|
|
Post by malikc6 on Feb 11, 2016 15:27:25 GMT 5
Warning! This video contains utter stupidity, sexism, black and white fallacies, and complete insanity. Viewer discretion is advised. www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J0Ng5cUGgDon't say I didn't warn you! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 11, 2016 21:10:09 GMT 5
Moved it here, as I don't believe an own topic for that is necessary.
As for the video, some of these points are surely prevalent problems, but as you said, no differentiation at all is made (except for one sentence in the description, wow) which makes it sexist and thus hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Feb 12, 2016 0:34:19 GMT 5
Moved it here, as I don't believe an own topic for that is necessary. As for the video, some of these points are surely prevalent problems, but as you said, no differentiation at all is made (except for one sentence in the description, wow) which makes it sexist and thus hypocritical. What points are prevalent may I ask? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 12, 2016 0:55:05 GMT 5
Women being sluts for what would men are congratulated for (to be fair, there is a good evolutionary reason for that, but as we live in monogamous societies, I doubt this is a good justification) and the unacceptability of a woman earning than a man (maybe not that prevalent, but there was recently a little debate about that between two people at my school, so I did pick that up).
OK, I admit, 2 out of 36 is not exactly much and it is of course debatable if many men share these views.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Feb 12, 2016 1:03:28 GMT 5
Women being sluts for what would men are congratulated for (to be fair, there is a good evolutionary reason for that, but as we live in monogamous societies, I doubt this is a good justification) and the unacceptability of a woman earning more than her husband (maybe not that prevalent, but there was recently a little debate about that between two people at my school, so I did pick that up). OK, I admit, 2 out of 36 is not exactly much and it is of course debatable if many men share these views. From my experience, guys sort of want to be around women who like having sex because they see it as some type of easy access. There are males who don't wish to have sex with females who have had a lot of sexual partners and vice versa, but I wouldn't exactly call this slut shaming. Just yesterday a friend of mine said that having sex with a woman with a boyfriend would be like touching dicks. I don't exactly share the same view since I can care less about how many people have had sex with that said person, as long as they don't have an STD and they are careful. Also from my experience, women seen to slutshame women more for being promiscuous. As for wives making more than husbands, my mom for a while has made more money than my father due to being in a higher position, and he never cared. The last point is more of an assumption more than anything else. At a time, that claim would have been correct (1950s 1960s), but now that women dominate colleges, it should come to no surprise when a woman makes more money than a male. Times change. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 12, 2016 7:53:01 GMT 5
What on earth... I actually dislike feminists significantly more than creationists. Young earth creationists might be delusional, but at least their delusion originates from a place of love. They love their religion so much that they cannot comprehend the idea of it being wrong, and hence they rationalize delusions to themselves. Feminists on the other hand, are every bit as delusional and low-intelligent as creationists. They will repeat fallacies and ignore evidence, as creationists do. However, they are motivated by spite and hatred, boiling hatred towards men. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 12, 2016 22:22:11 GMT 5
What on earth... I actually dislike feminists significantly more than creationists. Young earth creationists might be delusional, but at least their delusion originates from a place of love. They love their religion so much that they cannot comprehend the idea of it being wrong, and hence they rationalize delusions to themselves. Feminists on the other hand, are every bit as delusional and low-intelligent as creationists. They will repeat fallacies and ignore evidence, as creationists do. However, they are motivated by spite and hatred, boiling hatred towards men. Sounds like nutpicking. "Feminism" is very loosely defined. There are in fact feminists who distance themselves from their radical fellows. Heck, some of them also view the fact that men get punished harder than women as a problem. Even though they should in this case probably really identify as egalitarians if they only want equality, but that doesn't change the fact that such people also call themselves feminists. They probably blame such problems on the perceived weakness of women and traditional gender roles as well (at least they're consistent). For a fair, comparison, I would compare nuts with nuts. I suppose the majority of creationists have no problems with others believing in evolution, so I will focus on the radical ones. Radical creationists view evolution as the root of all evil and directly blame increased crime rates, unscrupulousness and immorality on the teaching of evolution. Not less hateful than the radical feminist's "patriarchic rape-culture" if you ask me. Their origin could be quite similar, too. Many people seem to love blaming all evil on a simple boogeyman (new atheists do this with religion, nazis with Jews, commies with capitalism, liberals with conservatives and vice versa…). I still have to admit that feminazis are probably deserving a high place on the nut ranking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 1:01:31 GMT 5
Feminism: Seeking equal rights for women.
Not a bad idea, actually pretty good, women deserve equal rights, that's for sure. But why make it only for women? Why not seek equal rights for everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 13, 2016 15:39:17 GMT 5
What on earth... I actually dislike feminists significantly more than creationists. Young earth creationists might be delusional, but at least their delusion originates from a place of love. They love their religion so much that they cannot comprehend the idea of it being wrong, and hence they rationalize delusions to themselves. Feminists on the other hand, are every bit as delusional and low-intelligent as creationists. They will repeat fallacies and ignore evidence, as creationists do. However, they are motivated by spite and hatred, boiling hatred towards men. Sounds like nutpicking. "Feminism" is very loosely defined. There are in fact feminists who distance themselves from their radical fellows. Heck, some of them also view the fact that men get punished harder than women as a problem. Even though they should in this case probably really identify as egalitarians if they only want equality, but that doesn't change the fact that such people also call themselves feminists. They probably blame such problems on the perceived weakness of women and traditional gender roles as well (at least they're consistent). For a fair, comparison, I would compare nuts with nuts. I suppose the majority of creationists have no problems with others believing in evolution, so I will focus on the radical ones. This is the thing though, there are moderates and extremists in both belief systems. There are some creationists who keep their beliefs to themselves and have no problem with people who believe in evolution, just as there are some feminists who believe in equality that runs both ways. The problem is that these people are far less vocal than feminists like Rebecca Watson or Anita Sarkeesian, or creationists like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. The poster women (and men) of feminism are generally vile and fully supportive of double standards, not to mention that they have the extraordinary ability to find oppression in an empty closet. Perhaps if the most popular feminists on this planet were more honest, willing to debate, and less prone to censorship of anyone who disagreed with their opinion, perhaps feminism would have a healthier reputation than it currently does. Let me introduce us all to the "new atheism". To be honest, SJW's and feminists is a juggernaut which I should have seen coming back several years ago, but I was too busy complaining about religion to see the bigger threat to our culture. Nowadays, "skeptic conferences" are too busy discussing privilege to have time for actual science. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 13, 2016 22:50:45 GMT 5
Let me introduce us all to the "new atheism". To be honest, SJW's and feminists is a juggernaut which I should have seen coming back several years ago, but I was too busy complaining about religion to see the bigger threat to our culture. Nowadays, "skeptic conferences" are too busy discussing privilege to have time for actual science. That actually surprises me. After seeing the anti-feminism of guys like Thunderf00t or TheAmazingAtheist and all the (accused or real) sexism of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, I actually thought that New Atheists are rather anti-feminist than feminist. Regarding Thunderf00t, I think I should leave this here as he replied to malikc's video: |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Mar 13, 2016 10:37:53 GMT 5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ZVEVufWFIThis video is sort of old, but this situation was over Halloween costumes, and SJW's and feminists were furious because of the chance that people could be "offended" by certain costumes. I admire how the principle was able to keep his cool with that stupid ***** screaming at him with nonsense. My tolerance to such nonsense has gotten very low over the past two years. These hypersensitive butter milk biscuit spoiled over privileged *****es are trying to say that universities should be a "safe space." A "home" where they feel safe. If you want a home, then go home. Not a university. Here's another video that already has a ton of dislikes and rightfully so of some brainwashed 16 year old girl who feels like she is living in constant danger. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcK-Kjewr7UI wish modern day feminism was a physical entity and that I had my hands around it's throat.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Mar 13, 2016 11:46:10 GMT 5
Another thing I feel like I really need to share is this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdMXQL7RYXsFor those who aren't aware of Flibaserin, it's a medical drug that is supposed to be the female equivalent of viagra. This drug was totally thrown out by the FDA because of its adverse side effects and the fact that it only helped 0.5% of the women who took it, and they were self reported. For some reason, men also took this drug which is laughable. However feminists kept pushing for this failed drug to be passed because there are so many medications that help males that have trouble achieving an erection. Many of them think that this is a victory, when really, all they are doing is poisoning themselves. This is the most angering news I have seen in a while. This is proof on how feminists seem to think that culture and feelings surpass actual science. Truly disgusting. As Tl:dr said, it took many months for people to realize how horrible this drug is, even after PREVIOUS RESEARCH SHOWING HOW TERRIBLE IT WAS! The only reason this drug passed is because feminists threatened to label the FDA as sexist and biased towards males. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 13, 2016 11:55:15 GMT 5
Viagra already also works for women, making this even more retarded
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 15, 2016 3:04:24 GMT 5
Sanders being sexist? Really now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 1:59:45 GMT 5
Sanders being sexist? Really now? They shall feel the Bern.... |
|
