Female university teacher destroys feminists claims in a short video

[–]BBQ_HaX0r 205 points206 points207 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmJay115 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dangger 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frobenioid 55 points56 points57 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jewboyfresh 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nrjk 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jewboyfresh 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oknatora 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I have left reddit for Voat due to years of admin mismanagement and preferential treatment for certain subreddits and users holding certain political and ideological views.

The situation has gotten especially worse since the appointment of Ellen Pao as CEO, culminating in the seemingly unjustified firings of several valuable employees and bans on hundreds of vibrant communities on completely trumped-up charges.

The resignation of Ellen Pao and the appointment of Steve Huffman as CEO, despite initial hopes, has continued the same trend.

As an act of protest, I have chosen to redact all the comments I've ever made on reddit, overwriting them with this message.

If you would like to do the same, install TamperMonkey for Chrome, GreaseMonkey for Firefox, NinjaKit for Safari, Violent Monkey for Opera, or AdGuard for Internet Explorer (in Advanced Mode), then add this GreaseMonkey script.

Finally, click on your username at the top right corner of reddit, click on comments, and click on the new OVERWRITE button at the top of the page. You may need to scroll down to multiple comment pages if you have commented a lot.

After doing all of the above, you are welcome to join me on Voat!

[–]jewboyfresh 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]J-Unleashed 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]miserabilia 221 points222 points223 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]UseKnowledge 48 points49 points50 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Carmickale 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedditLovsCensorship 85 points86 points87 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lamarian9 39 points40 points41 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lamarian9 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imba8 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StrikingEarth 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_Am_Diabetes 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, this is one of the main reasons I have such a problem with SJWs. They would rather attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Admittedly, I'm noticing this happening in some men's rights circles as well. It actually started by noticing it in myself and realizing that such a thing is not okay. It's easy to attack the argumenter with somebody like Anita Sarkeesian, but it's important to remember that doing so only feeds her victim complex. After I started trying to cease such behavior, I noticed that it was stemming from some of the men's rights activists that I follow regularly (Sargon of Akkad and HBR, as much as I love them, are guilty of this).

Who was it that said: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people? I think that concept can carry over to debating. It's acceptable to discuss the events and ideas that other people are responsible for...but stop short of focusing on the individual as that ventures too close to ad hominem territory. It destroys your credibility, muddles the issue, and doesn't help anybody. I think this is a big reason why SJWs often seem so unreachable.

[–]Tom_Brett 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -26 points-25 points-24 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 141 points142 points143 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]ckiemnstr345 -21 points-20 points-19 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]men_cant_be_raped 120 points121 points122 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeisright 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ckiemnstr345 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lurker_IV 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PoorProduct -62 points-61 points-60 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

What?

No. After reading your comment, I watched the University Diversity Scam video fully and then skipped around some of the others and rarely do they site sources what-so-ever. In one argument she simply dismisses it as "asburd" without any statistics.

I had a heavy feeling this was from a conservative group before they showed their bias later in the video.

There is no way I can show videos like this to people. It does you absolutely no good. You're better off directly linking proper sources. This powerpoint turned video is only okay if you want to enrage dumb and naive freshman lib students.

Edit: haha, this is hilarious. This many downvotes over saying the videos aren't well made? Mk. Don't you go changing, MRA. Starting to understand why people initially hate me when I mention MRA.

[–]Daemonicus 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your comment is a result of your name, trying to prove itself true.

No. After reading your comment, I watched the University Diversity Scam video fully and then skipped around some of the others and rarely do they site sources what-so-ever. In one argument she simply dismisses it as "asburd" without any statistics.

Two different people, doing two different videos. So your objection of "no" is wrong.

I had a heavy feeling this was from a conservative group before they showed their bias later in the video.

Instead of having a 'feeling' of it, show some proof, please.

Edit: haha, this is hilarious. This many downvotes over saying the videos aren't well made? Mk. Don't you go changing, MRA. Starting to understand why people initially hate me when I mention MRA.

No. The downvotes come from you being wrong, for the wrong reasons. You are free to dislike the videos, and to say they are well not well made. But when you say they are not well made by talking about a completely different video, with a different presenter, then your argument loses validity.

[+]PoorProduct -16 points-15 points-14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your comment is a result of your name, trying to prove itself true.

How so? I don't think I've ever said anything to the means of "PoorProduct" in any sense in that post. Are you sure you're not reading too much into it?

Two different people

Sure, the videos and playlists are from many different people but the channel in general is playing to specific audiences. From their Religion/Philosophy section to their life studies and economics.

Between the victimization in War on Boys (uses the same silly arguments feminist use about the patriarchy but with female teachers not understanding their male students instead) and cherry picking quotes for their Does Science Argue for or Against God, this channel is terrible.

If feminist made videos like these, this subreddit would be up in arms.

Now, as for the specific presenter: can you find multiple videos she's actually done for them? The OP says she makes good videos, meaning plural, right? Her AEI videos are better than this series, that I'll admit I was wrong since I hadn't known to go look for her series "Factual Feminist".

Her Catcalling Video video is kind've weak of the two I watched minutes ago. The video game one was interesting due to her actually picking apart the article but the Catcalling Video video just comes off like any other opinionated blogger. Can you say it's not?

[–]Daemonicus 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mjociv 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 29 points30 points31 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tashbarg 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]repoman 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shibbidybibbidy 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]paulwal 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AzureNinja99 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pentestscribble 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kazaril 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoctorBlaine -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lhun 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBobBanana 31 points32 points33 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Narwhals4Lyf 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Narwhals4Lyf -28 points-27 points-26 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeisright 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]YM_Industries 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeisright 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YM_Industries 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeisright 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, no way is Men's Rights just for men! One of the only things I'd say that MRA has with Feminism is that you don't need to be a certain gender to be a part of it. There are plenty of women who see the hypocrisy with radical feminism in today's politics and actively help push back. The post we are commenting on is an example of women who fight on this side! I'd say the two groups would fall under a Venn Diagram more than anything; if you care to block unfair policies that demonize men and give special treatment to women as well as fight for equality, I don't see why you couldn't be for both groups. Most men that I know that follow this ideology are very level-headed and fight for women as well -- it's typically your SJW/radical feminists that paint the picture of MRA not wanting equality because we are the biggest threat to their backward policies and illogical mindset.

[–]YM_Industries 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Warbond 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeftFlipFlop 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]josh_legs 34 points35 points36 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]philwelch 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, you have one movement looking out for the interests of women, and another movement looking out for the interests of men. Kind of like how you have labor unions to look out for the interests of workers and the Chamber of Commerce to look out for the interests of business owners, or movements and organizations for the interests of racial minorities, immigrants, people who drive cars, people who ride bicycles on the street, homeless people, people who own guns, people who hunt and fish, farmers, or literally any other group of people in society. The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have their say and we work together to make sure that everyone's rights and interests are respected.

The problem with feminism is that a lot of feminists don't have this perspective and just think they should run the whole show. If feminists were willing to admit that all they do is advocate for the interests of women instead of trying to think they have a magical ideology that's always right, they'd be a lot easier to deal with and there wouldn't need to be any conflict between feminism and MRA.

[–]thegeicogecko 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]polysyllabist 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BillyBobBanana 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Narwhals4Lyf 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ransal 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ransal -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YM_Industries 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DracoPhage 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rivetboy34 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 151 points152 points153 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zazhx 34 points35 points36 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a fan of Prager "University" and Dennis Prager in general.

However, the speaker in question, Christina Hoff Sommers, is somewhat more respectable:

Bachelors from New York University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa.
Doctorate in philosophy from Brandeis University.
Was a philosophy professor in ethics at Clark University.
Author of seven books on ethics, feminism, and philosophy.
Is a feminist (albeit self-proclaimed, like every feminist).
Recipient of the Exceptional Merit in Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus.
Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank, but nonetheless a respected one, founded in 1938 with a budget of $46 million and some of the most influential social, political, and economic thinkers on faculty).

And either way, an ad hominem hardly refutes the reality of her claims.

[–]Juxtys 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]zazhx 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tom_Brett -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zazhx 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or your legitimate view, but it is nonetheless revealing.

When I call the American Enterprise Institute "conservative" I am not making a value judgement; though I could see how it might appear that way in my first post, but that disclosure was merely meant to provide a full and accurate picture of reality. Principles of economic and social conservatism are not inherently invalid, nor are principles of economic and social liberalism, despite what partisan propaganda might attempt to convince you of. The truth is both left and right have produced great ideas to great effect in America and in other countries.

The American Enterprise Institute, as the name would suggest, a pro-business, (primarily economically) right-wing think tank. Just take a look at Google. Compare the results found for "conservative" with "liberal" and the its leanings are immediately apparent. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

An institution can be nonpartisan (in the American sense of Democrats vs Republicans), while still leaning in one direction or another. I'm not claiming that AEI is a Republican think tank, but an economically conservative think tank. Which is indisputable reality.

[–]Tom_Brett 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right and I'm partial to economically conservative ideas and tend to lean left socially, but i don't really care about social issues or more so I just don't find it as much a priority as I do fiscal. It's just that not many young people care about fiscal matters so I try to focus on those issues.

When you say an institution can lean more right without being partisan, I just find that it doesn't lean any which way except it's actually concerned with dollars and cents while most on the left aren't concerned at all with taxes or debt. Being concerned with those issues should make you normal not leaning right but that's not how the left sees the world.

You're correct I assumed you were making a political point because so many on reddit are doing that. I tried to frame it in a partisan way because that's what most understand. Cheers.

[–]jostler57 73 points74 points75 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marenjii 24 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anecdotal 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]asifnot 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First, I don't see Prager as controversial at all. That's the point, they and AEI and similar groups are perfectly valid, mainstream sources to half the country, and the sources you might consider to be non-controversial and mainstream would be deemed highly controversial and not to be trusted. Hitler is the wrong comparison, almost nobody trusts him. Rush Limbaugh vs Daily Kos might be a better comparison (or whomever the left listens to nowadays.)

Second, we don't need to convince feminists, we need to defeat them. When they are defeated, some will see the light and realize how wrong they were. Many will continue to fight against equality and for privilege.

Third, it will be automatically dismissed because it's a message they don't want to hear. Doesn't matter a great deal who says it. Erin Pizzey was very popular in feminist circles before she spoke up for men's rights, and immediately her life was threatened and she got flooded with hate mail from feminists.

[–]nobody2000 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure why you were downvoted for this comment. The way I see it, you're pointing out a real hurdle. A university of Phoenix professor is likely to be taken less seriously than...well...probably any other professor, even a community college professor.

It's a real hurdle, and it doesn't mean you're against the message - it means you realize that it's a challenge.

Speaking to this, we might wonder why CHS is representing/represented by a college with...less than prestigious accreditation. Well - it makes sense. Her form of feminism doesn't fit the status quo, and she's shunned for it, which has kind of forced her to get backing (and an income) from anyone who'll have her. She's not a charlatan by any means, but unfortunately her message can come off as "snake oil sales" because of the institution she's associated with. It's unfortunate.

[+]rivetboy34 -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -21 points-20 points-19 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There has been a concerted push from the left to "not be political", "not say that feminism is leftist", to claim "conservatives are just as bad", and to exclude conservative supporters because "we don't want to be associated with those kinds of people". You see it in the numerous "let's be apolitical" threads, you saw it in the sniping about GWW saying traditionalism was better than feminism because at least it honored men when it demanded they sacrifice themselves, and you see it here, trying to deny and demean conservative supporters of men's rights. This is why there is a battle being fought for the direction of the movement, and when the concern trolling didn't work, it's now moving on to the "we don't want to listen to or be associated with people or groups like THAT! They're Conservative!"

[–]aaarrrggh 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TEARANUSSOREASSREKT 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]esru -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rivetboy34 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]rivetboy34 -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rivetboy34 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasg14b 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]ConfirmedCynic 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasg14b -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omnipraetor 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]zazhx 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GloriousYardstick 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jewboyfresh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -27 points-26 points-25 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tpn86 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tpn86 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Anathema_Redditus 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BruceCampbell123 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]forge44 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]forge44 -20 points-19 points-18 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]forge44 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]glorkcakes 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jewboyfresh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cabinfervor 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AzureNinja99 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cabinfervor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cabinfervor 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it's immensely time-saving to take the source of an argument into consideration when weighing its merit. As an extreme example, say a study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and say some mutually exclusive information was released on the Infowars website. Are you going to spend hours Googling around until you're able to fact-check every claim made by both parties? Probably not-you're going to roll your eyes at Infowars and trust the journal. The argument put forth by Christina Hoff Sommers looks like it makes perfect sense on the surface...but it's put out by an unaccredited university that takes a shaky stance on climate change and bemoans the persecution of Christians. How should that not be a red flag? True or false, obviously their videos and arguments have to be convincing, otherwise they wouldn't still be in business.

[–]CatanOverlord 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mjociv 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatanOverlord 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mjociv 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamdougdanger 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drilldrive -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AirNova 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AirNova 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Frosty 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]drilldrive 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kawasutra -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ihateewoks -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]krawm 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fuzzypits 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JayBopara 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Otter_Actual 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PLAYBoxes 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HereHoldMyBeer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrstickman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dickholedoug 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HippoLips -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mo_Dex -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrantNexus -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxxBeard -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Catabisis -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catabisis -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catabisis -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rmnature1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]zouhair -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Funcuz -22 points-21 points-20 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't say that. Rather I think people should base their opinions on facts and , y'know, shit like that.

The Japanese were already beaten when the bombs were dropped. The problem was that they wouldn't submit. That was a problem because A) They started the war with America and if they weren't conquered then there was no good reason to believe they wouldn't just do it again at some point in the future and B) Their infrastructure was destroyed which meant that even if they'd had enough food and medicine for their population they couldn't get it to where it was needed. For people not interested in the well-being of their own fellow citizens the latter fact was still enough by itself to drop the bombs and end the war.

What were the options ? Drop the bombs and end the war on your terms ; Let the Japanese starve to death while simultaneously allowing the Russians to invade in the near future ; Launch an amphibious-borne invasion called Operation Olympic which was projected to cost a minimum of half a million American casualties alone.

Dropping the bombs was the most humane thing to do when Japan was held hostage by radical ideologues who refused to admit defeat. If you don't like these facts then find a historian and tell him he's wrong.

Secondly, brigading and linking to my comment history does what ? Think I'm going to change my mind that 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5 ?

[+][deleted] -70 points-69 points-68 points 11 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -42 points-41 points-40 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ShotgunZen 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]xNOM -23 points-22 points-21 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]xNOM -30 points-29 points-28 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]douglasg14b 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

LOL it's not statistical at all. How many times had Japan been invaded before in the mid 20th century? Certainly not a large enough sample size to infer anything. Detailed military predictions are notoriously inaccurate. The only certain thing in war is uncertainty. How accurate were Japanese military predictions in summer 1945? ROFL Were they just stupider than the American war planners? The Battle of the Bulge? The escape of most of the Pacific fleet from destruction at Pearl Harbor? Neither of these things were supposed to happen. Predicting the exact moment of political collapse of the Japanese Empire is a fool's folly.

You can say "the consensus among military historians is that it probably saved lives, because of reasoning x, y and z" but saying "it saved lives" is a religious belief. This is the same bullshit process that got us into Iraq: "Saddam has WMDs". The number cruncher analysts at the Pentagon in the 70s gave us all sorts of "kill ratios" to predict when the war in Vietnam would be "won." In the end, these were all feelz and no realz.

[–]Funcuz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am quite well versed in statistical modeling and know full well that the projections were based on outlying islands. That is not the fucking point. The fact that a model exists does not prevent it from being a useless model. Statistical inference relies on underlying assumptions that the sample data is 1. representative of the whole outcome universe. 2. large enough to give projection results with reasonable variances. In other words: garbage in garbage out. The best statistician in the world cannot infer anything without good data and a good model. I find it a joke that you think a believable model of political or military outcome is possible. The winners of elections can barely be predicted today with massive amounts of money and data. Military predictions are mostly meaningless, as any historian will tell you.

Politicians don't understand any of this shit. They ask for a projection and ignore the error bars and the robustness of the models. Believing homeland invasion casualty estimates for Japan based on three small islands is idiocy. You have been reading too much Isaac Asimov (foundation series).

[–]Samurai007_ 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

We invaded plenty of other Japanese islands, including Okinawa. We have the documents showing Japanese preparations for the invasion were far more extensive than we thought they were at the time. We know about Japanese orders to execute all US POWs in the event of an invasion. While we don't know for sure, we can make some very logical assessments of what would have happened, and it's highly likely millions of Americans and Japanese would have died in an invasion. The Japanese were unwilling to surrender (the claim that they were about to do so is a lie), internal Japanese government documents show they had no intention of doing so. After the bombing of Hiroshima, the govt met and voted on whether to continue, and it was unanimous not to surrender. After Nagasaki they met again and voted again. This time it was split exactly in half, with half wanting to still keep going. The Emperor, mostly a ceremonial figure, only gets to vote when there is a tie, and his vote then decides it, and he voted to surrender. If even 1 more person had voted to keep going, there would have been an invasion because we had no more A-bombs left (they didn't know that, we had lied and told them we had many more and would keep dropping them. If they called our bluff they'd have found out it wasn't true). The Japanese were prepared for an invasion and felt they could possibly hold the main island of Honshu, it was the fact that we just kept dropping bombs, and especially the A-bombs, rather than invading that demoralized them and led to a very narrow choice to surrender. Without them, they were prepared to fight on for months if not years.

[+]xNOM -24 points-23 points-22 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shibbidybibbidy 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shibbidybibbidy 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1Commentator 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]InWadeTooDeep -20 points-19 points-18 points 11 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InWadeTooDeep -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sgt_narkstick 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Section 3. Total deaths of article World War II casualties:

Figures for the individual nations are rounded to the nearest hundredth place.

Population in 1939 is taken from Population Statistics website.

War losses are for the national boundaries of 1939.

Military casualties include deaths of regular military forces from combat as well as non-combat causes. Partisan and resistance fighter deaths are included with military losses. The deaths of prisoners of war in captivity and personnel missing in action are also included with military deaths. The armed forces of the various nations are treated as single entities, for example the deaths of Austrians, Soviets, French and ethnic Germans in the Wehrmacht are included with German military losses.

The official casualty statistics published by the governments of the United States, France, and the UK do not give the details of the national origin or race of the losses. The BBC has provided background on the Colonial contributions to the British Empire war effort.

Civilian casualties include deaths caused by strategic bombing, Holocaust victims, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, population transfers in the Soviet Union, Allied war crimes, and deaths due to war related famine and disease. The exact breakdown is not always provided in the sources cited.

Total Soviet losses in the postwar 1946–91 boundaries were 26.6 million (13.5% of the total population of 196.7 million).

Total Polish losses in the postwar 1946 boundaries were about 4.4 million (19.0% of the total population of 23.2 million).

Total Romanian losses in the postwar 1946 boundaries were 500,000 (3.1% of the total population of 15.9 million).

Total losses of Czechoslovakia in the post war 1946–1991 borders were about 250,000 (1.7% of the total population of 14.6 million).

^Interesting: ^The ^Holocaust ⁱⁿ ^Ukraine ^| ^Taiping ^War ^Cemetery ^| ^The ^Holocaust ⁱⁿ ^Russia ^| ^Australian ^casualties ^of ^World ^War ^II

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]InWadeTooDeep 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]sgt_narkstick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]InWadeTooDeep 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sgt_narkstick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Section 7. Rainbow plans of article United States color-coded war plans:

Japan had used the opportunity afforded by World War I to establish itself as a major power and a strategic rival in the Pacific Ocean. Following World War I, most American officials and planners considered a war with Japan to be highly likely. It was reverted when the civilian government temporarily halted the program of military expansion, which was not to resume until 1931. War Plan Orange was the longest and most-detailed of the colored plans.

However, following the events in Europe in 1938 and 1939 (the Anschluss, Munich Agreement, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), American war planners realized that the United States faced the possibility of war on multiple fronts against a coalition of enemies. To that end, the Joint Planning Board developed a new series of war plans, the "Rainbow" plans - the term being a play on the multiple "color" plans that had been drawn up previously.

Rainbow 1 was a plan for a defensive war to protect the United States and the Western Hemisphere north of ten degrees [south] latitude. In such a war, the United States was assumed to be without major allies.

Rainbow 2 was identical to Rainbow 1, except for assuming that the United States would be allied with France and the United Kingdom.

Rainbow 3 was a repetition of the Orange plan, with the provison that the hemisphere defense would first be secured, as provided in Rainbow 1.

Rainbow 4 was based on the same assumptions as Rainbow 1, but extended the American mission to include defense of the entire Western hemisphere.

Rainbow 5, destined to be the basis for American strategy in World War II, assumed that the United States was allied with Britain and France and provided for offensive operations by American forces in Europe, Africa, or both.

The assumptions and plans for Rainbow 5 were discussed extensively in the Plan Dog memo, which concluded ultimately that the United States would adhere to a Europe first strategy in World War II.

^Interesting: ^War ^Plan ^Black ^| ^Military ^operation ^plan ^| ^War ^Plan ^Gray ^| ^War ^Plan ^Red

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]InWadeTooDeep 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sgt_narkstick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mediainfidel 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Although it's worth noting by this time the Soviets had kicked Japan off mainland Asia and were preparing their own invasion.

I don't get the downvotes. You're absolutely correct. I guess there aren't too many historians here. There's plenty of reason to see the US use of atomic bombs against Japan as being the result of many considerations, not the least of which being sending a message to the Soviet Union (at the time America's ostensible allies but soon after their sworn enemies) and stopping their advance in Asia.

I find it absurd that people actually believe only good intentions (saving lives) were behind the bombings. That certainly entered the rationale, it had to. But we should be wary of the stories our leaders tell us, especially when they are explaining their own questionable actions.

It's basic human cognitive bias. Our enemies always have the worst of intentions while we struggle to do the best we can considering the circumstances.

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find it absurd that people actually believe only good intentions (saving lives) were behind the bombings.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivation. Japanese casualties are not the problem of the American president. Full stop. The American president is elected to look out for the best interests of Americans. As such, his only consideration is to make sure that American lives are saved. All other considerations are secondary.

The Japanese of the time who were truly interested in saving lives would have simply surrendered but they refused to do so even though they knew it meant death of Biblical proportions. That was their responsibility, not America's.

I don't elect anybody to look out for people on the other side of the world who also are trying to kill everybody I know.

[–]Samurai007_ 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]InWadeTooDeep 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]InWadeTooDeep -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InWadeTooDeep 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Samurai007_ 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Female university teacher destroys feminists claims in a short video
Author	StinkyDiaper
Upvotes	1481
Comments	282
Date	March 29, 2015 1:17 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/30p355/female_university_teacher_destroys_feminists/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/female-university-teacher-destroys-feminists.984534 https://theredarchive.com/post/984534

Comments