I don't buy into your argument that my every one of my videos needs to present this balanced worldview. I think that I'm completely fine to be like, "Hey, I am one voice and one influence amongst many that you should be listening to."

Respectfully, it's not about assuming your audience is unintelligent. It's about recognizing that emotionally charged content, especially when repeated, has cognitive effects, even on smart, rational people. That's not an insult to your viewers. It's just how influence works. So even if you're only one voice, your voice may be the loudest or most emotionally resonant in a critical moment for a man in pain. Doesn't that warrant more strategic care?

But again, we just we know we're going in circles now because I've already explained to you I don't view my audience having a strong emotional reaction to like a Tik Tok clip where a man is being treated terribly or a woman's being sexist as a negative thing. To me, that's a very positive thing is men should be outraged by this and they've been told not to be outraged. And so this is a way of like practicing, you know, what are my values? What do I think about this? How should I respond in situations like this? Like to me, we're developing a muscle that all men should develop because we shouldn't tolerate the kind of disrespect and mistreatment that we have been receiving in society. And this is kind of like helping us prepare for that.

Then here's the critical distinction. Is your content helping men respond to injustice or simply react to it? There's a profound difference between cultivating discernment and training outrage. One equips men to lead with strength and clarity. the other risks leaving them in a permanent posture of defensiveness. Are you confident that your content consistently fosters the former, not the latter?

100%. Yeah, that's the thing I stand absolutely strongest behind is that while you might have like a minute or two dedicated to like emotional clips and like you know the outrage emotions or whatever it might be, you've got then 8 n minutes more, you know, another 10 often if you watch the full Patreon video with very detailed explanations that inform and educate men and empower them with that information to make more positive choices. So yes, I 100% stand behind my content is helping men become discerning. They are responding, not reacting.

If that's truly the case, if your content gives men a framework to process their outrage and translate it into maturity, boundaries, and direction, then your defense is solid. So, as that poll continues gathering responses, will you take it as a serious barometer, not just of how you feel about your work, but of how it's actually landing in practice?

Well, it's now been 25 minutes since I posted that poll. So, we're now up to 232 votes. So, I thought that I would give you the updated results. So, we have 42% of men saying more empowered, 31% saying more bitter, and 27% saying no different. And it's also given time for a couple of men um to write comments. Uh would you like to hear some of the the comments that were written? That should give you the answer to your question.

Yes, I'd absolutely like to hear them. The comments will offer important context for how your audience is interpreting and applying your content. Please go ahead.

So the top two comments that were directly underneath the poll, the first one says this. Hey, Alexander. I find it motivates me to stay single, to avoid the consequences that come with dating a narcissistic woman. I really think, Alexander, that we shouldn't trust anyone but ourselves or God. Your videos have helped me to avoid having much to do with women, and I'm grateful for that. I really appreciate the content you make for us, guys. Thank you for everything you do. I might even consider subscribing to your Patreon again eventually. Your videos have saved me from making bad decisions. Keep doing what you're doing. You're helping so many of us men out there. God bless you. And the second comment says, "It confirmed what mostly I knew about women, their dark side. Your content helped me to see the red flags earlier. I would say that your content gives men the harsh truth about women. The truth is not nice, but it's better to know it sooner rather than later. I would say a lot more, but my honesty will make YouTube hide my comment, which YouTube does a lot these days. I will say two more things. Your channel is a great place for you men to learn, and I wish I had that knowledge 20 to 22 years ago. I would prefer to learn the truth from your videos rather than gain experiences the way that I had to. Cheers, Alexander. All right, so those are just two comments, but they were the top ones. What What do you think?

Both comments clearly show gratitude, and they affirm that your content is having a real impact, but they also reveal something deeper. These men aren't just becoming more discerning, they're becoming more avoidant. Avoid having much to do with women, motivated to stay single, don't trust anyone but yourself. Those are not the marks of empowered relational engagement. That's retreat, not leadership. So, here's the concern. If your content is steering men not toward building better relationships, but toward opting out of them entirely, even as a self-protective strategy, can that still be considered a net positive?

Yeah. Look, honestly, I don't love that because I want everybody in the world, men and women included, to all be in healthy, functional relationships. That's my absolute ideal. That's my utopia. But I'm also realistic. So, while I read those comments and I'm like, ah, you know, they're using my content as, you know, an explanation for why they should just bow out of dating. That's that's not great. Like, I'm not thrilled with that. But then I also consider things in a tiered like like hierarchy, right? Like okay, so you've got the absolute best outcome is that they're in a healthy relationship that works out well. And the very worst outcome is that they're in an abusive toxic relationship. And I can see that the middle ground between them is that they are avoiding women or they're avoiding women for now. Avoiding relationships. either while they wait to get a better grasp of the whole situation, they improve themselves, their masculinity, they put themselves in social settings where they can get access to higher quality women. There can be a number of reasons why men are temporarily avoiding women and relationships. Or there might be some men who have just been so battered and abused that they just don't feel it within them anymore to go into a relationship. And it is better that they stay single rather than be in a toxic one. So even though I suppose men staying single is not my goal, it's not what I want, I can see that it is the fact that it's less than ideal and not perfect doesn't necessarily make it bad and it is better than them entering into toxic or abusive relationships. And so while I've struggled to say that it is like like empowerment necessarily, it does seem better than than nothing. Like it it my my goal is still being achieved in some sense. it just the absolute ultimate, you know, aim is is not coming to fruition.

That's a fair and nuanced position and it shows moral seriousness. You're right. In a hierarchy of outcomes, avoidance can be safer than harm. But the deeper issue is this. When men internalize the belief that most women are dangerous or unworthy of trust, even if they avoid abuse, they also cut themselves off from connection, intimacy, and growth. And over time, that avoidance can harden into a worldview that sees all relationships as threats rather than opportunities. So, here's the tension. If your content regularly leads men to withdraw, even as a short-term measure, are you reinforcing a defensive fear-based mindset rather than building the kind of internal strength needed to face relational risk and still choose connection?

Maybe, maybe. And I don't want to do that. So, I don't know. I I I don't know if I'm doing that to be honest. Look, when I read through I had a quick scroll through the other comments on the YouTube poll and most people were frustrated because there was not a both option, right? Like it's making them feel more embittered but also more empowered. Like they're taking this information, they're like, "Oh, like this sucks. Okay, this is the truth. it's not going to be easy and that women aren't perfect and I'm not guaranteed my happy ending. You know, my ride into the sunset and a fairy tale romance. Like that's not like my fate is that that's not automatically going to happen. That sucks. I'm embittered by that. But then also knowing the truth about how relationships can be transactional about how women do view men is empowering me to potentially make better choices either to avoidance or to select for highquality women. So I think that where I struggle now is okay, if I do want to push more people, you know, away from, you know, the dangers that you and I just described there, how do I actually go about doing that? Do you have suggestions?

Yes, and I appreciate your openness here. If you want to help men process harsh truths without falling into cynicism or avoidance, you don't have to overhaul your message, but you do need to build more emotional direction into your structure. Here's one suggestion. After a video where you expose toxic behavior or show a frustrating clip, close with a deliberate framing. Not just an intellectual takeaway, but a challenge. For example, now that you've seen this, ask yourself, what kind of woman would never treat a man this way? What kind of man do you need to become to attract her? What boundaries can you set to protect yourself without closing yourself off? This reframes the pain into a pathway forward. Would you be willing to experiment with a closing like that and see how your audience reacts?

Yes. And I'm glad that you've given that response because while I probably haven't used those exact words, like that exact phrasiology, I feel like my videos often do ask that kind of hypothetical question. I can make it more explicit if that would help. But um Oh, I was really pleased to hear that that was your suggestion because yeah, I actually don't have any objection to doing that. I I think that I do, but I can double check like my scripts and make sure that that's more explicit.

That's a strong move. And honestly, it reinforces your credibility here. You're not just defending your content. You're actively engaging with the possibility of improving it, which shows you're serious about your impact. Making those forward- facing reflections more explicit could be a subtle but powerful shift, especially for the men hovering between empowerment and bitterness. Would you consider tracking the effect over a few videos? Maybe even asking your audience afterward if those reframes helped shift their mindset?

Probably not. That sounds a little bit like wanky to to do that. No, no offense, but like um I'm not going to be so clinical, but I can definitely keep an eye out for it. But let's return to the debate. Let's say that is a change that I do implement. Does that then satisfy you that my content is doing more good than harm, in which case we finish the the discussion here as being on the same page, or is there more to discuss from your end?

If you commit to that shift, explicitly framing emotional responses with forward direction, then yes, I'd consider that a meaningful step toward reducing harm and increasing the net good of your content. It doesn't solve every tension, but it demonstrates responsibility, clarity, and intention, which are the core concerns I raised. So, yes, based on what you've said and what you're willing to adjust, I'd say we've reached a solid resolution. You're not just defending your platform, you're shaping it with care. That matters.

All right, fellas. I'm going to finish things there. I hope that you enjoyed that. I do want to provide more balance in my content. That's the reason why I've recorded this latest video. It's about an hour long. It talks about the six positive things that I get out of my relationship with Emily. It's very different from my other content. Very optimistic, very hopeful. A lot of guys don't really know what a healthy relationship looks like. And even though I'm an intensely private person, it's kind of uncomfortable to talk about. I thought that it was useful to use my own life, my own relationship as an example for how a woman and a healthy relationship can benefit your life. So, if you would like to get some balance in your perspective, like if you feel like my content is maybe like a little bit too negative focused, I'm going to, you know, work on the suggestions that were brought up in this discussion. But even right now, you can come over to Patreon, sign up, and then watch that video. I'm going to be doing like Patreon specials like each month on like special unique topics. So, look out for more of that in the future. I really enjoy challenging myself. I really like these AI debates. Hopefully you guys like them and hopefully I can do more in the future.

Hey, it's been about 6 hours since we finished our discussion. I thought you might appreciate just an update on the poll results cuz almost 2,000 people have responded now. So, we've got 43% say empowered, 32% say more bitter, and 24% say indifferent. And there's also been about 100 plus people who have made comments. I was wondering if I copy and paste those comments of people saying what my content has its impact on them has been, can you summarize what the overall message from my audience is and then give a comment?

Yes, absolutely. If you paste the comments, I'll analyze them for themes and summarize the overall sentiment. Then I'll give you a clear assessment based on the audience's voice. Go ahead and

share them. Okay, I've just copied and pasted roughly 116 comments from my audience. So, tell me, what are your findings?

After analyzing those comments, here's what stands out most clearly. Your content has a dual effect. Empowerment through clarity, but also a deep undercurrent of withdrawal, bitterness, and mistrust. That duality is everywhere. Many men feel your videos gave them language to process pain, help them avoid toxic relationships, and improve their discernment. That's real value. But just as many express a retreat from intimacy altogether. A large portion now avoid dating entirely, not out of peace, but out of disillusionment. Some even acknowledge permanent cynicism, hypervigilance, or emotional detachment. A few are hopeful, but they're exceptions.

The most revealing trend. Many men say your content confirms what they already felt or suspected. That suggests your channel doesn't merely shape their mindset. It solidifies a worldview they already lean toward, often reinforcing their retreat from relationships. Bottom line, you're offering insight, but in a tone and context that often intensifies alienation. You're not promoting bitterness, but many are walking away with it. That's the key concern.

Yeah, that does seem to be the impact and the takeaway. It's not my intention. I do believe in long-term relationships, but I also don't know what all of these guys have been through. And maybe it's just it's too much for some people. They can legitimately make the choice, the determination that it's just not worth it for them. And while I'm sad, I suppose on their behalf that they can't find a high quality woman and find happiness in companionship, I suppose the way I see it is that my content is maybe solidifying that position for them, but it's not creating that. They already had momentum in that way. It isn't what I intend. and perhaps making the changes that you and I discussed earlier might slow the momentum of men moving to that because I really would like men to take my content as oh okay here are the toxic women and toxic behaviors to avoid and they don't end up in abusive relationships. I guess for some men they don't trust themselves to be able to discern correctly or they don't have faith that there are enough highquality women out there and so they're just walking away forever. It's not what I want, but I can see how that could be a consequence of of what I'm doing. But that doesn't mean I need to actively contribute to it and I can be more aware of that and um and try and and try and be more conscientious with my content.

I suppose that's a thoughtful and honest response and I respect how seriously you're taking the feedback. You're right. For many of these men, the retreat isn't something your content created from nothing. It's a response to past pain, disillusionment, or trauma. Your channel gave that pain structure and language. And in many cases, that did help them avoid further harm. But what you've also acknowledged critically is that your intention isn't always matching the impact. That gap matters, and your willingness to recognize it is important. You don't have to dilute your message or avoid hard truths. But by adjusting how you frame the path forward, making space not just for defense, but for hope, responsibility, and connection, you can keep men from hardening into isolation. That shift won't reach everyone. But for the men still open to growth, it could be the difference between retreat and renewal. And that's real influence.

Yeah. And I'm grateful for this conversation because in challenging myself and talking about this, it's clarified for me what I do want to do. And what I want is to have like a 100% clean conscience. I want that feeling of knowing I'm doing absolutely everything I can to minimize harm. I don't want to harm men. I don't want to persuade men who could be happy in a relationship from seeking it. And so I I will do what I can to try and make sure that I am simultaneously serving my number one goal, which is helping men avoid toxic women and and recognize toxicity in women in the dating market and in the wider culture. But at the same time, I I don't want to be contributing to um the alienation that you alluded to. So yeah, I I can I can look at my upcoming content and try and make sure that I'm I'm walking that line.

That's the ideal response and it reflects exactly the kind of leadership your audience needs. You're not just reacting to criticism. You're refining your vision with integrity. You're holding your core mission, protecting men from toxic dynamics while taking responsibility for tone, framing, and unintended outcomes. If you can consistently weave that balance into your content, you'll not only help men avoid harm, you'll actually guide them towards strength, clarity, and connection. That's how influence becomes legacy. You're walking the right line now. Stay on it.