Israel's 'Stonehenge' no longer stands alone: Satellite technology opens archaeological frontiers
phys.org
For decades, the massive stone circles of Rujm el-Hiri in the Golan Heights were considered a singular, mysterious anomaly—often dubbed "Israel's Stonehenge." However, new research led by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) is rewriting that narrative. Using advanced satellite imagery and remote sensing technology, researchers have discovered that this iconic monument is actually the centerpiece of a much larger, previously hidden phenomenon.

        • db2@lemmy.worldEnglish
          15·
          2 days ago

          I’m massively disappointed in sdf.org for doing zero user moderation. I’ve run across more than a few deplorable accounts.

              • AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                9·
                1 day ago

                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)).

                • idoubledo@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                  18·
                  1 day ago

                  According to Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex (1970): “[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”[4]

                  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.

            • idoubledo@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              17·
              1 day ago

              Is that supposed to be a Hitler reference?

              That doesn’t work anymore now that Jews aren’t powerless like they used to.

              That’s fine, only the insecure blame the Jews for their issues (take a look at the “successful” Arab world as a fine example).

              Care to share your insecurities? as a Jew I might be able to help you with any money or weather issues you might have, I’m also good with space lasers.

              • kreskin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                23 hours ago

                “now that Jews aren’t powerless like they used to.”

                Well, they really weren’t powerless. Thats a myth. Ever wonder what craziness led to genocide in Germany?

                Well lets dig into that because its usually glossed over in schools and just chalked up to racism in a sentence or two. It centers around The 1933 Anti Nazi boycott, which was driven globally by the American Jewish committee (AJC), against the Jewish peoples of Germanys wishes. German jews feared reprisals during a time when things were basically looking up for them, but were extremely charged and difficult because of racist tensions in Germany.

                The (American) AJC launched the boycott as a response to harassment and intimidation leveled at German Jews after the Weimar republic formed in the wake of Germanys loss in WW1. In the Weimar republic Jewish people gained a lot of power via a new state mandated equality and ceased to be locked out of various positions and industries they had been in the past, rapidly becoming powerful members of german society. This caused social tension within the german population already stung by loss of a major world war and paying reparations during a difficult global depression. While the tension was nasty, it seldom led to violence beyond physical initimidation, rocks through windows, marches and slogans.

                The boycott caused Germany to suffer a loss of 25% of its global trade which infuriated and further radicalized Hitler, his industry partners, and his followers. Newspapers declared that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany. The genocide which followed was about hatreds and long standing biggotries and privelage, yes-- but it was also about trade, as wars often are.