First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

well that was pretty obnoxious. nothing like people running up to you on the street and yelling obscenities in your face

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.

I just remembered two great examples (turn off your audio unless you enjoy obnoxious music):

During the Supercup in 2013, Neuer spent nearly the entire second half of overtime in Chelsea's half of the pitch. Here's one of his successful interceptions/clearances, 114th minute, Chelsea up 2-1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-JOubsXc4

Sometimes, his clearance falls short and comes back to haunt him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzLln1CAQo

Ban request without an explanation is pretty obnoxious. I would much rather see the video taken down and the user given the benefit of any doubt ahead of a flat out ban - especially when it can be issued so thoughtlessly.

Even if it were his own video, accidents can happen, not everyone reads every single rule, does it really need to be how it is? Never understood this kneejerk rule, from a community like ours.

@lantern53 @bobknight33

As you two seem completely incapable of setting aside your bias, or your ignorance i'll ask you to site... really anything where Soros threatened a law suite because he was be associated with a group he began and was funding.

The Koch brothers are so ashamed and afraid of their association and support of this group they are threatening lawsuits to keep it hidden. Ignoring the obnoxious little troll in his basement... and trying for ONE second to focus on that point... can you not put aside your ignorance and bias acknowledge this is even the tiniest bit... oh lets softball it in and say 'strange'...

I came across your mother's obnoxious a-hole.

comes across as a right obnoxious a-hole to me

FWIW, I'm pretty much neutral on the idea. If only because we could always adjust the mechanics if it leads to problems. (See how much I love and count on you, Lucky?)

I'm sure we would see some obnoxiousness, but there are definitely cases where it could add something as well. Personally, I'd lean towards starting it out with a relatively low barrier to entry...non-Probies, or even non-hobbled. But it should probably be informed by how much effort it would actually take to change things if change were needed.

I don't want to be grumpy about this, but I really wish they would give us the benefit of the doubt and just let us listen to them talk without cutting to obnoxious musical interludes every ten seconds or just slicing it up to death. Like in the Robert Llewelyn version. Still, fun!

DrewNumberTwo, I see where you're coming from. Perhaps when can come together in supporting the proposition that police officers routinely wear body cameras.

And jmd, I would agree that I've certainly seen worse when it comes to homemade police encounter recordings. My general annoyance is directed at a group of predominantly adolescent/early 20's males who find ways to be obnoxious and disruptive toward law enforcement officers while avoiding breaking the law, and then equate legality with morality. I would not classify this instance as disruptive in itself, though I speculate that it represents a more general pattern of disruptive behavior given the officer's allusion to other incidents at the police station. I appreciate that my speculation is just that, speculation.

Lastly, I will say, particularly after reading the video taper's post on YT, that the bigger concern here is the police officer's behavior. Wielding the powers invested in a position of privilege as a means to retaliate against someone for personal grievances is reprehensible.

Okay, yes, the cop is a puffed up dick but so is this smart ass kid who appears to be on a power trip of his own after spending the day perusing infowars in his parents' basement. It is obnoxious to hold a phone up in someone's face while having a conversation with them. The fact that he is acting within his constitutional rights doesn't make him any less of a prick.

I like the song, but I'm confused as to why the video was even made. Watching drunk assholes get progressively more shitfaced and obnoxious isn't much fun, IMO.