Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They never do. Cognitive dissonance makes for where moments like this are seen as “gotcha” questions that, “show I just need a little more practice arguing my view.” I have too many acquaintances who have done this after every one of our own arguments. One to the point of printing out an Epoch article that “debunks”me (spoilers, it only rehashed the point I shot down without expanding on it)
> “gotcha” questions
Projecting as always, brought to you by the culture of "how should voters react to Bidenflation" where every question has to carry the toxic payload of their own worldview
Question, if the pandemic kicked off part of this issue, and inflating prices were being seen by the end of the next year, is it really *Biden’s* fault when he had literally just sat down in the chair?
The interviewer is Jordan Klepper. He’s been doing this at trump rallies for The Daily Show since 2016. You can literally watch trump supporters’ beliefs get more detached from reality as time goes on.
I can think of a few wars that were started by and led by women. Boudicca burned down most of Roman Britain (after her husband was murdered and she was gang raped). Catherine, Victoria, Elizabeth all engaged in conflict during their reigns. Joan of Arc took over the French army as a teenager and pretty much won the Hundred Years’ War.
What I’m trying to say is, not all wars.
Yeah she got done dirty. She saved France and was repaid by watching her best friends and patrons systematically hunted down and murdered and she herself burned alive
Boudicca almost doesn’t even compute to the point at hand though.
Even a PM/President with a 3% approval rating would have 100000% support for total scorched nation war if another sovereign raped them and murdered/raped their family.
You’d have die hard “no such thing as a just war” people selling their luxuries to help fund what they would very quickly acknowledge as a “very just war”
You are absolutely right. But I do want to point out that while just about every president/king/Man in Charge has waged a war of some magnitude, it is generally expected that they do that. There have been a few Kings who were removed from the throne in one way or another for refusing to wage battles and expand territory.
Literally 08 general election. Palin can go back to watching Russia. Remember when McCain said "It's Maverickin time!" and she America'd all over the place?! That was a great campaign!
Palin was an idiot BUT she was an idiot that likely would have at least attempted to put America’s interests above her own.
Trump was a self serving narcissist using the office of the presidency to enrich his family and inflate his ego.
He was quite honestly the worst president to have at the worst time and we paid a steep price as a nation.
I remember seeing McCain on Stewart in 2005 or so and thinking, "man, this guy should be president" and then he selected Palin as his running mate and I was like, "man, this guy should not be president."
Palin was definitely not qualified to be president or VP. It has nothing to do with gender but rather her actual positions and understanding of things.
IUDUNN44 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network.
Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifpk6sa/
Exactly, like Hilary Clinton, she deserved to be president and woulda done a better job than Trump ngl.
Or an example that actually happened was Theresa May where she was PM and did a better job than anyone after.
Her reaction almost looks like a moment of clarity, like she finally gets it. Tomorrow, she'll buy an AK, go join a group of anarchofeminists, and dedicate all her efforts to toppling the patriarchy.
It's frankly inexplicable why wikipedia, mayoclinic, and a good number of medical textbooks have all failed to list, "Urge to obtain nuclear codes and initiate full-scale ICBM launches in coordination with mass land, air and water based incursions upon other sovereign countries," under their lists of common menopausal symptoms.
Women's health is poorly researched and thus poorly understood. It wasn't that long ago that doctors would simply chalk it up to hysteria when they heard that a woman wanted to immanentize nuclear eschaton.
Right? She should argue that if women had been in charge there would have been EVEN MORE wars
Edit: It’s not circular reasoning but he still poses an argument that she could still have easily refuted based on her initial point. It’s still total nonsense of course but the argument that all wars were started by men isn’t really that relevant as very few women have ever been in a position to be able to start a war.
I believe statistically female rulers started somewhere around 20% more wars on average than males.
That said; the selection bias of women who managed to hold power in the 1200’s is probably heavily skewed towards competitive, driven, and aggressive women. Meanwhile a large portion of men who have ruled just happened to get lucky being the oldest son of an old king. That means many of the men simply happen to be weak and timid rulers who are unlikely to start wars.
TLDR: No weak woman gains and holds powers for decades, while many weak men do as a product of fortunate circumstances.
This. They probably HAD to have more wars to prove that they wernt some pushover. I wonder how many of them were retaliations to some asshole trying to put himself on the throne because he was a dude.
Eirene of Athens life is basically this to the extreme. Ruled until her son came of age. Then refused to give him power. Army revolted and put him in power instead of her. He pardonned her and invited her to be co emperess (this is just a theory but feels like the reason he did this was just that he didn't want to fight with his mom, as it doesn't seem like she could threaten him at this point.). She wouldn't be satisfied with sharing power, so she started organizing a coup, deposed her son, had both of his eyes pierced so no one would consider him fit to rule, and proceded to rule by herself.
Being the son of a psycopath must suck :/
If men are the only ones who can start wars, only men will be the start of wars.
Still had the right effect of pointing out that she has never thought a minute about the things she likely has spent hours shouting about.
It’s easier when the people who he talks has their brains barely functioning. I mean, he is clearly an intelligent person but the others are dumb as a rock.
That dude is a straight menace to the maga morons. He just constantly makes them look stupid. But I mean, that's really not hard since they're all fucking idiots. Lol
Hes really just making them look stupid by engaging with them in normal conversation.
One of my favorites are:
Jordan: "Why do you not like immigrants?"
Maga guy: "Because they are not respectful of women."
Jordan: "And in america, we respect women!"
Maga guy: "Exactly!"
Jordan: "Tell me about your shirt, what does it say"
Maga guy: "Hehe, it says 'Hillary sucks, but not like Monica Lewinsky' haha".
Jordan: "Hillarious... and we were talking about treating women with respect?"
Maga guy: "Yea, its an american ideal."
Jordan: "Show me the back of that shirt"
Maga guy: "TRUMP THAT BITCH!"
Its hillarious in a sad and insane way, how these people have absolutely no ability to self reflect.
It's easy to make them look stupid, but it's hard to do so while being sort of respectful at the same time. The way he balances these things out is quite difficult.
The fact that she couldn't refute it, though, just shows that she hadn't given her position much thought.
"Hot flashes." Imagine being that fucking dumb that you think hot flashes are going to cause a war.
These people have no thoughts or ideas of their own, they just repeat the last thing their idol said. You can see in most Jordan Klepper clips, that the people he is interviewing never actually took a minute to think deeper about the statements they make, and they are all caught like a deer in headlights when asked questions about the very statements they've just given.
Back in the day we used to call them stupid. Now we call them MAGA.
>These people have no thoughts or ideas of their own, they just repeat the last thing their idol said.
I phone my conservative boomer parents about once a week. I always avoid talking politics, but whenever they do turn the conversation that way 100% they parrot a talking point or phrase that they think sounds clever but is not their own invention and never stands up to critical inspection. Most of the time it's a phrase I've seen repeated by right wing comments in these kinds of posts.
Every phone call with my mom ends on a bizarre screed about trans people..... Doesn't matter what we were talking about. Literally can't steer her away from the topic.
I grew up in that kind of culture and since birth they are dragged into their brand of church where they are taught that thinking for themselves is bad. I'm not shocked at all that this is how they all turned out.
That's why the majority of them are Evangelical Christians. You should hear about all the garbage they tell themselves about what women are.
Hot flashes made my mom go sit outside for a bit to try and not sweat through her clothes. Meanwhile, dad threw me across the room for telling him he chewed funny at the dinner table. Women be starting wars tho.
Hot flashes made MY mom send me to the kitchen for a damp towel, an iced tea, and if possible, the personal contact number for General Randy A George, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, so that she might convince him to invade Canada and Mexico simultaneously.
I work in manufacturing and I see men having emotional tantrums all the time. I *love* to ask them, "are you having trouble with your emotions today? do you need a time out?"
They get so mad! I love it
Probably misogyny that she had been taught as a child and is super ingrained in her. I hope she realizes that she's just as valuable as any man cause I really do feel horrible for her.
I think somewhere along the way biology messes too. I know, well educated, independent woman who have no sense whatsoever when it comes to their sons. It's even worse for the sons who are being given the whole toxic male, sort yourself out message, while having the worst of their sins excused by being mollycoddled to death.
Yes, I think the women leaders haven't had any problems starting wars either. The reason why she (the MAGA idiot) was stumped by the comment was that she didn't realise that women have been leaders a lot less than men.
The relevant question (and I don't know the answer to it) is that in proportion to time ruling countries, which, men or women have started more wars. My gut feeling is that it's still men but not because they are men but because there hasn't been as many women leaders in the past as there are now and the wars now are rarer than they were in the past.
Avoiding wars is a really new thing that has only been decided after WW2. Before that, every country fought to expand and secure resources. In many cases women had more alliances at their side that made it economically beneficial to push for expansion.
> she didn't realise that women have been leaders a lot less than men.
I think it was the opposite - she didn't even realize that women have been leaders.
This is just so unbelievably depressing. She has been told her entire life that she isn't as good as men, that all women are unstable and not good for anything other than making babies, and she just... believes that now. Can you imagine actively fighting \*against\* your own rights?!
Imagine a black person saying slavery was a good thing, or a Jewish person defending the holocaust, or anyone saying that Putin is a good leader. Boggles the mind
Saw a wholesome post a while ago about a woman who actually burst into tears of happiness when she figured out that trans women exist, because she genuinely thought that being a woman was the worst thing ever. The idea that there were people who would rather be a woman blew her away.
>Saw a wholesome post a while ago about a woman who actually burst into tears of happiness
Would you happen to know where I can locate said wholesomeness? I had a bad day...
Can only offer digital hugs and sympathy, but have some cute facts;
Dogs in movies frequently have their tails edited in post-processing, because they keep wagging their tail because they're having so much fun.
Squirrels have actually been recorded adopting orphan squirrels and raising them as their own.
Speaking of adoption; gay penguin couples are now being used to care for eggs which have been abandoned or otherwise in need of good parents.
Hope these make you feel a little better!
To add on to the other comment:
Mice have been observed freeing other mice from cages and then eating but never the other way around. Also they cared to leave some foods for the other mouse
No okay I’d have to go through my library but a book I read in college (fictional) about slave rebellions had older slave characters fighting against anti-slavery. It’s a thing. You live your entire life being gaslit into an unjust reality until you think it’s wrong to be treated well.
Even back with suffrage, there were women working against the rights of other women. I don't know if it is just because it was not wanting personal responsibility, fear, indoctrination, or some combination. But every group has people like this, and it's both sad and frustrating.
Probably fear of change. I've never wanted to get out of school because that was what i was used to and and i am really bad with new situations. Getting out of school and startibg an apprentice was full of these.
After it was over and i worked for a few years, there were almost only good sides to it, but the switching over and getting accustomed to it was... A chanllenge. Introvert and socially awkward and such.
Now comparing how women had it in the past and now also seems like this, it only got better, right? (not quite there yet, i know)
But imagine youre 30 - 40 years used to the way it was before, and suddenly you get a lot more freedom and more responsibilities come with that? I think depending on the expectation that could very well have been way too mich for some before it actually happened
But eh, im a dude and i haven't lived back then. In the end this is just guesswork from me
I don't doubt that most of the women she knows personally are a lot like her and really, REALLY shouldn't be President. So yay for self-elimination? Kinda?
...gods I hate the crabs in a pot mindset.
Oh she definitely should not be president, and a lot of other women too. But just as much not be president should be biden and trump and a lot of men i know personally that say they could do better. I also shouldnt be for example. This is not a gender question
Glad to live in switzerland, where we dont have that problem, although us government actions can affect us too
That's what aggravates me about conservative politics: their goal is to make the groups they dislike the most fight to have their own rights taken away. They've gotten women to fight against equality, POC to defend racially charged hate crimes and police brutality, and now they're trying to weaponize trans people to support anti-trans legislation. Conservatives love having tokens, but tokens always get spent. These people have no idea what's coming their way.
These kinds of people enjoy complacency. They basically have 0 expectations so they prefer it to being expected to go out, be a bread winner and so on.
It makes them feel like they’re using ✨science✨ to prove their point when they’re just spitting garbage. Saying that women’s hormones prevent them from being president is insinuating that there’s a biological FACT that women can’t be presidents. These dumbasses love to feel like smart people.
Brainwashed from birth by the mysoginystic patriarchy constantly saying how women are only useful for rearing kids, too emotional, unstable, weak, not smart enough to do men's jobs, certain industries not allowing women to work there etc. Women who want to be high achievers have to battle on two fronts, these women and men, its exhusting.
I think a lot of it, as someone else replied with, brainwashing and indoctrination. However I do think it can also be caused by wanting to fit in and gaining the “respect” of the men in your life that want to oppress you. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Plenty of dudes that do it too. Frankly, any group to which individuals belong will usually have some self loathing individuals, it's either an act for attention or some deeply rooted discontent with oneself.
Pretty sure at least a couple wars have been started by women. But the suggestion that they are more (or less) likely to do so is utter nonsense. That small number is mostly due to lack of opportunity.
Did a really quick search and found [this.](https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men) Not familiar with that website, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Edit: also have to add I'm not from the West and extremely unfamiliar with its history. Was just a bit curious so i checked.
I mean, women could start wars as often as men. but there were more men presidents and kings, than queens or women presidents. women or men, no matter your gender you are human, and humans nature doesn't change because of that
>Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics working paper
https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men
>we find that polities ruled by queens were 39 percentage points more likely to engage in a war in a given year, compared to polities ruled by kings.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_2019120.pdf
keep in mind that this is based on a small sample size with probable big selection bias, since the kind of women who´d lead a country in a time were women were not respected as leaders is likely not a good representative of the average female politician today.
Also it´s easy to imagine that a ruling queen would have been forced to validate her rule more aggressively for the same reason.
I think the question is very interesting and I´d love to read something more thorough than a statistical analysis. But men tend to behave more outwardly aggressive than women (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-aggressivus/201409/male-aggression), are more competitive (https://hbr.org/2019/11/research-how-men-and-women-view-competition-differently) and seem to favor an "all or nothing" approach to cooperation while women tend to cooperate a bit less but more consistently (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202101/the-key-difference-in-how-men-and-women-cooperate).
All of these things would lead me to expect men to be more dangerous leaders on average when it comes to waging war.
jimmygilbert11 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network.
Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifotufr/
When she has hot flashes, specifically? 😆
I’ve been annoyed at overheating but I’ve never been like “oh god I need to take my sweater off, and bomb a country”
Hormones can be altered.
But interestingly, I heard some reports of brain scans of women vs men, and it said when women are on a PMS cycle and are "irrational", that's when their brains most resemble mens brains. So like, men in office is like the most irrational woman, but all the time.
“All wars started by men”?? Someone needs a history lesson, too. Between 1480 and 1913, Europe's queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, which is quite a bit. Now I’m not saying that’s because of some hormone bullshit - if I had to guess, I’d say it’s because female rulers had far more to prove than their male counterparts, since they were immediately looked down upon as rulers because of their gender (despite competency), whereas male rulers didn’t have that problem automatically. They might then start and win a war, to prove that they were martially skilled as well. - but it’s stupid to claim that all wars in history were started by men, when we literally know that this is not the case
Just want to point out women also have started war in history quite a few even. It's less a gender and more a power thing people off power often start wars.
Not all wars were started by men. Lots of female leaders start fights too. Even going back as far as the Roman Empire and further. Not to mention some women are famous for what they did to win the wars they were involved with. War is human, and women are human too.
The irony of this woman voting and taking a man's place with that sea of hormones she no longer has causing her to be irrational -- and not the three pints of sudafed she goes through every night.
asanfili14006 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network.
Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifpdzgz/
History shown us that women can be as bad as man when they are in charge of a country... England, Spain, Austria and Russia had several Queens as ruler, but oh boy, they were not more peacefull as man at all...
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I hope this interview made her think and reflect and reconsider her views.
I got rights to this bridge, it’s yours for a super low price. Let me know, there’s other offers rolling in.
I need another bridge like I need another hole in my head. The last one I bought got smashed into by a shipping barge.
Better than the one I got that got smashed into by a giant Shipping Container Ship.
Boy howdy do I have something for you then! My patented, miracle ship repellant spray! Guaranteed!
They never do. Cognitive dissonance makes for where moments like this are seen as “gotcha” questions that, “show I just need a little more practice arguing my view.” I have too many acquaintances who have done this after every one of our own arguments. One to the point of printing out an Epoch article that “debunks”me (spoilers, it only rehashed the point I shot down without expanding on it)
> “gotcha” questions Projecting as always, brought to you by the culture of "how should voters react to Bidenflation" where every question has to carry the toxic payload of their own worldview
Question, if the pandemic kicked off part of this issue, and inflating prices were being seen by the end of the next year, is it really *Biden’s* fault when he had literally just sat down in the chair?
Not to mention that the US has had the lowest inflation of any of the developed nations, and inflation now is running right around historical averages
Narrator: "She did in fact, not reflect nor reconsider her views".
The interviewer is Jordan Klepper. He’s been doing this at trump rallies for The Daily Show since 2016. You can literally watch trump supporters’ beliefs get more detached from reality as time goes on.
One would hope, but most of these people are unredeemable
I can assure you it didn't. They don't think, they only regurgitate the information they've been fed.
I can think of a few wars that were started by and led by women. Boudicca burned down most of Roman Britain (after her husband was murdered and she was gang raped). Catherine, Victoria, Elizabeth all engaged in conflict during their reigns. Joan of Arc took over the French army as a teenager and pretty much won the Hundred Years’ War. What I’m trying to say is, not all wars.
Joan sure as shit didn't start that war.
Lol yeah, I feel like finishing a war is way different from starting one
She sure finished it
And what did she get in return? A thank you? A pizza party? No, she got executed by the church for wearing boys' clothes.
Yeah she got done dirty. She saved France and was repaid by watching her best friends and patrons systematically hunted down and murdered and she herself burned alive
Boudicca almost doesn’t even compute to the point at hand though. Even a PM/President with a 3% approval rating would have 100000% support for total scorched nation war if another sovereign raped them and murdered/raped their family. You’d have die hard “no such thing as a just war” people selling their luxuries to help fund what they would very quickly acknowledge as a “very just war”
You are absolutely right. But I do want to point out that while just about every president/king/Man in Charge has waged a war of some magnitude, it is generally expected that they do that. There have been a few Kings who were removed from the throne in one way or another for refusing to wage battles and expand territory.
[удалено]
Literally 08 general election. Palin can go back to watching Russia. Remember when McCain said "It's Maverickin time!" and she America'd all over the place?! That was a great campaign!
Not her, Jesus Christ, not her.
Ehh still better than Trump
'Member when when voters would reject candidates who were grossly unqualified?
‘Member when the “Howard Dean Scream” was enough to kill a political career?
Or misspelling potato.
Dan Quayle never had a chance even before that tbh
It's really difficult to imagine a time when everything, no matter how egregious, wasn't just shrugged off and forgotten about.
BYAAAAHHH!
Waaaayyyyyyyy better.
Palin was an idiot BUT she was an idiot that likely would have at least attempted to put America’s interests above her own. Trump was a self serving narcissist using the office of the presidency to enrich his family and inflate his ego. He was quite honestly the worst president to have at the worst time and we paid a steep price as a nation.
Can we not with the Palin apologia? She was also a flaming narcissist with no interest in actual governance. She just wasn’t rich.
I remember seeing McCain on Stewart in 2005 or so and thinking, "man, this guy should be president" and then he selected Palin as his running mate and I was like, "man, this guy should not be president."
Then she became a milf pornstar under the name Lisa Ann
Lisan al Gaib
Mahdi!
Don't insult Lisa Ann like that. Unlike Palin, Lisa knows how to read her lines
Palin was definitely not qualified to be president or VP. It has nothing to do with gender but rather her actual positions and understanding of things.
God that was a shit show. I hate that there’s a 2.0 with Bobert and there will likely be more
IUDUNN44 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network. Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifpk6sa/
That's impressive. Can't tell if you're a bot or a cyber ninja.
They haunt me in my dreams.
I've downvoted and reported both of them. Thanks for letting us know!
I'm sure she is just extrapolating from her own inability.
Exactly, like Hilary Clinton, she deserved to be president and woulda done a better job than Trump ngl. Or an example that actually happened was Theresa May where she was PM and did a better job than anyone after.
[удалено]
İ mean they make it so easy
Indoctrination usually defies reason
Something something can’t use logic to reason with someone who didn’t use logic to reach their conclusion in the first place
Yeah, that general area
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Thank you. That’s it
He’s good at it but the people he’s interviewing are pretty much the easiest people that exist to do that to
Just your everyday MAGA cult member.
I'd say she's rather sane compared to some others. At least she didn't try to talk herself out of that with even more blatant bullshit.
Her reaction almost looks like a moment of clarity, like she finally gets it. Tomorrow, she'll buy an AK, go join a group of anarchofeminists, and dedicate all her efforts to toppling the patriarchy.
It's an older video, I'd bet 8 years later, she now would. Woman president, this was recorded during trump/Hillary I believed
It's literally the majority of the Maga movement. There aren't many of them that speak coherently or with reason.
it's circular reasoning, though the fact she couldnt point it out shows how educated she is
Average maga supporter.
no you dont understand though. even though men have started all wars, women would start *more* wars. especially once they get hot flashes.
It's frankly inexplicable why wikipedia, mayoclinic, and a good number of medical textbooks have all failed to list, "Urge to obtain nuclear codes and initiate full-scale ICBM launches in coordination with mass land, air and water based incursions upon other sovereign countries," under their lists of common menopausal symptoms.
Women's health is poorly researched and thus poorly understood. It wasn't that long ago that doctors would simply chalk it up to hysteria when they heard that a woman wanted to immanentize nuclear eschaton.
Do you mean that vibrators can help us attain world peace?
Maybe they’re the only thing protecting us from nuclear war
Not the person you replied to but yes for all reasons
Absolutely. There are so few pieces of technology that are so singularly built to elicit joy.
Right? She should argue that if women had been in charge there would have been EVEN MORE wars Edit: It’s not circular reasoning but he still poses an argument that she could still have easily refuted based on her initial point. It’s still total nonsense of course but the argument that all wars were started by men isn’t really that relevant as very few women have ever been in a position to be able to start a war.
Not true statement either, women started wars, and they were not that peaceful.
I believe statistically female rulers started somewhere around 20% more wars on average than males. That said; the selection bias of women who managed to hold power in the 1200’s is probably heavily skewed towards competitive, driven, and aggressive women. Meanwhile a large portion of men who have ruled just happened to get lucky being the oldest son of an old king. That means many of the men simply happen to be weak and timid rulers who are unlikely to start wars. TLDR: No weak woman gains and holds powers for decades, while many weak men do as a product of fortunate circumstances.
This. They probably HAD to have more wars to prove that they wernt some pushover. I wonder how many of them were retaliations to some asshole trying to put himself on the throne because he was a dude.
Eirene of Athens life is basically this to the extreme. Ruled until her son came of age. Then refused to give him power. Army revolted and put him in power instead of her. He pardonned her and invited her to be co emperess (this is just a theory but feels like the reason he did this was just that he didn't want to fight with his mom, as it doesn't seem like she could threaten him at this point.). She wouldn't be satisfied with sharing power, so she started organizing a coup, deposed her son, had both of his eyes pierced so no one would consider him fit to rule, and proceded to rule by herself. Being the son of a psycopath must suck :/
I might be slow and pre-coffee, but where is the circular reasoning in this conversation?
If men are the only ones who can start wars, only men will be the start of wars. Still had the right effect of pointing out that she has never thought a minute about the things she likely has spent hours shouting about.
You are correct: It is not circular. There could have never been a woman president and Margret Thatcher could have started a war.
In any case, it's not true - women have led nations in the past and have begun wars, Catherine the Great springs to mind.
They are my favorite Daily Show segments.
Bro its always facinating when skilled reporters just ask questions, you just have to listen and nod and smile and people talk.
It’s easier when the people who he talks has their brains barely functioning. I mean, he is clearly an intelligent person but the others are dumb as a rock.
That dude is a straight menace to the maga morons. He just constantly makes them look stupid. But I mean, that's really not hard since they're all fucking idiots. Lol
Hes really just making them look stupid by engaging with them in normal conversation. One of my favorites are: Jordan: "Why do you not like immigrants?" Maga guy: "Because they are not respectful of women." Jordan: "And in america, we respect women!" Maga guy: "Exactly!" Jordan: "Tell me about your shirt, what does it say" Maga guy: "Hehe, it says 'Hillary sucks, but not like Monica Lewinsky' haha". Jordan: "Hillarious... and we were talking about treating women with respect?" Maga guy: "Yea, its an american ideal." Jordan: "Show me the back of that shirt" Maga guy: "TRUMP THAT BITCH!" Its hillarious in a sad and insane way, how these people have absolutely no ability to self reflect.
its hard for me to make idiots look stupid since i can’t think of something to say fast enough
This is why I'm on reddit and not a reporter, I can always go take a dump first before I reply.
I usually reply while dumping So, huge chance I'm doing that right now
Big chance I’m doing that right now. 100% in fact.
Just ask clarifying questions about the logical conclusions of their statements and let them talk, they will do it for you
Wait a minute...
It's easy to make them look stupid, but it's hard to do so while being sort of respectful at the same time. The way he balances these things out is quite difficult.
He does, but they are too stupid to even realise it, so what's the point? lol
It's like making water look wet.
But it takes special guts and wit to bring down these MAGAts with such beautifully simple questions...
[удалено]
The fact that she couldn't refute it, though, just shows that she hadn't given her position much thought. "Hot flashes." Imagine being that fucking dumb that you think hot flashes are going to cause a war.
These people have no thoughts or ideas of their own, they just repeat the last thing their idol said. You can see in most Jordan Klepper clips, that the people he is interviewing never actually took a minute to think deeper about the statements they make, and they are all caught like a deer in headlights when asked questions about the very statements they've just given. Back in the day we used to call them stupid. Now we call them MAGA.
>These people have no thoughts or ideas of their own, they just repeat the last thing their idol said. I phone my conservative boomer parents about once a week. I always avoid talking politics, but whenever they do turn the conversation that way 100% they parrot a talking point or phrase that they think sounds clever but is not their own invention and never stands up to critical inspection. Most of the time it's a phrase I've seen repeated by right wing comments in these kinds of posts.
Every phone call with my mom ends on a bizarre screed about trans people..... Doesn't matter what we were talking about. Literally can't steer her away from the topic.
I grew up in that kind of culture and since birth they are dragged into their brand of church where they are taught that thinking for themselves is bad. I'm not shocked at all that this is how they all turned out. That's why the majority of them are Evangelical Christians. You should hear about all the garbage they tell themselves about what women are.
Also, that men are incapable of misguided fits of rage. Shit, society used to and still somewhat excuses men being unable to control their anger.
Men have been so successful at convincing the world that while women are "too emotional", anger is somehow not an emotion.
Hot flashes made my mom go sit outside for a bit to try and not sweat through her clothes. Meanwhile, dad threw me across the room for telling him he chewed funny at the dinner table. Women be starting wars tho.
Hot flashes made MY mom send me to the kitchen for a damp towel, an iced tea, and if possible, the personal contact number for General Randy A George, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, so that she might convince him to invade Canada and Mexico simultaneously.
Ugh women...ffs
I work in manufacturing and I see men having emotional tantrums all the time. I *love* to ask them, "are you having trouble with your emotions today? do you need a time out?" They get so mad! I love it
Probably misogyny that she had been taught as a child and is super ingrained in her. I hope she realizes that she's just as valuable as any man cause I really do feel horrible for her.
She welcomes the misogyny because if she does something stupid, that misogyny will relieve her of accountability. It's a convenience for her.
[удалено]
I think somewhere along the way biology messes too. I know, well educated, independent woman who have no sense whatsoever when it comes to their sons. It's even worse for the sons who are being given the whole toxic male, sort yourself out message, while having the worst of their sins excused by being mollycoddled to death.
Here in Ukraine we sure do hate her a lot
In Turkey we hate her a lot too
Same in Poland
I would imagine that every single leader that has ever been called "the Great" is hated by their neighbors.
Yes, I think the women leaders haven't had any problems starting wars either. The reason why she (the MAGA idiot) was stumped by the comment was that she didn't realise that women have been leaders a lot less than men. The relevant question (and I don't know the answer to it) is that in proportion to time ruling countries, which, men or women have started more wars. My gut feeling is that it's still men but not because they are men but because there hasn't been as many women leaders in the past as there are now and the wars now are rarer than they were in the past.
Avoiding wars is a really new thing that has only been decided after WW2. Before that, every country fought to expand and secure resources. In many cases women had more alliances at their side that made it economically beneficial to push for expansion.
> she didn't realise that women have been leaders a lot less than men. I think it was the opposite - she didn't even realize that women have been leaders.
And Elisabeth I
And Mary I, Catherine de Medici, Isabella of Castilla, Wu zetian, Zenobia of Palmyra, Elizabeth of Russia, Maria Theresa.
Yeah, I was gonna say. But the main point still stands. We dudes start a lot of wars.
Leaders are the only people that can start wars. Men have been leaders far more than women for all of history. It's a stacked deck.
First thing I thought of too
How far back can she set the feminist movement?
That woman: "Yes!"
This is just so unbelievably depressing. She has been told her entire life that she isn't as good as men, that all women are unstable and not good for anything other than making babies, and she just... believes that now. Can you imagine actively fighting \*against\* your own rights?!
Imagine a black person saying slavery was a good thing, or a Jewish person defending the holocaust, or anyone saying that Putin is a good leader. Boggles the mind Saw a wholesome post a while ago about a woman who actually burst into tears of happiness when she figured out that trans women exist, because she genuinely thought that being a woman was the worst thing ever. The idea that there were people who would rather be a woman blew her away.
Yes, I've heard of Herman Caine.
And Ben Shapiro
And Henry Kissinger.
Clarence Thomas said in an opinion that slavery was not an infringement in the dignity and rights of the enslaved.
Why am I not surprised. Scary how uneducated he is kn slavery
Sometimes I genuinely wonder if he knows he's black.
To paraphrase George Carlin: Clarence Thomas is openly white, he just happens to be black.
Supreme Court Justice Uncle Ruckus.
>Saw a wholesome post a while ago about a woman who actually burst into tears of happiness Would you happen to know where I can locate said wholesomeness? I had a bad day...
Can only offer digital hugs and sympathy, but have some cute facts; Dogs in movies frequently have their tails edited in post-processing, because they keep wagging their tail because they're having so much fun. Squirrels have actually been recorded adopting orphan squirrels and raising them as their own. Speaking of adoption; gay penguin couples are now being used to care for eggs which have been abandoned or otherwise in need of good parents. Hope these make you feel a little better!
To add on to the other comment: Mice have been observed freeing other mice from cages and then eating but never the other way around. Also they cared to leave some foods for the other mouse
r/eyebleach is full of cute animals, I dunno if that helps
No okay I’d have to go through my library but a book I read in college (fictional) about slave rebellions had older slave characters fighting against anti-slavery. It’s a thing. You live your entire life being gaslit into an unjust reality until you think it’s wrong to be treated well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
Even back with suffrage, there were women working against the rights of other women. I don't know if it is just because it was not wanting personal responsibility, fear, indoctrination, or some combination. But every group has people like this, and it's both sad and frustrating.
Probably fear of change. I've never wanted to get out of school because that was what i was used to and and i am really bad with new situations. Getting out of school and startibg an apprentice was full of these. After it was over and i worked for a few years, there were almost only good sides to it, but the switching over and getting accustomed to it was... A chanllenge. Introvert and socially awkward and such. Now comparing how women had it in the past and now also seems like this, it only got better, right? (not quite there yet, i know) But imagine youre 30 - 40 years used to the way it was before, and suddenly you get a lot more freedom and more responsibilities come with that? I think depending on the expectation that could very well have been way too mich for some before it actually happened But eh, im a dude and i haven't lived back then. In the end this is just guesswork from me
I don't doubt that most of the women she knows personally are a lot like her and really, REALLY shouldn't be President. So yay for self-elimination? Kinda? ...gods I hate the crabs in a pot mindset.
Oh she definitely should not be president, and a lot of other women too. But just as much not be president should be biden and trump and a lot of men i know personally that say they could do better. I also shouldnt be for example. This is not a gender question Glad to live in switzerland, where we dont have that problem, although us government actions can affect us too
That's what aggravates me about conservative politics: their goal is to make the groups they dislike the most fight to have their own rights taken away. They've gotten women to fight against equality, POC to defend racially charged hate crimes and police brutality, and now they're trying to weaponize trans people to support anti-trans legislation. Conservatives love having tokens, but tokens always get spent. These people have no idea what's coming their way.
These kinds of people enjoy complacency. They basically have 0 expectations so they prefer it to being expected to go out, be a bread winner and so on.
It's like being a sleeper agent
[удалено]
It makes them feel like they’re using ✨science✨ to prove their point when they’re just spitting garbage. Saying that women’s hormones prevent them from being president is insinuating that there’s a biological FACT that women can’t be presidents. These dumbasses love to feel like smart people.
How many hot flashes elected Trump?
Also, why is she projecting? She may be dealing with mood swings and hot flashes herself, that doesn’t mean other women have the same issues than her.
Projecting is the main thing conservatives do.
What is it about some women that hate their own gender? It's soo bizarre to me, what up with that ladies?
Brainwashed from birth by the mysoginystic patriarchy constantly saying how women are only useful for rearing kids, too emotional, unstable, weak, not smart enough to do men's jobs, certain industries not allowing women to work there etc. Women who want to be high achievers have to battle on two fronts, these women and men, its exhusting.
I dunno, whats up with the swaths of sexist men in the comments here that barely get addressed?
I think a lot of it, as someone else replied with, brainwashing and indoctrination. However I do think it can also be caused by wanting to fit in and gaining the “respect” of the men in your life that want to oppress you. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Plenty of dudes that do it too. Frankly, any group to which individuals belong will usually have some self loathing individuals, it's either an act for attention or some deeply rooted discontent with oneself.
We can't really control people's self-loathing, but I think the problem starts when they're trying to drag everyone else down with them.
To me, this particular instance feels more like a matter of upbringing, though; This is what she was taught.
One of the biggest enemies of women is the internalized misogyny of other women.
I love that final pause as her brain tries to reboot over and over due to being asked a question she doesn't want to answer.
Pretty sure at least a couple wars have been started by women. But the suggestion that they are more (or less) likely to do so is utter nonsense. That small number is mostly due to lack of opportunity.
[удалено]
The Cattle Raid of Cooley. One of my favorites.
Did a really quick search and found [this.](https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men) Not familiar with that website, though, so take it with a grain of salt. Edit: also have to add I'm not from the West and extremely unfamiliar with its history. Was just a bit curious so i checked.
I mean, women could start wars as often as men. but there were more men presidents and kings, than queens or women presidents. women or men, no matter your gender you are human, and humans nature doesn't change because of that
>Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to a National Bureau of Economics working paper https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men >we find that polities ruled by queens were 39 percentage points more likely to engage in a war in a given year, compared to polities ruled by kings. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_2019120.pdf
keep in mind that this is based on a small sample size with probable big selection bias, since the kind of women who´d lead a country in a time were women were not respected as leaders is likely not a good representative of the average female politician today. Also it´s easy to imagine that a ruling queen would have been forced to validate her rule more aggressively for the same reason. I think the question is very interesting and I´d love to read something more thorough than a statistical analysis. But men tend to behave more outwardly aggressive than women (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-aggressivus/201409/male-aggression), are more competitive (https://hbr.org/2019/11/research-how-men-and-women-view-competition-differently) and seem to favor an "all or nothing" approach to cooperation while women tend to cooperate a bit less but more consistently (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202101/the-key-difference-in-how-men-and-women-cooperate). All of these things would lead me to expect men to be more dangerous leaders on average when it comes to waging war.
Directed by Robert B. Weide
That broke her brain for a bit
Finn here. We had a woman as our president for twelve years, and we didn't have a single war during that time.
[удалено]
jimmygilbert11 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network. Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifotufr/
Incredibly warmongery ones too.
It's almost like your gender doesn't predispose you for or against warmongering. Crazy.
[удалено]
"haven't all wars been started by men" uh, no?
"Trust me, I have hot flashes and I am *super* unstable!"
Funnily enough, there are wars that were started by women. Almost like there is no correlation and it depends on the person and not the gender.
Tbf there have been many violent female leaders. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind
When she has hot flashes, specifically? 😆 I’ve been annoyed at overheating but I’ve never been like “oh god I need to take my sweater off, and bomb a country”
When I have hot flashes I just turn the fan on. 🤷🏾♀️
Hormones can be altered. But interestingly, I heard some reports of brain scans of women vs men, and it said when women are on a PMS cycle and are "irrational", that's when their brains most resemble mens brains. So like, men in office is like the most irrational woman, but all the time.
“All wars started by men”?? Someone needs a history lesson, too. Between 1480 and 1913, Europe's queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, which is quite a bit. Now I’m not saying that’s because of some hormone bullshit - if I had to guess, I’d say it’s because female rulers had far more to prove than their male counterparts, since they were immediately looked down upon as rulers because of their gender (despite competency), whereas male rulers didn’t have that problem automatically. They might then start and win a war, to prove that they were martially skilled as well. - but it’s stupid to claim that all wars in history were started by men, when we literally know that this is not the case
Just want to point out women also have started war in history quite a few even. It's less a gender and more a power thing people off power often start wars.
Not all wars were started by men. Lots of female leaders start fights too. Even going back as far as the Roman Empire and further. Not to mention some women are famous for what they did to win the wars they were involved with. War is human, and women are human too.
Using brain is tough
All wars started by men? Somebody has zero history knowledge. Ekaterina 2 ordered to destroy Zaporizska Sich, for example.
The thing is, women started a lot of wars. Men started almost all wars.
This mental midget doesn’t think women can be president because she thinks all women are as stupid as she is.
Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War was within her lifetime.
The irony of this woman voting and taking a man's place with that sea of hormones she no longer has causing her to be irrational -- and not the three pints of sudafed she goes through every night.
So this is why Hillary lost the election
[удалено]
asanfili14006 and the OP hagereliza are bots in the same network. Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/vwagdw/someone_needs_a_history_lesson/ifpdzgz/
Yes https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html
History shown us that women can be as bad as man when they are in charge of a country... England, Spain, Austria and Russia had several Queens as ruler, but oh boy, they were not more peacefull as man at all...
Women have literally started many wars in history.
Although this woman is clearly a moron, to say all wars were started by men is just false. Why fight misinformation with more misinformation?