just Came to argue

i figure rational skeptics will appreciate the challenge

Im a feminist libertarian

well then consult with @✿ Mittens ✿

>feminist libertarian
I think you mean mistake

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Fight me

ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS ALT-RIGHT

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>kraut irl rn

so a cucK?

Me or kraut

both

nice awoos @radeon

ahh fuck, I guess we're alt right now
@JDM_WAAAT time to change the server name, the feminist has decreed it

lol

kek

yeah

this snowflake one even say, feminist decreed it

hahahahahahha fucking @méep is a <@&375351773528850442>

anyone actually have good arguments against feminism?

It's cancer.

Feminism is cancer

@radeon you up for a debate?

I mean, we can start listing all the bad things caused by Feminism.

the draft

terrorism

suffergettes later became supporters of fascism

Or we can just go with the latest Feminist nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fOP8q3GNBQ

Liking women = rape.

guy drinks, girl drinks, both have sex

feminist blames the guy for rape

T'was the alcohol that raped them both

lol

Video I linked, no alcohol involved.

Simply a group of guys talking about women they find hot, it's the same as rape.

I know, I watch Bearing. It was just about more feminazi rhetoric.

Feminism is a supremacist ideology, that demands for women to be treated as superior to men, while claiming they're victims of everything.

kek

The Prim Reaper made a recent video where she read fragments of her "Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy" textbook, the part about Feminist Therapy.

huh can you link?

One of the most shocking things, it outright says, the mental health of the (female) patient has less priority than "advancing the cause."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWhgdRdat8I

thanks

wow

That is, if you're a Feminist Therapist, that means, according to your "branch" of therapy, whenever making your patient worse helps your cause, you should do that.

that's fucked

Say, a woman comes in, thinks there's something wrong with her, because she can't deal with most people, is driving her family and friends away, etc. The therapist will say "don't worry, it's not you, you don't have to change. It's the PATRIARCHY! Here, take this 'KILL ALL MEN' sign and this pussy hat, let's go to a protest."

they shouldn't be allow to have a practice

no words <@&375351773528850442> ?

@Deleted User You really like to poke em with a stick

you must prove all these bad things you listed are the fault of feminism

the *burden* is on you

if you have a specific claim you want to investigate

go for it

What do you think is the cause then?

eat shit fistie splinters

#NotRealFeminism ?

MUH NOT REAL HUR HUR HUR

@franti of course I like poking these degenerates with sticks

fuck <@&375351773528850442>

>show me an argument of why feminism is bad
>but that's not real feminism

its not tho

that was the entirty of <@&375351773528850442> argument

lol you can't just say anything you want is feminism

BUT ITS NOT THO

And you can't say it isn't.

"lol hitler was feminisms fault guys"

"that isn't feminism"

IS'T NOT REALL FEMINISM

i can daniel

I am

the burden is on you to prove it is feminism

feminists were terrorists

and fascists

prove feminism is good then

So a feminist activist acting in a certain way, or making a certain claim, isn't related to feminism?

prove it faggot

So you're arguing that feminism doesn't even exist.

🏅 for mental gynamstics

Because everything that feminism is, comes out of feminists acting or saying things.

lol feminism is just support for equal rights for women

you claim

that is what it is as an ideology

prove it

faggot

In what way does it support equal rights?

you claim "feminism is just support for equal rights for women"

prove it

you cunt

Feminists wanting female prisons in Australia to be closed down because "it's too cruel to women", is that equality?

<@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442> <@&375351773528850442>

@DanielKO those are just examples of bad feminists

I condemn those people?

Feminists wanting no due process to men accused of rape, while demanding no punishment to false accusations, is that equality?

prove this is something "feminists" want

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feminism

Then we have to narrow down what YOU think feminism is.

i provided a definition

ok

it's not needed

Wait, we can use dictionary definitions now?

I thought the whole "but that's not racism" argument invalidated all dictionaries.

I don't make that argument daniel

don't strawman me daniel.

don't true scotsman then

how about that?

no true scotsman doesn't mean what you think it means.

strawman doesn't mean what you think it means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I have qualified "feminism" as the same thing throughout this discussion

therefore: no true no true scotsman

Do you agree with the oxford dictionary definition of feminism? @méep

yes

Alright. So you're an equal rights advocate

so you're really an egalitarian

or that lol

but "IMa feminist"

sure

guysz

however: women are systematically disadvantaged in american society

ok

how

fuck that shit

no

prove it

k

@méep So you don't agree with most people who call themselves feminist now?

so they can send 2 identical resumes

I lov e being able to sleep my way up the ladder

GEEZ I WISH MEN COULD DO THAT

HIMMMMMMMMMM

Are you in favor of enforcing equality in these jobs?

@Durtle02 the burden would be on you to prove most feminists disagree with me i guess, I don't really care what "most people" think

oh fuck off

Because it looks like we'll have to fire quite a bit of women from comfy jobs.

@DanielKO nope, I am in favor of everyone acknowledging their biases, then it won't be a problem

@DanielKO 👍

Okay, so you don't want gender quotas?

let's force women into garbage collection and shitcleaning guys

since

If the majority of feminist were identified in modern day they would be classified as a anti male group

muh equality

you do realize that the methodology for proving subconcious bias is very much flawed and has failed to be repeated in studies multiple times

subconcious bias is unscientifc horse shit

In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

Woman working at Argonne Labs
Woman working at Argonne Labs (Source: Argonne, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

and they did this once

Is this a quote or a <#382984642300477444>

nice

one study

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/938091350100185090

that proves everything

just a sample size of one

no need guys

wow

How about this

@franti gender biases undoubtedly oppress everyone of all genders.

you have to prove it first

lol

@meratrix did you read the quote you retard

Since when is beeing a veterinarian opresed

yes I did

they had a sample size of 100+

Wait a second, didn't Australia just try the whole "resumes can't have gender information", only to find that women got hired even less?

It is a hard proffesion

i.e. before, they were being hired for their vagina points.

KEK

@DanielKO yes

They didn't give the same people both resumes because that would be obvious

guess what

what about vagina point hirings @méep

oh wait

different people will offer different salaries

@DanielKO australian government already was hiring women for falsely inflated reasons

@méep

innoveint through huh?

@méep prove it then

you fuck

vagina hiring points aren't good

I'm not a fan

what ever you say

everyone should just become educated to remove their biases

So you'd rather them not have a job? /s

Well, then I don't see why you would call yourself feminist.

^

@DanielKO because I want to fix gender discrimination

Because that's definitely not what's taught in Gender Studies departments.

of which I have provided a yet to be refuted source that it exists

@méep The quote said that they didn't give both resumes to one person, because of course they wouldn't, but, the problem is then that different people will offer different salaries to the applicant because they are different fucking people

how about your source sucks

is that good enough?

thus, it is a shit study

@meratrix individual quirks are factored out when you account for sample size dipshit

you wouldn't see replicable trends if it was just human error

Give us one example of discrimination you're fighting against.

you source is shit

um, no dipshit. It's still diferent people, and because the sample size is one fucking resume, it's worthless

period

you dickless knave

your source is not scientific at all

Let the grown ups talk, please.

@meratrix but they gave individual resumes to a multitude of people mowron

@méep Do you think eastern european (post commie) states are more imbalanced in regard of female scientists than the west?

yes, but it's still the same resume, so, they would need to give multiple pairs of one resume with two different names

that would be better

but you still have the problem of different people evaluating one half of each pair

@franti I don't know about eastern europe

mathematically his source is basically doing 125 C 1
@meratrix

@méep We got more women into tech by forcing them.

No stay at home mums here

@meratrix individual human error is factored out when you repeat the process multiple times

dude

this is science class 5th grade

it's fucking 125 Choose 1

wait

what was the sample size?

125?

👀

lmao

125

125 people, choosing 2 results

there's a possible 7750 combinations

and a very poor margin of error

"The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John"

you know everytime they say that

I want to know what the resume was

Also @méep, to have any inling of reliability in this study they would not only need multiple resumes but multiple fields as well

"Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager"
probably because girls won't take that extra step and go futher beyond

Link to the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

girls are **WAYYYY** less likely to go the extra mile

they'll do lagom and stop

@Deleted User Oh no now the whole "genders dont have natural tendencies" is going to come up

so the question is:

why the fuck would I hire someone who would do lagom, vs a person who would go above and beyond and do that extra crunch of work?

^

@méep doesn't know shit about economics and has never worked a day in its life

@Durtle02 yeah exactly, the "MUH genders dont have natural tendencies"

kek ~~They do tho :p~~

So one thing I noticed, Female faculty are less likely to recommend hiring more females.

And they don't want to mentor female hires.

I wonder why?

<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

Well, you have to wonder, because it's not been investigated.

how fucking deceving

because "MUH power politics" ^4

it's only a difference of $4000 yet it looks huge in the graph

Look at that huge differ... oh, where's the zero?