Just throw water on people you don’t like because they’ll melt?
A video game nerd who wear his politics on his sleeve. I mean, he can’t even talk about video games without bitching about welfare.
I call this the ‘form, not substance’ argument. Too much hand-wringing over the form of engagement, and none on the substance that drives it all.
The two are not the same. They do not hold equal weight. So yes, I will complain when groups who are advocating for freedom and equality are spit on and harrassed by the perpetuators of white supremacy and white male patriarchy, and no, I will not give a single fuck with someone like Lahren has to deal with the minor…
you’re also ok with LGBTQ rights activists and feminists and anti-racism activists getting assaulted by right wingers who oppose their views, because hey, free speech has consequences, right?
Wait, are you talking about Kathy Griffin? I don’t think that’s what she meant with that 1st Amendment comment. I’m pretty sure she meant hitting back at Lahren with words, and not water. As in, use the right to free speech to get back at the Tomis.
This constant appeal to some vague ‘moral high ground’ is tiresome. Throwing water on someone does not remotely mean giving up on any sort of high ground, of morality or anything else.
I have to say, as a firm believer in democratic norms, that this idea of ‘let your ideas beat theirs’ is just an extension of the Just World fallacy. ‘Better’ ideas don’t beat ‘lesser’ ideas. That’s not how ideas work. If you believe in, say, pacifism and go up against fascists, ‘living up to’ your ideals is going to…
The key here (as I understand it) is the gestation period and the attendant physiological effects. Intelligence was selected for both sexes, but since men were the ‘breadwinners’ so to speak, the traits that helped them succeed in breadwinning were traits like strength, etc. (I personally don’t buy that aggression and…
If your larger point is that a smaller selection of males provided genetic material to a proportionately larger selection of females, then yes, it doesn’t matter.
All of that really sounds like just the essence of current right-wing thought. It’s nothing new at all, possibly just packaged with a slightly shinier package.
One of his fans is in this very comment thread.
Chimps are violent, territorial and patriarchal (as in, males of the species dominate within the society). Very much like humans.
I think the chimpanzee would be likely to go on a raping and killing spree, because chimpanzees are mega-assholes of the highest order...
Honestly, realistically, it doesn’t even mean that. One would have to look at a PhD’s thesis to see just what they are an expert on, and even the validity of that depends entirely on the people who decided that the PhD’s work has passed muster.
I just try to look at it as: “well, good for those women they don’t want to date”.
This is such a brilliant rebuttal. Not that it would actually work on dunderheaded misogynists.
“always pet a strange cat when you see one on the street.”
all of a sudden it’s Horny Karl Marx time. “From each according to her desirability, to each according to his desire”.
You’re missing the point of the critiques: ‘more easily explained’ is not the same thing as sufficiently proven via available evidence, and in comparison to other testable hypotheses. Your explanation is one possibility among many, and there is little to push it forward as the primary reason for either sexual…