Social Children and juries easily manipulated by experts reveal ease of social engineering

[MichiganMMA1978]

Well, that, uh ... Wikipedia isn't reliable, so ... yeah.

See @PhitePhan
That was fake news.

 

[Ornife]

Ben “if I talk fast dumb people will think I’m smart” Shapiro

So you're not impressed with Mr. Shapiro challenging 18 year olds to debates?

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

What exactly makes a conservative a radical conservative?

I've never seen Shaprio champion bringing back Jim Crow. You'd think he'd at least want that if he was radical.

 

[unimackpass]

Isn't that how christians keep indoctrinating children into their idiotic belief system?

I grew up in a atheist/agnostic home and didn't know a thing about Christianity.
After taking a course that involved Socrates/Plato and the meaning of objective truth I looked beyond the "indoctrination" I grew up in.
Atheistic coolaid really sucks ass.

 

[The_Renaissance]

What exactly makes a conservative a radical conservative?

I've never seen Shaprio champion bringing back Jim Crow. You'd think he'd at least want that if he was radical.

"Radical" just means conservative now. There's no distinction. As far as the Left is concerned, a normal white family man who goes to church or donates to charity or whatever, may as well be a KKK member if he dares hold conservative values or political leanings.

This is what demonising the political opposition looks like. Don't be surprised to see Antifa and Co going full Brownshirt at polling stations in the next American election.

 

[Bojka]

"Radical" just means conservative now. There's no distinction. As far as the Left is concerned, a normal white family man who goes to church or donates to charity or whatever, may as well be a KKK member if he dares hold conservative values or political leanings.

This is what demonising the political opposition looks like. Don't be surprised to see Antifa and Co going full Brownshirt at polling stations in the next American election.

Not even just conservatives. Look at the TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) acronym. Even years ago there were women who were being called radicals for not wanting naked men in their change rooms, lol.

It's just another shaming/ad-hominem bully tactic used on anyone who ever doesn't toe the progressive line.

JK Rowling, for example, was berated for being a TERF for the following comments.

Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".

In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".

 

[PhitePhan]

What exactly makes a conservative a radical conservative?

I've never seen Shaprio champion bringing back Jim Crow. You'd think he'd at least want that if he was radical.

"Radical" just means conservative now. There's no distinction. As far as the Left is concerned, a normal white family man who goes to church or donates to charity or whatever, may as well be a KKK member if he dares hold conservative values or political leanings.

This is what demonising the political opposition looks like. Don't be surprised to see Antifa and Co going full Brownshirt at polling stations in the next American election.

Not even just conservatives. Look at the TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) acronym. Even years ago there were women who were being called radicals for not wanting naked men in their change rooms, lol.

It's just another shaming/ad-hominem bully tactic used on anyone who ever doesn't toe the progressive line.

JK Rowling, for example, was berated for being a TERF for the following comments.

Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".

In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".

I think the common denominator for what constitutes a “radical” is going against the mainstream narrative, WHATEVER it happens to be at the time (war, forced vaccination, marginalizing minorities, etc).

 

[The_Renaissance]

I think the common denominator for what constitutes a “radical” is going against the mainstream narrative, WHATEVER it happens to be at the time (war, forced vaccination, marginalizing minorities, etc).

Radical is a term decided by the mainstream media, who in turn, are being told what to tell the public.

"Tell those cunts that if they oppose what we demand, we will label them as something undesirable and there will be consequences......"

 

[The_Renaissance]

Not even just conservatives. Look at the TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) acronym. Even years ago there were women who were being called radicals for not wanting naked men in their change rooms, lol.

It's just another shaming/ad-hominem bully tactic used on anyone who ever doesn't toe the progressive line.

JK Rowling, for example, was berated for being a TERF for the following comments.

Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".

In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".

"People who menstruate" are women. Men can't menstruate. Biologically impossible. So by using that term, they're actually openly admitting that trans women are not women.

Ultimately, the word "woman" is being erased. I can totally see why hard-core feminists (who I probably disagree with on lots of things) are vehemently opposing what's going on.

There's a mission to create a society of nobodies. One gigantic organism without any pride or belief in themselves for who they are. Drone bees plugged into a hive.

Men are being attacked in a different way. Removal of womanhood is removing suggestions of female biology and claiming "anyone can do this". For males, the attack is centring around demonising masculinity and self sufficiency - making those things undesirable and "toxic".

And it's working on millions of young men.

 

[Bojka]

"People who menstruate" are women. Men can't menstruate. Biologically impossible. So by using that term, they're actually openly admitting that trans women are not women.

Ultimately, the word "woman" is being erased. I can totally see why hard-core feminists (who I probably disagree with on lots of things) are vehemently opposing what's going on.

There's a mission to create a society of nobodies. One gigantic organism without any pride or belief in themselves for who they are. Drone bees plugged into a hive.

Men are being attacked in a different way. Removal of womanhood is removing suggestions of female biology and claiming "anyone can do this". For males, the attack is centring around demonising masculinity and self sufficiency - making those things undesirable and "toxic".

And it's working on millions of young men.

I think in some ways culture has been moving the other way; ie promoting more individuality, even for men. It was rather socially unacceptable until quite recently (especially in professional settings) just to have facial hair, for example, which is honestly absurd. I remember being a kid and wondering how being morbidly obese was considered a perfectly professional way to present yourself, but having facial stubble was not.

I have a sister who is a feminist though and she is actually extremely pro-trans. From what I can tell, she does seem to want to eliminate the concept of sex/gender (at least in certain contexts) and seems to think that will work out in women's favour.

That is obviously not always the case. Women benefit from being judged relative to other women. A 5'6" woman is more likely than a 5'6" male to be promoted to upper management, for example. And I have read about female to male trans-people who became very disillusioned once they started 'passing' as small weak men and everyone started treating them like shit, lmao.

Hiring quotas intensify the separation of sexes though because if you mandate, for example, that half of employees have to be female, then females are not really having to compete with men at all. And that is definitely something my sister supports.

I think something that is quite central to feminist philosophy is wanting to have your cake and eat it too (wanting to eliminate the social disadvantages of being female, but not the advantages). So a feminist will probably support the separation of sexes when it suits them and oppose it when it doesn't.

 

[The_Renaissance]

I think in some ways culture has been moving the other way; ie promoting more individuality, even for men. It was rather socially unacceptable until quite recently (especially in professional settings) just to have facial hair, for example, which is honestly absurd. I remember being a kid and wondering how being morbidly obese was considered a perfectly professional way to present yourself, but having facial stubble was not.

I have a sister who is a feminist though and she is actually extremely pro-trans. From what I can tell, she does seem to want to eliminate the concept of sex/gender (at least in certain contexts) and seems to think that will work out in women's favour.

That is obviously not always the case. Women benefit from being judged relative to other women. A 5'6" woman is more likely than a 5'6" male to be promoted to upper management, for example. And I have read about female to male trans-people who became very disillusioned once they started 'passing' as small weak men and everyone started treating them like shit, lmao.

Hiring quotas intensify the separation of the sexes though because if you mandate, for example, that half of employees have to be female, then females are not really competing with men at all. And that is definitely something my sister supports.

I think something that is quite central to feminist philosophy is wanting to have your cake and eat it too (wanting to eliminate the social disadvantages of being female, but not the advantages). So a feminist will probably support the separation of sexes when it suits them and oppose it when it doesn't.

The crux of all the movements is revenge.

That's all it is.

This group of heterosexual white men have had it their way so much we wanna support anything that remotely effects that dominance.

Which is kinda understandable until you widen your eyes.

Nigeria. Japan. China. Fucking any country.

The majority of go-getters are heterosexual men. None of those countries care about this shit.

Men are ingrained to be hunter-gatherers, hence men will usually aggressively chase those ranks in business and society. Its changing now, and that's good, its great seeing industries becoming more female dominated at the higher levels.

However, it's no coincidence that female unhappiness overall is lowering. Having a business = huge commitment. 100% of your time.

Having a family = a huge commitment, almost 100% of your time.

Men can get away with it, because they're usually the hunter-gatherer so they can spend a lot of time working and not in the home.

Women. Nope. 9 months of holding a child then 3-4 years of being the maternity figure doesn't really add up if you're trying to be a boss/business owner.

So many studies on this. Its fantastic that women are doing it the way they're doing it but there's a fantastical element of thought in which they think they can do both.

There's a weird statistic of middle aged, successful white women being the most addicted to mental health meds of any community. All successful women.

That's not saying women shouldn't be successful. It's saying PEOPLE should reign in their expectations and be realistic depending on their paths in life.

If you're a 250k a year girl boss, you won't find many men you want to be with. You're competing with other women of your standard, for the top earning men. Those men might want a family, or they might prefer to earn 500k a year, travel the world and fuck a different girl every night just because they can.

 

[method115]

That is how Johnny Depp won his trial against Amber Heard.

Agreed. It had nothing to do with Amber Heard being caught in several lies throughout the trial.

 

[So Fresh]

The crux of all the movements is revenge.

That's all it is.

This group of heterosexual white men have had it their way so much we wanna support anything that remotely effects that dominance.

Which is kinda understandable until you widen your eyes.

Nigeria. Japan. China. Fucking any country.

The majority of go-getters are heterosexual men. None of those countries care about this shit.

Men are ingrained to be hunter-gatherers, hence men will usually aggressively chase those ranks in business and society. Its changing now, and that's good, its great seeing industries becoming more female dominated at the higher levels.

However, it's no coincidence that female unhappiness overall is lowering. Having a business = huge commitment. 100% of your time.

Having a family = a huge commitment, almost 100% of your time.

Men can get away with it, because they're usually the hunter-gatherer so they can spend a lot of time working and not in the home.

Women. Nope. 9 months of holding a child then 3-4 years of being the maternity figure doesn't really add up if you're trying to be a boss/business owner.

So many studies on this. Its fantastic that women are doing it the way they're doing it but there's a fantastical element of thought in which they think they can do both.

There's a weird statistic of middle aged, successful white women being the most addicted to mental health meds of any community. All successful women.

That's not saying women shouldn't be successful. It's saying PEOPLE should reign in their expectations and be realistic depending on their paths in life.

If you're a 250k a year girl boss, you won't find many men you want to be with. You're competing with other women of your standard, for the top earning men. Those men might want a family, or they might prefer to earn 500k a year, travel the world and fuck a different girl every night just because they can.

Were those studies from the renaissance era

these are the latest studies and basically tear down your whole argument:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions
https://ucalgary.ca/news/women-were...hallenging-beliefs-about-ancient-gender-roles
https://oxfordre.com/anthropology/v...0854584.001.0001/acrefore-9780190854584-e-105

 

[Bojka]

The crux of all the movements is revenge.

That's all it is.

This group of heterosexual white men have had it their way so much we wanna support anything that remotely effects that dominance.

Which is kinda understandable until you widen your eyes.

Nigeria. Japan. China. Fucking any country.

The majority of go-getters are heterosexual men. None of those countries care about this shit.

Men are ingrained to be hunter-gatherers, hence men will usually aggressively chase those ranks in business and society. Its changing now, and that's good, its great seeing industries becoming more female dominated at the higher levels.

However, it's no coincidence that female unhappiness overall is lowering. Having a business = huge commitment. 100% of your time.

Having a family = a huge commitment, almost 100% of your time.

Men can get away with it, because they're usually the hunter-gatherer so they can spend a lot of time working and not in the home.

Women. Nope. 9 months of holding a child then 3-4 years of being the maternity figure doesn't really add up if you're trying to be a boss/business owner.

So many studies on this. Its fantastic that women are doing it the way they're doing it but there's a fantastical element of thought in which they think they can do both.

There's a weird statistic of middle aged, successful white women being the most addicted to mental health meds of any community. All successful women.

That's not saying women shouldn't be successful. It's saying PEOPLE should reign in their expectations and be realistic depending on their paths in life.

If you're a 250k a year girl boss, you won't find many men you want to be with. You're competing with other women of your standard, for the top earning men. Those men might want a family, or they might prefer to earn 500k a year, travel the world and fuck a different girl every night just because they can.

Yeah, men are obviously just inherently more competitive. So hiring quotas are a massive advantage to women because they get to compete against the less competitive gender.

I have another sister who is very objective and we discussed this and she said that she would 100% rather compete against women than men. Our feminist sister is someone who attributes any difference in behaviour or outcome to culture. I joked with my sister that our feminist sister would look at two male big horn sheep trying to bash each others' heads in and say: "that's their culture" despite them growing the horns specifically for that purpose. I'd call it stupidity, but she is actually very smart. One time she was complaining about how much tradesman make when the only family member we have who was a tradesman is a brother in law who had to career change in his late 20s after developing back problems. She is just extremely biased.

 

[Bojka]

Were those studies from the renaissance era

these are the latest studies and basically tear down your whole argument:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions
https://ucalgary.ca/news/women-were...hallenging-beliefs-about-ancient-gender-roles
https://oxfordre.com/anthropology/v...0854584.001.0001/acrefore-9780190854584-e-105

"Even so, subsequent research has affirmed a simple division of labour among hunter-gatherers: men mostly hunt and women mostly gather. When anthropologist Carol Ember surveyed 179 societies, she found only 13 in which women participated in hunting."

https://ucalgary.ca/news/women-were...hallenging-beliefs-about-ancient-gender-roles

I mean your articles don't appear to be refuting much. They are just saying that women would sometimes hunt, but it was by no means the norm.

With regard to gathering, there would be nothing really precluding women from participating in that. Most people when they refer to hunter-gatherers are referring more to killing a bison with a spear rather than picking berries.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Yeah, men are obviously just inherently more competitive. So hiring quotas are a massive advantage to women because they get to compete against the less competitive gender.

I have another sister who is very objective and we discussed this and she said that she would 100% rather compete against women than men. Our feminist sister is someone who attributes any difference in behaviour or outcome to culture. I joked with my sister that our feminist sister would look at two male big horn sheep trying to bash each others' heads in and say: "that's their culture" despite them growing the horns specifically for that purpose. I'd call it stupidity, but she is actually very smart. One time she was complaining about how much tradesman make when the only family member we have who was a tradesman is a brother in law who had to career change in his late 20s after developing back problems. She is just extremely biased.

There are few women earning big in the trades because few women want to do that heavy lifting, broken fingers work from the beginning. It's not bias towards men, most women don't want to do it. Women usually gravitate towards white collar industries, brain over brawn. Nothing wrong with that at all. Women are usually not 'brawn' in terms of what they seek as work. Physicality they aren't particularly bothered by it. The women that do tend to be tomboy, manly women because guess what? It's manly work. Why are we surprised that those industries are under represented with women?

I worked in a college for a few years. 99% of girls were doing health & beauty. Blame the media. That's what they're guided to by the media they consume. Kardashians etc. Not a single one of them could do woodwork.

Who's fault is this?

Not society. Media. They've been groomed by media to think they can't have broken nails.

Quotas mean they'd be financially better off doing "male jobs". They just don't want to.

 

[So Fresh]

"Even so, subsequent research has affirmed a simple division of labour among hunter-gatherers: men mostly hunt and women mostly gather. When anthropologist Carol Ember surveyed 179 societies, she found only 13 in which women participated in hunting."

https://ucalgary.ca/news/women-were...hallenging-beliefs-about-ancient-gender-roles

I mean your articles don't appear to be refuting much. They are just saying that women would sometimes hunt, but it was by no means the norm.

With regard to gathering, there would be nothing really precluding women from participating in that. Most people when they refer to hunter-gatherers are referring more to killing a bison with a spear rather than picking berries.

These are all old articles based on old research. My articles are recent foundings.
What it’s refuting is his flawed biological claim that men are “ingrained with hunter gatherer genes” and women are not. While my sources refute that since women did hunt and groups were mainly egalitarian without large differences between genders.

I believe there is a specific term for this fallacy/ thinking error. Have to look it up though. It’s a classic amongst conservatives though, kinda like social darwinism.

 

[Bojka]

These are all old articles based on old research. My articles are recent foundings.
What it’s refuting is his flawed biological claim that men are “ingrained with hunter gatherer genes” and women are not. While my sources refute that since women did hunt and groups were mainly egalitarian without large differences between genders.

I believe there is a specific term for this fallacy/ thinking error. Have to look it up though. It’s a classic amongst conservatives though, kinda like social darwinism.

That University of Calgary article is from last year and cited what I quoted as being evidence of the present understanding of things. 13 out of 179 societies had female hunters and in those 13 they were probably a small minority.

 

[So Fresh]

That University of Calgary article is from last year and cited what I quoted as being evidence of the present understanding of things. 13 out of 179 societies had female hunters and in those 13 they were probably a small minority.

But it also follows up with this:
But it is a mistake to conflate this pattern of “most hunters are men” among hunter-gatherers with the myth of Man the Hunter. That myth was born of assumptions, not careful empirical research.

Through decades of field research, anthropologists have developed a more flexible and capacious view of human labour. According to this view, women are not bound by biology to gather, nor men to hunt. In fact, several accounts of women’s hunting in foraging societies had emerged by the mid-1980s.

And that was what that poster was saying. He assigned some kind of biological excuse for the position of women in modern times. Which is false based on this research.

It’s the classic old conservative biological claim that there is some kind of historical hierarchy between men and women, while it depends heavily of which group of people you’re referring too. As said in one of the articles, groups of people were mainly egalitarian.

 

[Bojka]

But it also follows up with this:
But it is a mistake to conflate this pattern of “most hunters are men” among hunter-gatherers with the myth of Man the Hunter. That myth was born of assumptions, not careful empirical research.

Through decades of field research, anthropologists have developed a more flexible and capacious view of human labour. According to this view, women are not bound by biology to gather, nor men to hunt. In fact, several accounts of women’s hunting in foraging societies had emerged by the mid-1980s.

And that was what that poster was saying. He assigned some kind of biological excuse for the position of women in modern times. Which is false based on this research.

It’s the classic old conservative biological claim that there is some kind of historical hierarchy between men and women, while it depends heavily of which group of people you’re referring too. As said in one of the articles, groups of people were mainly egalitarian.

Exceptions are always going to exist. You are just being pedantic. It is part of men's biology to be more violent than women, but there are obviously exceptions to that.

That same article delves into more detail about what it means in some of these societies to be a female hunter. In one of the most egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies in the world (the Batek's), the women are mostly gatherers, but also sometimes hunt... rats. lmao. There is hunting and then there is "hunting."

Hunting any other game, for women, is "otherwise rare" according to the article. Even in one of the most egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies known about.