|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2024 15:05:05 GMT
The trouble with this argument is it is a bit of the reductio ad absurdum kind. He is repeating his point as if this were some law of physics which is immutable and beyond argument. People on Youtube and elsewhere love these simple reductionist arguments. They are easy on the brain, but often do more to confuse understanding. It's verging on a kind of packaged dogma he is selling. If I were arguing agaisnt his point, I would point out evolution is efficient. Humans have similar sized brains and you need a man and a woman to reproduce (this is a real law of physics by the way) and so you would think, why would nature waste brain power. Surely it is in fact a delicate balance of forces. Man has certain advantages, like physical strength, but women have ways to gain power over men by attraction. Nature appears to function best where the balance is near equal, as per a more sensitive zone for change. It's like where Labour and Cons are neck and neck, the slight advantage makes far more difference than if they were way outnumbered, like 10:1. What is more likely is our skewed ideology has caused us to wrongly read the situation thereby upsetting the natural power balance, leading to the Title of the thread and suboptimal performance of the society. One way this may have occured is via over-simplification, which is why I don't like the sound of this guy. Well I would not feel like listening to any more of it. Oh, the mother-fucking irony. God just called the Universe's Irony Meter just broke. All The Best I was thinking that. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 10, 2024 15:14:08 GMT
Can we stop trolling please. If we have anything to add to the debate then by all means, but piling a thread full of personal bitching is off limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2024 15:51:02 GMT
The trouble with this argument is it is a bit of the reductio ad absurdum kind. He is repeating his point as if this were some law of physics which is immutable and beyond argument. People on Youtube and elsewhere love these simple reductionist arguments. They are easy on the brain, but often do more to confuse understanding. It's verging on a kind of packaged dogma he is selling. If I were arguing agaisnt his point, I would point out evolution is efficient. Humans have similar sized brains and you need a man and a woman to reproduce (this is a real law of physics by the way) and so you would think, why would nature waste brain power. Surely it is in fact a delicate balance of forces. Man has certain advantages, like physical strength, but women have ways to gain power over men by attraction. Nature appears to function best where the balance is near equal, as per a more sensitive zone for change. It's like where Labour and Cons are neck and neck, the slight advantage makes far more difference than if they were way outnumbered, like 10:1. What is more likely is our skewed ideology has caused us to wrongly read the situation thereby upsetting the natural power balance, leading to the Title of the thread and suboptimal performance of the society. One way this may have occured is via over-simplification, which is why I don't like the sound of this guy. Well I would not feel like listening to any more of it. His position is too broad and he could have done well to qualify it somewhat. His point stands when it comes to women's rights when set in opposition to men's will. The thing is, this is not far off a potted definition of feminism for many people. So, if I were to steel-man his argument it is that feminism is delusional - the entire thing, to degree that effects anyone, happens through men. This means feminism can't be "women's rights set in opposition to men's will" |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 10, 2024 17:02:54 GMT
The counterpoint would be that since the patriarchy is in total control of all matters political, cultural, social and economic, feminists have no option but to enlist men in the cause of enhancing women's rights, which can only happen through men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 10, 2024 18:14:01 GMT
The trouble with this argument is it is a bit of the reductio ad absurdum kind. He is repeating his point as if this were some law of physics which is immutable and beyond argument. People on Youtube and elsewhere love these simple reductionist arguments. They are easy on the brain, but often do more to confuse understanding. It's verging on a kind of packaged dogma he is selling. If I were arguing agaisnt his point, I would point out evolution is efficient. Humans have similar sized brains and you need a man and a woman to reproduce (this is a real law of physics by the way) and so you would think, why would nature waste brain power. Surely it is in fact a delicate balance of forces. Man has certain advantages, like physical strength, but women have ways to gain power over men by attraction. Nature appears to function best where the balance is near equal, as per a more sensitive zone for change. It's like where Labour and Cons are neck and neck, the slight advantage makes far more difference than if they were way outnumbered, like 10:1. What is more likely is our skewed ideology has caused us to wrongly read the situation thereby upsetting the natural power balance, leading to the Title of the thread and suboptimal performance of the society. One way this may have occured is via over-simplification, which is why I don't like the sound of this guy. Well I would not feel like listening to any more of it. His position is too broad and he could have done well to qualify it somewhat. His point stands when it comes to women's rights when set in opposition to men's will. The thing is, this is not far off a potted definition of feminism for many people. So, if I were to steel-man his argument it is that feminism is delusional - the entire thing, to degree that effects anyone, happens through men. This means feminism can't be "women's rights set in opposition to men's will" Nature works in a cooperative way though, which was agaisnt his typical American view that it always has to be a fight, no matter what an American is doing, he is fighting in one way or another, and this is an extreme in itself. Nature optimises survival, and we can see a woman's brain is distinct from a man's brain, so what is going on here is specialisation, the old Adam Smith view that you can be more productive if one person focuses on getting good at one skill and another on a different skill. Nature has naturally selected this optimisation strategy. Part of the problem with feminism is it is confrontational, which is of little surprise because it is very much determined by US psychology. The effect of this though is counterproductive to women's interests, which is to have children. You don't enlist the help of a man by fighting him. You will notice there was a sharp drop in fertility rate around the 70s. The pill had something to do with that as well, but it has just continued to fall, except in cultures that don't do feminism. They refer to the 70s as the second wave of feminism. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 16, 2024 8:39:46 GMT
This guy worked for a woman who was earning £50k a year as his manager in the civil service. She could not fill in a time sheet for the ones she managed and expected them to do it themselves. It's an example of positively discriminating for stupid bitches. If you think this is wrong you eventually get sacked.
|
|
