jump to content
my subreddits
more »
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
32 points (73% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

PanicHistory

subscribeunsubscribe9,799 FEMA camp detainees readers
~26 being tracked by the NSA now users here now
It seems like Reddit loves sensationalist headlines and predicting imminent disaster every week, only to quickly forget about it days later. Here's a place to document these panics and maybe expand Reddit's collective memory a bit.
/r/PanicHistory is a collection of Reddit threads from the past and present that predict some kind of disaster, whether it's the implementation of martial law, a fascist takeover of America or a looming US invasion of Iran. We're a skeptic subreddit that brings attention to the fact that sensationalist headlines and predictions of doom never really change.
PanicHistory highlights:
According to Reddit, America is...
Best of the Worst
Panic Hall of Fame
The PanicHistory wiki
And if you haven't rolled your eyeballs hard enough to dislodge them into the back of your skull, try the following:
For a more rational approach to conspiracies, visit /r/actualconspiracies
For even more angry hyperbole: /r/BestOfOutrageCulture
Special thanks to Rent-a-Hero for the logo
created by madfrogurta community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
message the moderators

MODERATORS

you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -14 points-13 points-12 points  (53 children)
Fuck it, I stick to it. It's not just teenagers on the internet. Aspects of their absurd belief system can be found from college syllabuses to the executive branch of the United States government.
Besides, you guys have studied the history of previous nations, I presume? Cultures look to new ideologies either when they're looking to make improvements, or to distract themselves from everything going down the shitter. I can guarantee that this isn't the former.
[–]UmmahSultan 5 points6 points7 points  (9 children)
Ideological innovation occurs all of the time, and the people who devise and adhere to new ideologies all believe that they've found an improvement. You're pointing to a fantasy phenomenon in which a culture is a self-destructive actor.
[–]Francois_Rapiste comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (8 children)
That can happen, though. Look at Rome. Various Northern tribes could never have had their way with Rome, if Rome had not been led by horrible leaders, and had its people remembered what they stood for. Early Romans were dedicated, disciplined. Stoics who believed in Rome as an ideal. You can look at Mucius Scaevola, Cincinnatus, or Tiberius Gracchus. If people like that, who believed in what they believed in, were always in charge of Rome, then Rome might still be around and the Dark Ages would never have occurred. If modern Western nations stop believing in empirical and egalitarian principles, and continue to succumb to conflict based narratives centered around defeating the "other", then a similar effect could be seen.
[–]UmmahSultan 7 points8 points9 points  (6 children)
Please understand that everything you've written about Rome is pseudohistory that's espoused by right-wing ideologists, for the specific purpose of tricking people like you into believing that modern Western societies are also decadent and thus doomed.
[–]TSA_jij 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Past events never happened, they were just a metaphor for the present
[–]mc0079 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Too add to that...the dark ages weren't that dark. It's not like the west reverted to caves. Many major progressions were made during the so called dark age.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -5 points-4 points-3 points  (3 children)
I learned these things in classrooms and my own studies of the original historical texts, not Stormfront. I'm not the kind of fool who would buy into Mussolini's interpretation of Italian history.
I'll bet that the reason you see neo Nazis and so on adopt this narrative is that a culture losing its way is a very appealing narrative to a conservative mindset. Better yet, build it on the concept of virtue, then forcibly apply your virtues to millions of others and- viola!- you have a brutal totalitarian regime.
So yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls, and I'm aware of how political radicals are a cancer to the human race. Me, I'm just trying to draw parallels and see what can be learned from. In my mind, Stoicism and the narrative surrounding Rome is valid, but can be used to construct a ridiculous and harmful pro-fascist narrative. Similarly, the subjugation of laborers by the wealthy has occurred in human history, but unfortunately it has also been used to justify the narrative of Marxism. Radical feminist theory, for its part, is an extrapolation of the real phenomenon of misogyny that once ruled much of the world, and still does in some nations. I personally think it's important to learn from history without getting wrapped up in insane narratives that would have you live in the past.
[–]superdankmaymays 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
I learned these things in classrooms and my own studies of the original historical texts,
This is so cute.
[–]TheEmbernova 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
One of Reddit's largest demographics are highschoolers, after all.
[–]superdankmaymays 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
Not if you ask them.
They're all engineering students and they'll all be making six figures once they graduate.
[–]Dongly_mc_dongerson 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yeah because when you switch from Greco-Roman paganism to Christianity you can't recruit legionnaires anymore and foederati have way less HP.
Oh and also the waves of westward migration from the steppe, climate change and economic decline, the things that actually DID happen, those can't exactly be blamed on not having manly toga-clad philosopher-statesmen around.
If you think Cicero or whoever could have defeated barbarian incursions orders of magnitude greater than anything ever faced by the Republic through his sheer gravitas or whatever, you're a moron.
Also, to a large extent the dark age wasn't even a thing. It's more like the 'pretty serious instability and economic downturn in Western Europe-age', it's not like the Sassanid Empire or the eastern Romans suddenly forgot how to take showers or something.
[–]onedollar12 12 points13 points14 points  (37 children)
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE RUN FOR THE HILLS WE ARE LIVING IN LITERALLY THE DARKEST OF TIMES.
[–]Francois_Rapiste comment score below threshold-15 points-14 points-13 points  (36 children)
No, really. Do you believe in the gender wage gap, for example? If so, then you've bought into a piece of that narrative.
[–]bluesimon 9 points10 points11 points  (2 children)
Oh fuck you
[–]Francois_Rapiste comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (1 child)
Yes, my beliefs must be wrong because someone told me "fuck you" on the internet. Or- OR- we could analyze data and draw conclusions like fucking adults.
[–]spencer102 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Yes, my beliefs must be wrong because someone told me "fuck you" on the internet.
No, of course not. Your beliefs being wrong is completely unrelated to him saying "fuck you". They were still wrong before he made that comment.
[–]Bull3tM0nk3yHas a flair here 5 points6 points7 points  (17 children)
From RationalWiki:
MRA: The “pay gap” only exists because men work far more hours at high-stress jobs they hate with longer commutes, less flexibility, more physical risk, etc., just to be breadwinners and feed their families, only to die younger and get bashed for “earning more."[19] A study by the Congressional Budget Office in 2002 compared women and men ages 27-33 who had not had children, and found that the wage gap among them was 2%.[20] Corporations have supported the drive for women to enter the workforce in order to expand the labor supply and drive down wages.[21]
Complete crap.[1] It cannot be effectively argued that it has diminished to such a point where it is irrelevant, anywhere on the planet.[2][3] While it is sometimes overblown when discussing first world countries[4], in the developing world the wage gap can be as high as 10 cents to the dollar.[5] The wage gap does correlate with the age of the workers in question.[6] A study of lawyers in the United States found that women with no children still earned significantly less than their male partners at the same practice.[7] Should we be expecting they're all lying on a couch having babies? (And even more absurdly, do you think that feminists want men to have higher-stress jobs than females?)
That's 8 major reputable sources saying it exists.
[–]TheEmbernova 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
He's not gonna touch this comment with a 50ft pole.
[–]Bull3tM0nk3yHas a flair here 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
He did. And not a real rebuttal at all.
[–]alcalde 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
I thought he took the position he did because he's compensating for not having a 50ft pole.
[–]TheEmbernova 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Either way he dun goofed. Literally just moved the goalpost.
[–]onedollar12 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Don't even bother with people like him. He'll do anything, distort any viewpoint, to make himself the victim.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -4 points-3 points-2 points  (11 children)
You're literally arguing that a 2% pay difference is statistically significant even though men are more likely to negotiate harder for pay. Aaaaalright then.
[–]UncleMeat 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
even though men are more likely to negotiate harder for pay
Ever stop to consider that maybe this is a product of culture and is one of the things that feminists are fighting to change? Its not okay to just say "well, the wage gap is caused by choices" and just stop there. Its important to examine why people make these choices.
[–]alcalde 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
Didn't we have an incident recently in which Microsoft's new CEO stuck his foot in his mouth and told women they shouldn't seek pay raises but to just wait and "let karma" give them what they deserve?
Here we go:
Yes, this is a male problem: it's men telling women they should be quiet.
[–]UncleMeat 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
If I know anything about anything, Rome fell because women asked for raises. \s
[–]Francois_Rapiste -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
Testosterone in both sexes is associated with being more aggressive inside and outside of your career. Men have far more testosterone.
Is it possible that other factors are at play, that the patriarchy is making women feel too weak to stick up for themselves? Possibly. And if so, that's wrong, and I would speak against it. But Occam's Razor would have me go for for the answer the requires the least assumptions, and peer reviewed scientific studies have indicated that male aggressiveness is not a mere assumption. Peer reviewed empirical studies have not, however, confirmed the other hypothesis, meaning that the societal explanation relies on assumptions.
[–]UncleMeat 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Testosterone in both sexes is associated with being more aggressive inside and outside of your career. Men have far more testosterone.
Then explain the studies that have shown that interventions prior to accepting a job or small changes to the negotiation process can increase the likelihood that a woman negotiate salary to the point that it equals the odds for a man. "Blame it on testosterone" doesn't match the best available research.
There are mountains of papers showing that differences in how men and women approach careers can be attributed (at least in part) to cultural forces. There is a reason why the idea that women just naturally make choices that lead to less economic power is a minority voice in academia, and it isn't because evil feminists have taken over universities.
Testosterone also very clearly does not account for all of the wage gap issues. How does it explain the lack of women in particular subfields of science and tech? Are software engineers just so manly that you need mad testosterone to compete?
[–]TheEmbernova 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
wage gap doesn't real!!
...
p-ppfft only 2% wage gap? t-that's nothing!
Way to move the goalpost, pal.
[–]Bull3tM0nk3yHas a flair here 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
2% isn't equal.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -3 points-2 points-1 points  (2 children)
It also isn't likely to be statistically significant. Ie, a tiny fluctuation of sorts as opposed to a broader phenomenon. Have you ever taken a statistics course?
Even if it were considered mathematical proof of inequality, again, that amount could easily be explained by the decreased likelihood of attempting to negotiate for pay.
[–]agentlame 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
No, really. Do you believe in the gender wage gap, for example?
That's the bar you set. "do you believe it?" When shown it's real, now it's not "statistically significant."
[–]Bull3tM0nk3yHas a flair here 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Rekt.
[–]Kelsig 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
2% is a crazy difference. That's thousands of dollars a year based on GENDER. What the hell?
[–]NotSquareGarden 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I'm pretty sure there's still a 5% wage gap, even in the most conservative estimates. The unadjusted gap is also the cause of several other inequalities.
[–]KaliYugaz 7 points8 points9 points  (11 children)
No reasonable person disagrees that there is a wage gap. The debate is over what causes it and what policies will be effective in closing it, if any.
[–]Francois_Rapiste comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (10 children)
See, except, no. Look at #5.
Notice that every single argument against this is really just "oh yeah? Well you're a poopy sexist!" Ad hominem fallacy. "No reasonable person," my ass.
[–]KaliYugaz 7 points8 points9 points  (9 children)
CHS does not deny the wage gap in that article. She only singles out for criticism the theory that the gap is caused by sexist stereotypes, which is probably the least supported hypothesis out of all those out there.
She neglects to mention the other widely believed possibility that the gap is in large part caused by the failure of workplaces to accommodate and adapt to women's unique biological needs like time off for pregnancy. Careers that temporarily allow flexible scheduling and part time work, like pharmacists, have no problems with a wage or employment gender gap, because women who have children don't have to leave the workforce or fall behind in job skills.
There's also a highly influential theory (it was the entire basis for Lean In) that women aren't trained to be sufficiently assertive in salary negotiations. CHS fails to mention this as well.
Summers also fails to understand that society paying women less for the jobs that they prefer to do/are better at doing means that society values that work less, which is itself a form of unintentional systemic bias against women. It isn't clear why critically important public sector jobs like teaching or educated skilled work like social work ought to be devalued to the extent that they are.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -5 points-4 points-3 points  (8 children)
That's the thing. Women are paid 77 cents on the dollar, but not for the same job. That isn't a wage gap, that's a differential in the likelihoods of various career choices.
Pregnancy periods would fail to account for 23% of pay. Perhaps there could be room for improvement there, but that isn't some gigantic problem for society.
... Are you serious? Why do you think that 92% of workplace deaths are men? It's because they're more likely to take more dangerous jobs. Do you know what an economy is? Do you know that employers will offer higher pay for higher risk jobs? "Male careers" aren't paid more money because they have men in them, they're paid more because they're riskier. And men, being biologically predisposed to take risks, are more likely to take such jobs.
[–]KaliYugaz 5 points6 points7 points  (7 children)
"Male careers" aren't paid more money because they have men in them, they're paid more because they're riskier.
I wasn't aware that being a software engineer was such a risky job.
What you are describing is only true for a small subset of jobs that are actually risky and still usually pay only moderately well. Construction workers don't make six figures. In reality, labor demand is the result of a lot of different factors, including the amount of education necessary, the supply of workers, the prestige of the work, demand for the things the work produces, etc. And none of it applies to public sector jobs.
The point is that no matter what explanation you prefer for the wage gap, there is unnecessary systemic bias against women at work in some way.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -2 points-1 points0 points  (6 children)
Argumentation is getting difficult on mobile, but perhaps this will help you find a favorite article of mine to explain that men are simply more likely to be interested in STEM fields.
So even then, it's not the PatriarchyTM
It's neurological differences. And yes, those differences aren't just due to socialization:
So you keep saying that it must be systematic bias against women, but a lot of that belief likely stems from your adherence to the narrative thereof. IIRC There actually are a few higher paying jobs that women generally take up (not counting stripping and so on) but generally the higher paying jobs are more attractive to men.
[–]KaliYugaz 3 points4 points5 points  (3 children)
You aren't taking what I'm saying and putting it together. Even if the differences in male and female career choice is due to neurological differences (a legit hypothesis supported by several lines of evidence which I am not against at all), our devaluing of female-dominated work compared to male dominated work is still a form of sexist bias against women and femininity within our overall culture.
[–]alcalde 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
What about women being paid less than men in the same field?
[–]Intortoise 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Hmm yes and you've clearly bought into no narratives and are a bastion of objectivity. I can tell by your 40,000 end of the world screed blaming minorities
[–]Francois_Rapiste 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
When did I blame anything on minorities? You're so hopped up on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot that you haven't even considered the possibility that I simply don't agree with you.
[–]alcalde 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
You see a "new ideology" in play? Still seems like a capitalist democracy to me.
[–]Francois_Rapiste -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
You mean the way society is run right now?
Well, you're close. American "capitalism" grafts elements of mercantilism and welfarism, and their democracy is also a republic :P
By adopting a new ideology, I mean that the public conscious will adopt and adhere to an ideology faster than they usually do. This happens either when the ideology looks to make changes, or when it looks to divert from the real problems, give something to rally around, justify its adherents, etc. So at certain times, a society will change its views on something for one reason or another. This can be a good thing, like how several ideological shifts helped turn black Americans from slaves into legal equals. Or it can be people clinging to something they can believe in because shit's getting tough: observe Roms adopting Christianity as it went down the shitter, Han China adopting Buddhism. Both of which were fairly harmless by the standards of the time, although Christians did persecute other faiths later on. But hey, a lot of Greeks are finding neo-Nazism appealing because their country is having a tough time, and that's probably not a good thing!
So I'm thinking that the spread of Evangelical Christianity and of social justice theory are both new ideologies pretending to answer people's questions about the world (with the caveat that evangelical Christians are building on the work of much older Christian factions- I'd say that they're "new" due to the fact that its current form is a fairly recent phenomenon). Having more historical momentum, I consider social justice theory to be more harmful. Everyone knows that evangelicals are living in the past, but SJW's have had more luck slipping under the radar.
[–]Intortoise 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Holy shit bro it's possible to make a point without writing a novel. So much written and nothing was said
[–]MagicBarrier16 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
The end is near!
[–]Kelsig 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
or maybe your ideology is the one that's wrong bruh
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 30601 on app-16 at 2015-03-31 21:46:41.555802+00:00 running 7e8b283 country code: DE.
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%