https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Gaza_war

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

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.

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)).

Have you ever experienced empathy?

I mean typically people refer to planes as hyperplanes once you go past 3D, but I’ve definitely heard them just called “planes” too

Hyperplanes are just a generalization of planes to higher dimensions. Often you hear the term when working with vectors because, like in 3D, you can define an n-dimensional hyperplane by a surface normal vector and a point. All lines perpendicular (orthogonal) to that normal vector which pass through the point form the plane.

It’s a useful concept and since we already have a word for that kind of structure in 3D space we just use the same term for it in other dimensions