Comments by "Muck006" (@Muck006) on "Study shows men are judged more harshly than women for cracking a joke" video.

In Britain it is even "impossible" for a woman to "do the full s..ual assault" thing because the legal definition is focused on penetration.
6
@stoneyrules Still white knighting then ...
3
a) did you notice the number of (D) TROLL-BOTS here? b) it doesnt have to be Fox who did it ... might have been YT as well
2
There was a study on OK Cupid ... men were asked to judge women based on their pictures alone ... and women were asked to judge men. - men judged women with the standard "bell curve", i.e. the average was in the middle of the range - women judged men as "75% below average" ... judging only the same small bunch of guys as desireable
2
A big part is that women are "getting into hissy fits" over jokes they dont like ... and call them toxic and whatnot. Men - at least the traditional ones - dont do that, because we can ignore stuff that is annoying us more easily and DO NOT REACT WITH EXTREME EMOTIONS TO EVERYTHING. [While "hunting the mammoth" it is counter-productive to go into a "woe betide me" speech to everyone, just because you stubbed one of your toes. That is why men ARE LESS OPENLY EMOTIONAL. Women never had to learn this.]
2
You should swap the political colours again ... (they were the other way round until the 70s or so) ... because red = commie and that is the (D).
1
@stoneyrules The problem with your CLAIM is that you NEVER PROVE that "X is sexist/racist/homophobic". Do you know what "woke" actually means? "Woke" is a term grouping several ideologies together which can be described as REBRANDED COMMUNISM. So yeah, you are a COMMUNIST ... and I will prove the "rebranded communism" bit by analysing the STRUCTURE of the ideologies: - based upon an EMOTIONAL CLAIM of "group X is/was being treated unfairly" that is never proven scientifically - heavy use of THOUGHT-TERMINATING CLICHÉs [1] like the ones you mentioned ... to NOT "give accurate information about a person"[2] but rather to a) INDOCTRINATE and CONDITION those who "listen and BELIEVE" and to b) "other/outcast" those targeted by them - this "othering" of a segment of the population creates the TWO COLLECTIVES - "perpetual VICTIMS" and "eternal PERPETRATORS" - which communism NEEDS - "workers vs. capitalists", "women vs. men", "black vs. white", "rainbows vs. straight" is all just a REPLACEMENT OF KEYWORDS from the same starting ideology - you are ALL INTERNATIONALISTS, i.e. transplant the ideology to every country on the globe without any adaptation. Examples: Afghanistan and BLM in Britain last year ... protesting about police brutality and whatnot ... which doesnt happen there Here is the challenge: go for a month without using thought-terminating clichés and try to ARGUE without them ... PROVE your CLAIMS by GENERAL society standards, i.e. "complimenting a woman on her looks is NOT sexist". Oh and I do hope we share the opinion that communism is just as evil as fascism. Also: Watch Yuri Bezmenov explain why you are BELIEVING what you do ... in the 80s already. [1] The thoughts of those who "listen and BELIEVE" these terms are terminated ... not of those who are targeted ... which leads to the INDOCTRINATION and CONDITIONING! [2] As an older german from West Germany I still know about the GDR propaganda calling "everyone in the West" FASCIST ... so there is no truth in the accusation because they never bothered to PROVE IT. YOU "stating it" doesnt make it true. The [Berlin] Wall was called the "anti-fascist protection wall" for instance.
1
@JD-sy7kb That is a TROLL-BOT ... dont reply, just report it.
1
Numbers of troops isnt the deciding factor ... WILLPOWER in the leadership and (strategic-tactical) INFORMATION are. Sinking ships is relatively easy ... if you know where they are AND if the command to fire is given.
1
You didnt hear the laugh track being added for him?
1
*wandering
1
Equality isnt the goal ... equity is ... women getting paid the same for making worse jokes (fewer people laugh/smaller audiences).
1
@justinmiller1118 Too many scientists are saying unscientific things. Climate change is the easiest example, because for science you need REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS or LARGE BODIES OF STATISTICS to make any predictions for the future. Nevertheless ... global warming is happening (there are pictures from the glaciers in the alps 100 years ago and now ... and they are "going away rapidly"; they were created during the last ice age) and humanity can not afford it, because - this is a BASIC scientific PRINCIPLE, so it is scientific to make this claim - hurricanes get their energy from warm oceans, so warmer oceans = more/stronger hurricanes.
1