If you were a historian, or a journalist, or a museum curator, and had evidence that suggested they weren't as villainous as popular thinking suggests, would you hide it?
As a matter of fact, they do. E.g. Richard Evans wrote in his book 'The Hitler Conspiracies' that one of the reasons that it is unlikely that Hitler fled and managed to survive was unlikely, was because he was a "war hero" (approvingly cited).
But this remains limited to professional historians. If you repeat that, then you will be called a Nazi. Another example is where the French Jewish possible presidential candidate Eric Zemmour argued that Philippe Petain, the hero of World War I, did his best to save Jews who were French citizens while sacrificing those who were immigrants. This is not controversial among historians, as far as I know, but it makes Zemmour yet another Jewish Nazi in the eyes of the lying media (and the Jewish pressure groups).
She was fucking ancient. The language and culture has changed a lot. It was probably fucking nothing that was only remotely problematic when some pronoun person declared X or Y to be unspeakable sometime this decade.
As an Attorney for the ACLU in the late 70’s, Ruth wrote & co-authored a scathing a report in which she suggested the legal age of consent should be 12, which is still 9 years older than what the talmud allows; that men may marry and have sexual intercourse with girls who are at the age of 3.
This research found that while both women and men have more favorable views of women, women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger than those of men. And only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic preference for their own gender.
Men do have in-group bias, it's just not based simply on gender, it's based on shared male experiences. Brothers in arms, gang members, men's clubs, sports teams, etc.
In-group bias is a survival instinct that increases the more dire the circumstances are, and it comes is many forms.
It's just a theory, but one reason women may exhibit more in-group bias based on gender is because society is constantly telling them that women (as a group) are oppressed and that men (as a group) are the enemy. No doubt this could trigger the survival instinct in women who are too oblivious to know any better. Women are easily influenced and manipulated, so without a strong, positive male influence in their lives, it's very easy for women to buy into this nonsense.
But that's not male in-group bias, and so it won't affect men's judgements in court.
But the female in-group bias does affect it, because it applies to all females, regardless of their shared experiences or connections.
Women will blindly take the side of other random women that they don't even know. Men never do that.
It's just a theory, but one reason women may exhibit more in-group bias based on gender is because society is constantly telling them that women (as a group) are oppressed and that men (as a group) are the enemy.
That can't be true, because women have had in-group bias for many thousands of years, and this idea that "women are oppressed and men are the enemy" happened very recently, not long enough for evolution to occur.
But that's not male in-group bias, and so it won't affect men's judgements in court.
But the female in-group bias does affect it, because it applies to all females, regardless of their shared experiences or connections.
Everyone has a bias in favor of women, including and maybe even especially men, so I think you'd have a hard time arguing the point that women shouldn't be judges on that point alone.
Women will blindly take the side of other random women that they don't even know. Men never do that.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think this blind loyalty to other women is normal at all, historically speaking. A couple hundred years ago women were the ones primarily responsible for guiding, correcting and shaming other women into proper behavior. Women would often be the first to accuse other women of being promiscuous or seducing or exploiting men for personal gain. Even today women are very hostile (i.e. passive aggressive) towards one another except in situations where men are perceived as a threat and then they band together (which makes sense biologically given their physical disadvantage). The difference today is women are raised believing they are constantly being oppressed by men so this instinct is active 100% of the time.
Additionally, you yourself are evidence of male in-group bias. It's much less likely for men to exhibit in-group bias in favor of all other men, because most men don't see women as a threat, but the moment they do (like you), the in-group bias manifests. This is because in-group bias is a survival mechanism.
That can't be true, because women have had in-group bias for many thousands of years, and this idea that "women are oppressed and men are the enemy" happened very recently, not long enough for evolution to occur.
I'd like to see a source for that, because I'm not convinced. We can do studies today on female behavior, but no such studies exist from hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I don't see any evidence in the history books of this type of behavior being the norm.
I love this quote. It trashes the notion of equality that they pretend to care about and openly states the true desire for complete domination.
Does this mean that until 1981 when the first wahman was appointed to the SCOTUS, there was 'complete domination' by men? Not to mention all presidents and most legislators?
Right, and no man on the court lauded that as an achievement yet Ginsburg did and it did her no harm.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
He accidentally told the truth, but he very quickly deleted this tweet. I saw a screenshot of this. Fortunately, archive.org had caught it.
link (404) - archive.org - archive.today
Now consider the worst villain in history.
If you were a historian, or a journalist, or a museum curator, and had evidence that suggested they weren't as villainous as popular thinking suggests, would you hide it?
As a matter of fact, they do. E.g. Richard Evans wrote in his book 'The Hitler Conspiracies' that one of the reasons that it is unlikely that Hitler fled and managed to survive was unlikely, was because he was a "war hero" (approvingly cited).
But this remains limited to professional historians. If you repeat that, then you will be called a Nazi. Another example is where the French Jewish possible presidential candidate Eric Zemmour argued that Philippe Petain, the hero of World War I, did his best to save Jews who were French citizens while sacrificing those who were immigrants. This is not controversial among historians, as far as I know, but it makes Zemmour yet another Jewish Nazi in the eyes of the lying media (and the Jewish pressure groups).
What's your justification for him over any of his contemporaries (Churchill, Mao, Roosevelt, Stalin, etc.)?
nothing mao could have done would make up for that monster.
Was it that she actually supported abortion in order to appease her lord Moloch?
She was fucking ancient. The language and culture has changed a lot. It was probably fucking nothing that was only remotely problematic when some pronoun person declared X or Y to be unspeakable sometime this decade.
Yeet Her
As an Attorney for the ACLU in the late 70’s, Ruth wrote & co-authored a scathing a report in which she suggested the legal age of consent should be 12, which is still 9 years older than what the talmud allows; that men may marry and have sexual intercourse with girls who are at the age of 3.
Imgur link? Fail.
To be fair, everyone has some degree of in-group bias.
But statistically, women have 4.5 times more in-group bias than men. In fact, men have almost no in-group bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect
Men do have in-group bias, it's just not based simply on gender, it's based on shared male experiences. Brothers in arms, gang members, men's clubs, sports teams, etc.
In-group bias is a survival instinct that increases the more dire the circumstances are, and it comes is many forms.
It's just a theory, but one reason women may exhibit more in-group bias based on gender is because society is constantly telling them that women (as a group) are oppressed and that men (as a group) are the enemy. No doubt this could trigger the survival instinct in women who are too oblivious to know any better. Women are easily influenced and manipulated, so without a strong, positive male influence in their lives, it's very easy for women to buy into this nonsense.
But that's not male in-group bias, and so it won't affect men's judgements in court.
But the female in-group bias does affect it, because it applies to all females, regardless of their shared experiences or connections.
Women will blindly take the side of other random women that they don't even know. Men never do that.
That can't be true, because women have had in-group bias for many thousands of years, and this idea that "women are oppressed and men are the enemy" happened very recently, not long enough for evolution to occur.
Everyone has a bias in favor of women, including and maybe even especially men, so I think you'd have a hard time arguing the point that women shouldn't be judges on that point alone.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think this blind loyalty to other women is normal at all, historically speaking. A couple hundred years ago women were the ones primarily responsible for guiding, correcting and shaming other women into proper behavior. Women would often be the first to accuse other women of being promiscuous or seducing or exploiting men for personal gain. Even today women are very hostile (i.e. passive aggressive) towards one another except in situations where men are perceived as a threat and then they band together (which makes sense biologically given their physical disadvantage). The difference today is women are raised believing they are constantly being oppressed by men so this instinct is active 100% of the time.
Additionally, you yourself are evidence of male in-group bias. It's much less likely for men to exhibit in-group bias in favor of all other men, because most men don't see women as a threat, but the moment they do (like you), the in-group bias manifests. This is because in-group bias is a survival mechanism.
I'd like to see a source for that, because I'm not convinced. We can do studies today on female behavior, but no such studies exist from hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I don't see any evidence in the history books of this type of behavior being the norm.
Does this mean that until 1981 when the first wahman was appointed to the SCOTUS, there was 'complete domination' by men? Not to mention all presidents and most legislators?
You played yourself, man...
I thought it would be pretty obvious.
If an all-female court is 'complete domination' by women, then an all-male court (as was the case until 1981) would be 'complete domination' by men.
Basically SJW claptrap.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
It's not symmetric because men (by and large, TheImpossible1 notwithstanding) care about women and women don't care about men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
So nine women is OK if they do not serve a "pro-female" agenda?
Cringe.
Please spare us that great privilege.