This was posted 1 year 5 months 22 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free: "What Is a Woman?" Documentary @ The Daily Wire via Twitter

883195
Free: "What Is a Woman?" Documentary @ The Daily Wire via Twitter
Go to Deal
LArkan on 02/06/2023 - 21:34 twitter.com (8983 clicks)
Last edited 07/06/2023 - 11:38 by 3 other users

It’s the movie they really don’t want you to see: #WhatIsAWoman?

Watch the explosive documentary starring @MattWalshBlog FREE on Twitter for 24 hours extended to all weekend (US).

Mod Note:

After investigation, we determined that this documentary/video was released in June 2022 and required paid Membership to 'Daily Wire' to view the video on their website. At this time, membership starts from US$108/year (US$9/month), after discount. The now free content on Twitter, is therefore postable as a deal, under our Free Multimedia Content Deal Posting Guidelines.

To avoid personal biases from influencing moderation decisions, moderators adhere to our published guidelines. Guidelines are written based on the feedback of the community and the ability to moderate them consistently across the site. This deal has been determined to comply with our deal posting guidelines, in particular the Free Multimedia Content Guideline and the Banned Items Guideline. Community guidelines are always evolving and we welcome any discussions in our site discussion forum or Comments / Feedback / Suggestions Thread 2023 thread.

Entertainment Video on Demand

Related Stores

The Daily Wire
The Daily Wire

closed Comments

        • klonky on 05/06/2023 - 06:05
          +3

          Yeh but I just find it strange to post stats about it. I don't think I ever see anyone posting how many times a David Attenborough film was watched?
          Just tells me some people here were actively promoting the video and on 'the team'

          • franco cozzo on 05/06/2023 - 06:06
            +5

            @klonky: i think youll find its as simple as people dont like being told what to think and what to watch by the loud easily offended and outraged minority….

            • klonky on 05/06/2023 - 06:11
              +1

              @franco cozzo: Mate, the bud light saga showed who the loud easily offended and outraged minority truly were

            • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:18
              -1

              @franco cozzo: Without a trace of self awareness, making that argument in a thread that's literally about something you should watch which will tell you how to think ;)

              • franco cozzo on 05/06/2023 - 08:19
                +2

                @tal15: tell me you havent seen the film…without telling me you havent seen the film….

                • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:31
                  +2

                  @franco cozzo: I can tell you straight out that I haven't seen it, nor will I ever.

                  The reason, I already posted: I was interested to see his discussion with Jordan Peterson and right off the bat he was ranting about some nebulous "they" who are "pushing this agenda".

                  Starting from a position of a sekrit illuminati style programme, sorry, that may appeal to many but it's never going to be a good approach for examining any issue. Begging the question isn't a valid form of argument.

          • infinite on 05/06/2023 - 17:48

            @klonky: Wut ?

            Media outlets have been hyping up and reported viewer numbers for David Attenborough doco's for decades.

            https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/06/blue-planet-ii…

            https://documentarytelevision.com/uk/david-attenboroughs-las…

      • Ughhh on 05/06/2023 - 10:40
        -1

        Shills for big corp? hope they pay well in free Twitter blue…

  • Victorious on 05/06/2023 - 01:35
    +5

    It is still available so it should be not marked as expired.

  • drhip on 05/06/2023 - 07:32
    +1

    I think they have made it free forever wanka wanda

    • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:17
      +3

      Yeah, so basically a marketing campaign to boost the ratings of something they weren't able to get people to actually pay for.

      Like getting all your colleagues to buy your political memoirs, then the entire print run goes straight to the remaindered stock, to be sold at a loss at those bargain basement bookstores.

      • franco cozzo on 05/06/2023 - 08:21
        +3

        except its not that…its
        Over 120 MILLION Views: Senior Twitter Executive Resigns As 'What Is A Woman' Documentary Massively Succeeds
        …and opens up matt walsh & other non MSM to a whole new raft of viewers

        • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:22
          +5

          Yes, a marketing campaign for a free product.

          • franco cozzo on 05/06/2023 - 08:25
            +2

            @tal15: also very highly rated on imdb and rotten tomatoes…

            https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_is_a_woman
            https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20256528/

            ….seems to be doing very well for a 'free' product? kind of inspiring to think an independent production has gained so much traction, really…

            • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:37
              +4

              @franco cozzo: 6 critic reviews, one by The Gospel Coalition, and the rest appear to be Some Guy's Blog?

              I'd wait a while to see how more professional and less partisan reviewers rate it. Might do well, might not, but 6 isn't a big enough sample.

              • franco cozzo on 05/06/2023 - 08:38
                +2

                @tal15: …
                rotten tomatoes = 10K viewer ratings
                imdb = 34K viewer ratings
                LOL!

                • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 08:44
                  +2

                  @franco cozzo: I don't pay attention to viewer ratings ever, except that if the critic ratings are high and the viewer ratings are significantly lower, usually that's a movie that I'd like.

                  This is obviously a hot button American culture war topic, of course user reviews are going to be brigaded.

                  On a related topic, 1990 called and they want their web design back. This is one of the critics.

                  https://mattsmoviereviews.net/movie-critic-reviews/movie-cri…

            • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 09:18
              +6

              @franco cozzo: Greta Thunberg voice: how dare you.

              what these left whingers don't realise is that this documentary has comical value too therefore the views and upvotes. It quickly becomes a circus when the "gender experts" are asked about a simple definition of a woman they are completely stumped and instead of admitting a shortcoming, become triggered. Perhaps because the whole ideology is shallow and meaningless at its base.

              • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 09:49
                +3

                @dBagDealer: From the reviews, it does sound funny. No different to Friendly Jordies or Michael Moore. Axe grinding, barrow pushing comedy.

                The repeated "gotcha" about demanding a simple definition for something that's a nuanced concept in the edge cases does sound tedious though.

                You'd have the same issues getting people to define bread perfectly, and yet the world goes on and we can buy and eat bread without ever knowing how to perfectly define it in every single variant of all its forms.

                • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 09:58
                  +2

                  @tal15:

                  You'd have the same issues getting people to define bread perfectly

                  Ahh yes, from the simple question "Are hot dogs sandwiches?"

                  https://cuberule.com/

                  • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 10:11
                    +1

                    @ihfree: That's amazing.

                    I was setting up for a gotcha whereby it would be hard to define whether a dosa (fermented chickpea batter, made a bit like a crepe but also like a flatbread) is bread or not. Or injera (Ethiopian fermented teff flour, comes out like a large crumpet).

                    According to the cube rule, a masala dosa is a type of sushi. Injera is a type of toast.

                • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 10:26
                  +4

                  @tal15: I appreciate it if someone argues that their perspective is more nuanced. However, it seems that the so-called experts fail to provide a nuanced response. Instead, they either avoid answering altogether or resort to circular definitions, which does not contribute to a deeper understanding.

                  • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 11:13
                    +5

                    @gto21: woke logic postulates that all definitons are meaningless at the end of the day because there will be exceptions (whatabouts) rendering descriptions of said definitions futile attempts at explanation. Personal feelings are what can truly define anything and everything.

                    Its feelings over facts everyday. subjectivity (of self) is god in the woke religion.

                    • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 11:31
                      +4

                      @dBagDealer: I don't know what this "woke logic" is that you're referring to but there are entire branches of philosophy examining the relationship between language and objective reality, and in the end the language we use is nothing but a skin of words referring to words, defined by other words, endlessly existing in the linguistic realm and only somewhat trying to point towards reality, sometimes.

                      I care as much for the Platonic form of womanhood as I do for that of a classic car. Women and classic cars are great, women in classic cars even more so, but hair splitting over whether a Goggomobil is "classic" or not doesn't achieve much, nor do "gotchas" trying to get people to precisely define taxonomies that are in the end linguistic.

                      • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 14:57
                        +1

                        @tal15:

                        I don't know what this "woke logic" is that you're referring to

                        See why definitions are important.

                        entire branches of philosophy examining the relationship between language and objective reality, and in the end the language we use is nothing but a skin of words referring to words, defined by other words, endlessly existing

                        Psychobabble BS is hardly ever impressive. There are infinite decimal numbers between 0 and 1 yet we have capped the precision to 2 or 3 digits barring specialised applications. Sane people in the realised that going beyond and accounting for all numbers would lead to absurdity, a concept you are unable to grasp when you say gender is spectrum between male and female.

                        woke religion is here to encourage absurdity and moral subjectvisim which is basically saying anything goes.

                  • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 11:23
                    +1

                    @gto21: "Adult human female" is also a circular definition, because then you're back at square 1 defining what "female" means.

                    • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 11:41
                      +1

                      @tal15: It seems like you don't know what is a circular definition.

                      Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

                      • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 11:48

                        @gto21: Ok, so what about a person born with a vag, but no ovaries?

                        It's still a circular definition, only kicking the can down the road with the term "typically".

                        Are barren women not women?

                        • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 12:04
                          +2

                          @tal15: Humans typically possess two legs, but if someone is born with only one leg, it does change what it means to be human.

                          The presence of a genetic disorder does not redefine what it means to be human. The same principle applies to women.

                          • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 12:05

                            @gto21: Very good, so you admit the definition is malleable.

                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 12:08
                              +1

                              @tal15: Read slowly: The presence of a genetic disorder does not REDEFINE what it means to be human. The same principle applies to women.

                              • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 12:10

                                @gto21: So go ahead and define what a woman is, taking into account all the possible variations, including genetic disorders.

                                • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 12:28
                                  +1

                                  @tal15: Give me a few examples of the genetic disorder.

                                  • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 12:29

                                    @gto21: Just answer the question. What is a woman?

                                    • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 12:29
                                      +1

                                      @tal15: I already did. How about you give answers to our questions instead of tap dancing? Lol

                                      • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 12:56
                                        +2

                                        @gto21: No you didn't. You used a circular weasel word "definition" that included "typically".

                                        Try again, for all situations, typical and non typical.

                                        You should be interviewed by Matt Walsh, with all this squirming and inability to answer the question.

                                        • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 13:18
                                          +2

                                          @tal15: I thought I did. A woman is an adult female.

                                          You need to be more specific about what you mean by "typical" and "non-typical."

                                          Would you like to try providing us with a definition of a woman?

                                          • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 13:55

                                            @gto21: Define female, without circling back to woman.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 14:14
                                              +1

                                              @tal15: Here we go again: Define "female," then define "woman," and then circle back to define "female" again. Every time you get an answer, you change the question 😁, and then claim I did not answer. This is amazing! 😅

                                              • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 14:32

                                                @gto21: It's because you haven't even come close to defining anything.

                                                • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 14:43
                                                  +2

                                                  @tal15: I'll be patient this time with you. I'll break it down for you. It seems you're trying to be like Matt, unfortunately, you're Matt from Wish.com. Matt asks a question, and the expert gives a circular definition. Matt asks the SAME question again since it's a circular definition. What you're doing is asking me a question, and when I answer, you CHANGE the question. The fact that you have to change is proving I'm not using a circular definition. Anyway, good diversion tactics. You have no answer to any question. All you can do is ask questions, especially keep changing the question because I did answer. I hope that helps you Matt from Wish. Lol.

                                          • freefall101 on 05/06/2023 - 15:31
                                            +1

                                            @gto21:

                                            A woman is an adult female

                                            So a goat can be a woman? Missed at least one word there off your definition

                                            But typically an adult female human is one that has developed sexual organs. That is hardly true of everyone who is a woman, whether trans or intersex. Much like adulthood can be difficult to define too, anyone claiming there's a one size fits all answer to this stuff is just being daft, it's like asking for a simple answer about how the universe works then getting pissed off when someone starts explaining how the higgs field is an invisible energy force that can actually change (and would probably destroy the universe if it did).

                                            You need to be more specific about what you mean by "typical" and "non-typical."

                                            You were the one who used the word "typically" up above, if you don't know what you meant when you said it then that's fair.

                                            You can say a woman typically has ovaries, much like a cake typically has eggs in it. That doesn't mean a woman is a cake or a cake without eggs is a trans woman.

                                            Would you like to try providing us with a definition of a woman?

                                            A woman is what someone becomes. Gender identity is a pretty clear part of being human and something that develops over time. So it's very difficult to explain exactly what a woman is and very easy to ask someone "are you a woman?". If they honestly believe they are, and the scientific evidence backs up that someone can really identify as one, then I know.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 15:49
                                              +2

                                              @freefall101: I thought the context was about humans. I didn't think someone would think we are talking about goats, lol. But that's okay. I have no problem adding humans.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 15:51
                                              +1

                                              @freefall101: I already address genetic disorder. Go back and read.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 15:57
                                              +1

                                              @freefall101: Men have sexual organs too, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 16:00
                                              +1

                                              @freefall101: We have already addressed cases like genetic disorders. I am repeating this because you are essentially saying the same thing a few times. Go back and read.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 16:20
                                              +1

                                              @freefall101: I'm not sure what he is talking about. His questions were weird:

                                              "Define 'woman,' but take into consideration all possibilities, including genetic disorders."

                                              "Define 'woman' for all situations, including typical and non-typical ones."

                                              We can use the same word. If I say 'woman,' I mean an adult female human (not a goat), whereas you might use the word to describe a man with a d. I know what a woman is. Talking to you, I might need to ask what you mean by 'woman.' Maybe in your mind, you're thinking about a man with a d or a goat.

                                              Another reason I wanted him to clarify is that I suspect he would end up contradicting himself.

                                              • freefall101 on 05/06/2023 - 16:22

                                                @gto21: Can you let me know when you're done breaking up your response into however many pieces it will be and give some sort of indication what refers to what? Because I have no hope of responding to this otherwise.

                                            • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 16:31

                                              @freefall101: Since you claim to look at the scientific evidence, if someone is born male but as an adult believes he is a woman. When you examine the evidence, you observe a D. What does the science indicate? Maybe it's evidence of a woman?

                                        • gto21 on 05/06/2023 - 13:50
                                          +1

                                          @tal15: The fact that you have to keep changing the question is itself evidence that you're losing.

                                          • What is a woman?

                                          • What is a woman taking into account all the possible variations, including genetic disorders?

                                          • What is a woman for all situations, typical and non-typical?

                                          What's going on here? 😁

                                          It seems to the answer"What is a woman?" is too easy for our side. You keep changing the question lol.

                                          • tal15 on 05/06/2023 - 13:56

                                            @gto21:

                                            It seems to the answer"What is a woman?" is too easy for our side

                                            And yet you still haven't done it.

                            • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 15:08
                              +2

                              @tal15: lets pretend its "malleable" but ain't no one with a d*** getting ever getting included in there son.

  • lostgoat on 05/06/2023 - 08:59
    +4

    I thought so . Of course its still available 48hrs latter.
    It's a bloody joke and the site has been conned by it !
    Bring on the millions of articles of culture war crap .

  • John452432543 on 05/06/2023 - 10:50
    +16

    OP has definitely grabbed the attention of the Looney Troons.

    • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 16:01
      +2

      Weird that you can't have a conversation without resorting to slurs.

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/troon

      https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Troon

      • infinite on 05/06/2023 - 17:32
        +1

        You seem completely ignorant to the word and the fact that you just used a joke-site as a "source" makes that hilariously obvious.

        It's not a slur at all. It's a decades old commonly used description for those who misappropriate another gender in a way that is seen to be an offensively caricature-like version of the gender they are pretending to be.

        A drag queen at a drag show for example is not going to be called a "troon". There's an obvious context and reason they are dressing in a ridiculously flamboyant over the top way. This teacher in Canada however, is a PERFECT example of what a "troon" is: https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/trans-teacher-whos-go…

        A troon is the equivalent to the two genders, as what black-face is to acting.

      • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 23:00
        +5

        thanks I have updated my wokabulary

        • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 23:08
          -1

          Cool story - almost as cool as unisex crocs.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/06/2023 - 11:48
    +2

    Is popcorn a woman?

    • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 12:03
      +2

      Was Wilson a volleyball?

  • peter on 05/06/2023 - 11:58

    Leaving aside the content which is controversial and extreme, how does this meet the criteria of being a bargain? Was this video ever available for purchase? Did anyone ever pay to view it and if so how many, or how few? Does the fact that this is still listed on OzBargain indicate that the OzBargain "editorial team" support the extreme views expressed?

    • DRL1987 on 05/06/2023 - 15:32
      +8

      Previously a subscription to daily wire was required to watch it.

      • peter on 05/06/2023 - 16:51
        +7

        I was wrong, it does meet the criteria for a deal, thank you.

        • wisdomtooth on 06/06/2023 - 00:35
          +2

          Still negging it tho?

  • lacitis on 05/06/2023 - 12:04
    +13

    Enjoyed watching it thank you

  • jugsy on 05/06/2023 - 12:13
    -6

    Discussion is all well and good but this thread is now full of slurs and vitriol, probably time to be deleted?

    Anyone who's questioning/transitioning, ignore all these noisy moles, they'll pop up from a completely different hole as soon as Fox/Sky tells them to. Your feelings are valid and most of society is ready to embrace you for who you are. The fact is the yes vote (and the ethics that go with it) won, and half the people who voted against it are dead by now. Here's to a safe and accessible future for all.

    • payton on 05/06/2023 - 15:47
      +4

      now full of slurs and vitriol

      You were one of the people writing up slurs and vitriol, not to mention disgusting accusations against the moderators and ozbargainers in general.
      You're lucky they took pity on you and didn't penalty box your account despite repeated offences.

    • infinite on 05/06/2023 - 17:38
      +5

      Stop with the vitriol and attempts at censoring this because it doesn't align with your personal opinion.

      No one has ever been killed by hearing an opinion they didn't personally agree with.

    • payton on 05/06/2023 - 22:30
      +1

      jugsy 7 hours 40 min ago Comment unpublished. (Trolling)
      jugsy 7 hours 37 min ago Comment unpublished. (Trolling)

      plus another troll thread in the forum

  • jugsy on 05/06/2023 - 12:20

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Walsh_(political_commentator)

  • Ezekiel2320 on 05/06/2023 - 12:32
    +2

    A freely available video is not a deal

    • gyrex on 05/06/2023 - 15:59
      +12

      Except that it's not normally freely available and is free for a limited period of time, thereby satisfying the definition of a deal. It's mind boggling that so many people are struggling with this really basic logic.

      • Wickadz on 06/06/2023 - 16:25
        +1

        This is still available - still a deal if its 'limited time'?

    • infinite on 05/06/2023 - 17:39
      +6

      It's a paid-for documentary that has been made free for a very limited time.

      It's clearly a valid deal and you know it.

      • Wickadz on 06/06/2023 - 16:25

        This is still available - still a deal if its 'limited time'?

        • infinite on 06/06/2023 - 18:05
          +1

          Yes.

  • Ozymandias on 05/06/2023 - 13:01
    +10

    Absolute dumpster fire of a comment section, and not even a deal. Pretty poor stuff all round.

    • Gamer Dad Reviews on 05/06/2023 - 19:48
      +6

      Is someone upset to find out how far out-of-tune with the majority opinion on this issue they are?

      • Ozymandias on 06/06/2023 - 11:27

        Nah, but thanks for playing, Gamer Dad.

    • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 19:23
      +4

      Why do you randomly capitalise words? I much prefer JV using bold.

      • gyrex on 05/06/2023 - 21:34
        +2

        Pretty tilting isn't it. Obviously it's an attempt to emphasise certain words but it's infantile English.

  • robothat on 05/06/2023 - 13:12
    -5

    This is not a deal, it’s a video on YouTube

    • Shaquille Oatmeal on 05/06/2023 - 13:16
      +14

      No, it's a video on Twitter

      • robothat on 05/06/2023 - 13:23
        -3

        It’s a video on Twitter that’s also free on YouTube. There are lots of free videos on both Twitter and YouTube. They shouldn’t be posted here, just like this shouldn’t be.

        This is particular is essentially a trans hate video. Like anti-interracial marriage and anti-gay propaganda before it, this is clearly on the wrong side of history. But hey, white dudes on the Internet being wrong about things isn’t new.

        • Shaquille Oatmeal on 05/06/2023 - 13:52
          +13

          Again, it’s a Twitter video

          Matt Walsh has the official trailer on YouTube but at this very second, it’s a Twitter video if you want to watch it’s entirety.

          I’m not white, and I agree with Matt

  • nephilim on 05/06/2023 - 15:29
    +5

    I watched the supersize me 2 documentary due to recent youtube free movies post, really enjoyed learning about chicken farming.
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/775098

  • mordinhoz on 05/06/2023 - 17:41

    OP needs to ask themselves "what is a post worthy deal for ozbargain?"

    • Gamer Dad Reviews on 05/06/2023 - 19:47
      +8

      Free movie which is all the buzz - certainly seems deal-worthy to me

    • beastontheroad on 05/06/2023 - 19:48
      +4

      Well it got more votes than anything you or I have posted. Is that the answer you are looking for? Are upvotes an indication that a bargain is to be had?

  • trevor99 on 05/06/2023 - 20:50
    +3

    Can you lend a hand? I'm simply shining a light on the truth here, but don't click unless you feel ready.

    https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1665625230503714816?t=n5…

    • Phoebus on 05/06/2023 - 21:46
      +4

      life saving gender affirming surgery.

  • fryandlaurie on 05/06/2023 - 21:51
    -2

    get this utter nonsense off this site

    • gyrex on 05/06/2023 - 22:02
      +17

      Why? It's a deal many people have benefited from. Also, censorship is not an ideal that the vast majority of Australians embrace.

      • fryandlaurie on 05/06/2023 - 22:05
        +4

        I agree re: censorship actually so I kinda take my comment back.

        • gyrex on 05/06/2023 - 22:06
          +3

          Glad we agree on that 😊

          Edit: also, most of the discourse in this and the other associated thread has been pretty civil (for the most part) and some decent arguments have been made by both sides so I think that's pretty encouraging.

          • ihfree on 05/06/2023 - 23:47
            +2

            @gyrex: Discourse - agreed. Conversations about difficult topics, especially in real life are important. As to whether discussion has been productive here, that's up for debate. There are many users who are set in their ways and only here to lash out against libs, perceived globalist agenda, perceived leftist agenda, etc.

            Much of the discussion does cross a line though. For example:

            • repeating the whole pedo thing
            • randomly making up definitions of "woman" when there are established ones that fit both sides
            • the use of slurs
            • a user posting pics of people in bondage attire
            • divisive language - bashing of libs, use of "you people"
  • dBagDealer on 05/06/2023 - 23:57
    +4

    Anyone who questions the woke religion probably won’t transition as its only a superficial ideology and does not stand up to scientific and moral critique or plain logical reasoning. Most people transitioning will do it without any question just out of fanaticism and pop culture influence.

    What woke propagandist won’t tell you us that genital surgery or hormone therapy is not a cure, never infact for mental ailments and you will have a lifetime to regret your decision which can feel like a long time. Look out for other local communities that will accept you without sacrificing your body parts at the woke altar.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join