66
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
66 points (82.4% liked)
Technology
83158 readers
3632 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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)).
Good job.
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.