84
*Palestine. not "israel"
(edit: actually occupied Syria, Golan Heights)
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
84 points (84.4% liked)
Technology
84987 readers
3637 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 39 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
The Golan Heights is Syria though
[removed by mod]
What a nice guy you seem to be! Fuck off, leave us alone
I'm massively disappointed in sdf.org for doing zero user moderation. I've run across more than a few deplorable accounts.
Freedom of speech hurts when people don't say what you want.
[removed by mod]
"Someone like you"? Care to speak your mind or just resort to insults?
[removed by mod]
Insults are the last refuge of a fool trying to look confident
[removed by mod]
Do you have actual arguments?
Hmm.. Do you?
You think Zionist is an insult? Proud Zionist here. AMA.
Have you ever experienced empathy?
Plenty, just not the suicidal kind https://youtu.be/XZb1NWPlpuc
Ah yes, who better to lecture about psychology and sociology than a person with only a CS degree and an MBA who works in marketing. I’m sure he’s definitely right when he says that all the sociology and psychology professors (who actually have done research in their fields) are wrong.
Joking aside, I will say he is good at his job. He’s a marketing professor and he was able to market his ideas and possibly books onto people like you despite having no evidence to support them whatsoever.
In case you do have the capacity for logic, I would like to note that what he does in the first fifteen minutes (and probably the rest of the time) is called “straw man” tactics.
He purposefully misrepresents movements and beliefs and entire fields of science, so he can attack the misrepresentation instead of the belief itself.
To provide an example, he says that radical feminism is the idea that all differences between men and women are purely due to patriarchal social structures and not at all related to biology. This is entirely false. You can look up the term (or just talk to a feminist) and find that idea he described is actually kind of the opposite of radical feminism.
However, he knows his audience (you) don’t actually know what radical feminism is. And he knows that his audience (you) can be easily manipulated into hatred/anger (and possibly just sexism). Thus he knows he can assert this falsehood and his audience (you) will accept it as truth without question or study.
Then he simply has to provide proof that this obviously false thing is obviously false, and his audience (you) will unwittingly believe that radical feminism is obviously false, despite the fact he hasn’t mentioned or disproven any real feminist tenets at all. In fact radical feminism does acknowledge the role genetic, anatomical, and racial differences affect women. So he was kind of agreeing with them. He just needed his audience (you) to not like them and knew his audience (you) would be easily fooled by this tactic.
He’s done his job (manipulating people) well by marketing to his audience (easily enraged people unfamiliar with persuasive rhetoric tactics (you)).
According to Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex (1970): "[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally."[4]
You seem to misrepresent what Gad Saad said about radical feminism (which is the PC part of it that prevents confrontation with facts), but the most important part about your omission is that you tried to divert from his most relevant example - Queers for Palestine.
I would love to hear your thoughts on that particular subject, which is much more relevant here.
I think you misunderstood my example. Also you seem to have mistaken that quote you posted as well. Wishing for a society in which genital differences are not used as a basis for cultural stereotypes is not equivalent to saying “biology/physiology doesn’t matter at all” which was Saad’s straw man.
As for “queers for Palestine” I’m not going to watch the full video, but my guess is he says something along the lines of “you support people who kill queer people!” which again is a straw man since advocacy groups against the genocide of innocent individuals are very much not advocating for the slaughter of queer individuals, in fact I’d imagine most are against it.
Imagine there was a prison on fire. And people are saying “oh my god we need to evacuate those people!” Then imagine someone else says “oh so you support thieves and murderers and rapists? I’m an empath but not a ‘suicidal empath.’”
Obviously the latter person doesn’t actually feel empathy at all and is making a straw man argument against saving people from horrible deaths.
That’s roughly equivalent to this scenario. Except instead of prisoners it’s just a country of civilians including children, and they’re not just burning but also starving and getting hunted/raped for sport etc.
"raped for sport" hahaha.
You really should listen to Gad Saad's entire lecture, you would have not written what you just did if you actually tried to listen to what he said instead of being a contrarian.
There’s a wiki page for the documented systemic sexual abuse committed and encouraged by the Israeli government with citations from the UN and even Israeli court and govt references.
As for the talk, considering that the first 20min were nothing but straw man and other fallacious rhetoric; and that he does not have a research or educational background in the topics he claims are wrong without evidence; and the fact he’s giving this talk mostly to promote himself and his merchandise; I decided it wasn’t worth my time because there would likely be no actual reasoning or evidence, only “sales tactics” so to speak.
Talking with you makes me think i was exactly right since you’ve yet to give any evidence to back up any argument, except, oddly, mine by proving you fell for the feminism straw man and the queers for Palestine one as well.
If there is any actual valid argument in the entirety of the talk, please write it here. Clearly you feel like he made a persuasive case so why don’t you list what the main arguments and rationale for your opinion are? Surely you aren’t just asserting your beliefs are true without evidence? Especially since you seem to care about being “contrarian” which is exactly the definition of disregarding well established consensus
[removed by mod]
[removed by mod]
this pedo murderous demon country will be levelled to the ground and I will be celebrating for the rest of my life.
Did you see margaliot mayor crying and moaning like a pathetic dog? Give it time, tides are turning demons.
[removed by mod]
Is that supposed to be a Hitler reference?
That doesn't work anymore now that Jews aren't powerless like they used to.
That's fine, only the insecure blame the Jews for their issues (take a look at the "successful" Arab world as a fine example).
Care to share your insecurities? as a Jew I might be able to help you with any money or weather issues you might have, I'm also good with space lasers.
"now that Jews aren’t powerless like they used to."
Well, they really weren't powerless. Thats a myth. Ever wonder what craziness led to genocide in Germany?
Well lets dig into that because its usually glossed over in schools and just chalked up to racism in a sentence or two. It centers around The 1933 Anti Nazi boycott, which was driven globally by the American Jewish committee (AJC), against the Jewish peoples of Germanys wishes. German jews feared reprisals during a time when things were basically looking up for them, but were extremely charged and difficult because of racist tensions in Germany.
The (American) AJC launched the boycott as a response to harassment and intimidation leveled at German Jews after the Weimar republic formed in the wake of Germanys loss in WW1. In the Weimar republic Jewish people gained a lot of power via a new state mandated equality and ceased to be locked out of various positions and industries they had been in the past, rapidly becoming powerful members of german society. This caused social tension within the german population already stung by loss of a major world war and paying reparations during a difficult global depression. While the tension was nasty, it seldom led to violence beyond physical initimidation, rocks through windows, marches and slogans.
The boycott caused Germany to suffer a loss of 25% of its global trade which infuriated and further radicalized Hitler, his industry partners, and his followers. Newspapers declared that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany. The genocide which followed was about hatreds and long standing biggotries and privelage, yes-- but it was also about trade, as wars often are.
[removed by mod]
[removed by mod]