The fucking insane Navy vet editor over at the National Review says this about a dead man. How about mourning the guy instead of being a subhuman piece of scum over his politics?
Say his name for the record. Luther Ray Abel wrote that article. I want this to be searchable with that name. Let it be known that Luther Ray Abel discards human dignity; specifically Aaron Bushnell inherit human dignity, in exchange for snarky article clicks.
His name is searchable on the National Review site on the article or shall I say bullshit hit piece. It tries to lambast him for doing this in uniform and having anarchist views. So his politics were different and he broke a military rule? So what, he is dead and he is/was a human being regardless of his views.
Despite being on the other side, he clearly demonstrated that he’s on the right side: humanity. I hope I can someday have a tenth the courage this man did.
Say his name for the record. Luther Ray Abel wrote that article. I want this to be searchable with that name. Let it be known that Luther Ray Abel discards human dignity; specifically Aaron Bushnell inherit human dignity, in exchange for snarky article clicks.
You mean Luther Ray Abel, the guy who spoke ill of an active duty service member’s act of protest through self immolation? Is that the Luther Ray Abel you’re referring to?
Even the use of “our military”—at least to me—sounds highly exclusive, as if the writer is talking of a type of person who doesn’t belong in “our military.”
Then the piece of shit purposefully mangles the message that the late airman was trying to amplify. Is “free Palestine” the same as “free hamas?” No the fuck it isn’t.
Wow. Luther Ray Abel is a total loser. I’m willing to bet this young airman, Aaron Bushnell, had infinitely-more courage and moral conviction than this piece of shit.
Went to the article and there are 172 comments. Didn’t read them all as it was enraging. Everyone is agreeing with the article and calling him suicidal, insane or other such things. Fuck that place
Even if the guy was suicidal, so fucking what. He’s dead, Act like a bunch of humans and focus on that instead of the idiotic shit they are. All they are doing is making themselves look like rabid animals.
I mean, he apparently does not realize that Israel is a separate country from America, with its own military and chain of command, that is distinct and outside of America’s military and command structure.
He flat out said that he thinks it’s the job of America to dictate to our allies their own domestic policy, and if they don’t go along with our demands, America should abandon our allies. I mean, what is that if not utter ignorance? In no way is that how diplomacy is conducted and doing it that way would be counterproductive to most of America’s foreign policy goals; how does he think all of our other allies would react? How would we continue to conduct diplomacy if an alliance with America isn’t worth anything?
What message does it send our other allies if we continue providing military aid even when their ‘targeted military operation’ devolves into a genocidal bloodbath?
Your beliefs’ popularity doesn’t make them correct. The nazis had a majority. They got japan and italy and croatia and hungary and thailand and finland to go along with their genocide. what’s your point?
Very well taken point. My views on this is are very unpopular though, seems like they are only shared by western diplomatic and foreign services people and heads of state, and the patience is wearing thin.
I think those who agree with me just find preserving democracy in the Middle East to be the greater moral imperative than is tip-toeing around Gaza asking Hamas to come out nicely and leaving the tunnels intact.
Hamas is very popular in Gaza. Houthis are very popular in Yemen. Their popularity might be considered democratic, but it is fouled by its authoritariansm: the lack of minoritarian rights; no freedom of speech or religion, no due process, no equal protection, no prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. These are rights that, to your point, protect the unpopular from unchecked populism. Hamas and all other Islamist movements do not recognize these rights. They are unchecked populism, comparable to Nazi populism.
As revulsive as is 30,000 people killed, much more revulsive is 3,000,000, or 30,000,000, which is what we will see if these terrorist groups manage to put Israel on its heals enough to make Iran take its shot, or if Trump gets elected and forces Iran to take a shot.
Anyone on the fence about Biden may recall that this already happened once, when Trump ordered an airstrike on an Iranian general while he was visiting Iraq. I’m glad the dude is dead but it was reckless as fuck to the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The only reason Israel avoided hot war with Iran in that moment was because Iran missed its shot and hit a civilian airliner instead.
I hope that of all these belligerents, the ones with democracy are going to use it to excise their authoritarian tumors, and that we will see Trump and Netanyahu firmly rejected, popularly.
Well this is the fucking problem and the reason the guy set himself alight in the first place Sherlock. All western governments are burying their head in the sand if not actively helping with the genocide.
What’s with this propaganda bullshit, it’s a Conservative piece of toilet paper someone forgot to flush. Just because you disagree with it’s political stance doesn’t make it propaganda. You must want to live your life in an echo chamber, that would seem awfully boring to me.
Alabama families who are struggling with fertility can now look forward to no fertility clinics willing to endure the legal risk of operating in that state.
Great job republicans. These weird ass “pro life” laws continue to prevent people who want kids from having them, or prevent people from having them without dying.
Not to mention those who can afford to will simply leave to make families elsewhere. Making a child generally tends to rank higher on people's priorities list than staying in one state forever.
Well it seems they’re all in the illegal business of buying and selling children. They’ll have to all be prosecuted anyhow, including all the donors and buyers. Along with the state itself for allowing the selling of children for all these years.
Seems like part of the goal. Outlaw abortion, force everyone who doesn't want a child to hand it over to the state, which will outsource to religious organizations, and then tighten up the child supply so anyone who can't have but wants a child will have to go through a local church to get access, and the price will go up.
Bezos isn’t going to miss a chance to dick people over. Because apparently he’s not rich enough yet.
Imagine what the world would be like if we treated sociopathy as the vividly destructive mental illness it so obviously is, rather than rewarding sociopaths with wealth and power.
Once they get so much money, they focus on quarterly profits. Then you compare percentage change from last quarter/month.
So he just doesn’t think about the billions he has banked.
Or the multimillions he makes a year
It’s a small percentage of change, and making 90 million after 100 million can be viewed as losing money this way, which makes these fucking psychopaths believe they need to be even shittier to make more money.
He’s not looking at his wealth, but at the rate he’s accumulating it, even though he literally can’t spend what he has now if he tried.
Another thing with corporations (afaik) is that they’re obligated to make more money quarter over quarter because of shareholders. Big number must go up at all costs.
There’s many people that think the more money they make, the more social good it does. That making money is by definition good for everyone, society, etc.
Like a compulsive gambler constantly looking for the next thing to bet on, or a compulsive eater looking for the next thing to eat, he’s constantly looking for the next way to dick people over for profit.
Original Frasier is still one of the all time amazing shows. And that is almost entirely because of the “supporting cast” of David Hyde Pearce, John Mahoney, Jane Leeves, and Peri Gilpin. It is 100% still worth watching and it is even clear what episodes/seasons they were working around Grammer being coked out of his mind or otherwise problematic.
Its not quite Person of Interest’s (paraphrasing only because I can’t look up the specific wording right now) “he is like a dog that pissed everywhere and wouldn’t stop talking about hitler” mess, but Grammer also generally seems more like a dumbass Bush-era Republican as opposed to a full alt-right lunatic. He is a piece of shit who has condoned a LOT of hate, but is also “a product of his time” as it were.
As for new Frasier? I am a lot less interested in watching that. Mostly because, as so many of us point out, “They did a Frasier spinoff starring the worst character”*
But OG Frasier? The show increasingly became focused around Niles (which makes sense since Niles was a lot closer to what Cheers-era Frasier actually was) and David Hyde Pearce put on multiple master classes as he and the writers somehow managed to perfectly capture “the adult millennial” years before we even existed. And so many of the interactions with Martin (Mahoney) hit so much harder as you have lived a lot longer and had to acknowledge the failings of others. Daphne and Roz were often stuck in comic relief mode, but Leeves and Gilpin still kick ass when they are given a chance to shine. And, piece of shit that he is, Grammer can pull off an epic monologue to close out an emotional arc and leave you on the verge of tears, right before you burst into laughter at the punchline.
*: Also, it very much bothers me that Freddy became Martin. Maybe they go into it more, but his childhood very much established him as the offspring of Frasier and Lilith. And while it makes sense that he would rebel against his overbearing parents to be like his fun and “man of the people” Grandfather, it is completely unearned. Maybe the back half of the season does that but… I still think that having one of Niles’s children (maybe a daughter) as the Martin role would be a lot more fitting. Niles dealing with a Firefighter child is comedic gold and Niles and Daphne are much more likely to “let their kids be who they are”. And it would play on The Moon Genes fears of the last few episodes.
I don’t know that I’d list Frazier as one of the all time amazing shows. That’s something I’d reserve for shows like Schitt’s Creek, Good Place, and The Wire. A show like MASH. All in the Family, which surfaced so much of what was happening in society at the time. The Jeffersons.
I’d rank Frasier closer to something like Friends or Dharma and Greg. Definitely below Seinfeld or 30 Rock. It was funny. It had good writers and the characters exhibited a chemistry that made the show work as a show, but beyond that it was pretty ephemeral. That’s just my opinion.
A lot of it is the idea of “seinfeld isn’t funny”. Seinfeld was fairly revolutionary at the time because of how it approached humor, pacing, and even character “design”. It is just that it also influenced almost every single show that came after season 3 or 4 so a lot of people who didn’t “grow up with it” won’t really “appreciate it”. But that also manifests it as being the kind of show that “ages well”. Its why TBS still shows Seinfled reruns to this day and people still go for a re-watch.
And Frasier is very much in that same category. Character arcs were very much ahead of their time and the nuance that Niles, Martin, and even Frasier were allowed to have still stands up today (and puts the reboot to shame). Its “cheating”, but there is a reason that Cheers, which was arguably the most popular sitcom on television during its run, is now mostly viewed as the show Frasier spun out of. Its the kind of writing and pacing that largely could be on TV today… because it was so influential.
Friends is the odd one out. And I think, ignoring all of the “Wow everyone was horrible” and “Ross is a psychopath” memes: It very much defined what shows like How I Met Your Mother would become. I don’t think it holds up anywhere near as well as Frasier, but that is also because Frasier largely ended a year after their shit season and had the payoff of Niles and Daphne’s child. Friends… continued for another five or six with the main thread being “Oh, I guess we are doing a will they or won’t they with Ross and Rachel again?”
Like, you reference The Good Place which I also put as one of the all time greats. And that, as well as Parks and Rec before it, very much benefited from shows like Frasier that show you can truly do the multi-season emotional arcs in a sitcom where you alternatingly laugh and cry. And Chidi has a LOT of Crane DNA in him as he is simultaneously mocked for being a “hoity toity, barely functioning, intellectual” while also having so much of the show’s emotional and narrative weight put on his shoulders. We laugh as he has a nervous breakdown over having the future of everything put on him but we are also right there with him and rooting for him to find The Answer. He is a goober but, bah gawd, he is OUR goober and if he needs to make a big vat of chili to function then let’s go to the mother fucking store.
Sometimes you have shows like Veronica Mars. It was SPECTACULAR for what it was but… not a lot of people are going to be arguing for newbies to really watch it. But it also laid a lot of the groundwork for shows like iZombie which… look, I love that show but I am also not going to really be encouraging people to watch it at this point. Whereas Jessica Jones has a LOT of the same DNA and… Season 1 of that is spectacular and holds up.
Whereas something like MASH is arguably the genesis of a lot of “very special episodes” that everyone hates. But it very much popularized the idea of “the sad clown” dealing with horrible stress and strain (which would be the basis of shows like ER and even House) as well as a willingness to “poke fun at” some truly important contemporary issues even while giving them the respect they deserve. Which was obviously important in the 70s (hmmm) but is also a direct ancestor of shows like Boston Legal and Brooklyn 99 (and even The Good Place) that aren’t afraid to acknowledge things like systemic racism while also making us laugh because… the alternative is to just shut down. And while I don’t hear as many people say “you should watch MASH in 2023”, its best episodes are still held up as masterpieces.
And while I think All in the Family needs a lot more credit than it deserves, it was very much more of “a very special episode” rather than blending. And The Jeffersons (and the first season or so of Family Matters) is similarly incredibly influential but suffers from being “a black show”. Whereas something like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air found a way to get that to a wider audience who won’t clutch their pearls if they see Tyler Perry on screen.
Schitts Creek?? Surprised to see it next to those other names. I mean it was great, but The Good Place and The Wire were on a whole different level IMO
I’d rank it above Seinfeld and way above Dharma and Greg, but I’m curious what made it stand out so much for you
Schitt’s Creek was a pretty big deal in the LGBT community. It was among the first shows that portrayed LGBT people and relationships in a purely positive light.
The Levy’s main concept for the show was to show a town that was without prejudice - an aspirational perspective to make more palpable what it could be like if there wasn’t strong undercurrents of ideologies like racism and homophobia.
A frequent criticism of the portrayal of black Americans in American media is that there’s frequently a negative narrative that shares the storyline. While it’s important to surface those uncomfortable aspects of our culture, it doesn’t have to be everywhere. It’s the same with the LGBT community.
As a queer person who has been politically involved since the days of ACT UP, I’m very aware of how our community is portrayed in media. Homophobia was very much a part of mainstream American entertainment throughout most of my life. It was played up for laughs with either straight characters being scandalized that they were perceived as gay, or gay characters who played to uniformly campy stereotypes, or making homophobic politics and violence an integral part of the storyline. That’s not to say that shows like Queer as Folk weren’t also landmarks, but that was more of a for us by us kind of thing. Schitt’s Creek is a sitcom that’s intended to be enjoyed by everyone.
I mean, I grew up in a time when people like Elton John and Boy George felt like they couldn’t be fully out, and Rock Hudson was completely closeted. I think that shows like Schitt’s Creek help with the perception and normalization of the LGBT community and relationships.
The Levy’s main concept for the show was to show a town that was without prejudice - an aspirational perspective to make more palpable what it could be like if there wasn’t strong undercurrents of ideologies like racism and homophobia.
The Levys were following an uniquely Canadian comedy tradition about not punching down people in small towns. If Schitt’s Creek had been American there would be a strong chance that there would have been homophobic character who becomes the butt of the joke, who’s there to make the audience go “Haha, stupid hick.”
“I have no patience for homophobia,” he explained. “As a result, it’s been amazing to take that into the show. We show love and tolerance. If you put something like that out of the equation, you’re saying that doesn’t exist and shouldn’t exist.” As a sign of validation, Levy, who created the sitcom with his father, Eugene Levy, received many letters from viewers who specifically mentioned how the lack of prejudice against the couple made them do some self-reflection. “The letters we’ve been receiving are from people who realized their beliefs were biased or homophobic or bigoted, and we created a space where love and acceptance is paramount,” he said. “We’ve watched the growth and comfort of people who outwardly live their lives and aren’t being feared of being targeted. And it has a ripple effect into people’s homes.”
If the Levys had gone the way of punching down onto small town people, I don’t think Schitts Creek would have been as effective in getting people to re-evaluate the beliefs.
LMAO, I say it all the time when shitting on Disney virtue signaling, stopping a show to get up on a soapbox just makes the show worse and convinces no one of anything they don’t already believe, and making them a trope doesn’t really help either
If you want to actually reduce bigotry, you normalize it… And apparently they succeeded, since the only time I remember thinking about it was going “oh wait, is he bi?” When they introduced that (I remember it being slightly ambiguous for a couple scenes)
Ok, the show deserves some credit when you put it in this context… Looking back at what I remember from the show, they did it very well.
Like at first, he’s stereotypical and super flamboyant, but they’re all caricatures anyways. Playing into the tropes probably made his orientation less threatening for someone a bit homophobic. They just let that sit for a while without any romance on his part
Then I think brought up he had an ex gf after a season or two? Which is a nice curve ball to make people question their assumptions, and then they eased into it and made the plotline with the ridiculous sitcom love triangle, and they made it about that while having very little actual pda on screen…I remember a kiss or two, but it was pretty overshadowed by the awkward situation… An amazing way to desensitize someone (it feels weird because it’s awkward sitcom nonsense, so a good person a little weirded out by seeing guys kiss doesn’t feel called out, and the emotions get triggered and directed to an appropriate target)
I binge sitcoms over a few days while I work or game, so I remember less as the seasons go on… It was good on the surface, I’m going to give it a rewatch looking deeper
Thanks for sharing. My biggest passion is the way technology could shape us for the better, so I find this very cool
Hey, you like what you like. Nothing wrong with that. But Frasier set the record for most Emmys won (excluding SNL) for a TV show- it won 37 over its run. That record was only beat in 2016 by Game of Thrones. There’s nothing wrong with not liking Frasier, but being the current third-most-awarded show in television history says a lot about its quality.
I get that and I agree. I’m just differentiating between shows that were transformative for their viewers and ones that were “just” popular shows. Sometimes you get a crossover, like MASH, which was a very strong voice for post-Vietnam era America in which the idea of war and military service had begun to transform. We’ve lost ground on that one, of course, post-Reagan and especially after 9/11.
Like I said in another response, I see Schitt’s Creek as transformative in how it portrays LGBT persons and relationships by deliberately crafting a world in which prejudices (like racism and homophobia) do not exist. There are a number of shows that have over time led to the greater acceptance and normalization of the LGBT community, such as Queer Eye, but even a lot of those play to high camp tropes, and shows like Drag Race target the queer-and-ally communities more than being just a straight forward (sorry, couldn’t resist) sitcom.
In just my lifetime, we went from a world where Rock Hudson was closeted, Elton John and Boy George were flamboyant but not officially out, and where Nathan Lane worried that his epic role in The Birdcage would make people realize that he’s gay. There’s a great story behind that one. Before that you had the gay-coded villains like Vincent Price and comedians like Rip Taylor. Taylor never came out. Neither did Liberace.
I cite the Jeffersons similarly because the show came out as black Americans were moving from a civil rights struggle to a feeling of acceptance for and from the white American communities. The theme song Moving On Up embodied that social dynamic, while All in the Family lampooned the alternative vision of the white blue collar racist whose excuse was that he was just an “ordinary guy.”
I’d feel differently if Fraiser were to take a similar approach to mental health issues - normalizing and humanizing them, instead of playing them for gags. In my opinion, it was mostly about class dynamics with most of the humor involving the disconnect between the egotistical educated elite versus the real world. Contrast Fraiser’s relationship with his patients with that of the psychologist Sidney Friedman on MASH. By our standards today we could look at MASH and see homophobia and rampant sexism, but for its time it was humanizing, and Arbus’ character played into that narrative in most of his appearances.
Awards are awards, and at the end of the day they represent the opinions of the industry. I’m absolutely not saying they don’t matter. But people who watch a show like The Good Place (which explores absolutely fundamental issues of ethics and philosophy while still being a brilliant sitcom) have the power to change the way people think.
Yeah. Caviezel is one of the very few people in hollywood who makes mel gibson look “not that bad”
It is truly amazing how the POI production crew managed to get such a good show out of him. And it makes it even funnier every time they put Reese in a mask so that they could have a fight scene where stuntment wouldn’t be at risk of being murdered.
Yeah, it’s pretty crap. Are there any reboots that have the original cast and weren’t just plain horrible? I’m thinking Matrix 4, but that worked because it was a parody of itself.
One doesn’t have to, if one doesn’t want to. I don’t listen much to Michael Jackson (though I have a soft spot for Thriller), but I’m also not 100% sold on the allegations made against him.
Sure u dont have to do anything. But if are to hold urself to ur own standards u set for urself you have cut urself off from a majority of art throughout history. For example by ur own standards then u cant look at anything by Caravaggio, Paul Gauguin, Richard Wagner, Jackson Pollock, etc etc. Whats the purpose of artwork if not to express something. Can you express anything if an artwork is to be judge by ur charecter and not by itself?
I draw the line at the artist’s life. I think there’s a world of difference between appreciating a Van Gogh, and buying a book by J. K. Rowling. Van Gogh terrorized a woman and sent her his ear, but he’s dead, so any “support” I give him doesn’t help him. Whereas J. K. Rowling and Kelsey Grammer are alive and supported by their art. And I refuse to be part of that support.
Sure, if I was that motivated. Though there is the question of how much his world view is expressed in his work, and how much I want to expose myself to it. But at the end of the day, I’ve gone, what, 30 years without watching Frasier? I don’t need to see it. There are plenty of other TV shows I can watch.
U said it was in ur backlog all ur issues have been solved other than potentialy exposing urself to an ideology u disagree with. Why dont u wanna expose urself to an idealogy u disgree with? Are you scared that it might change your mind?
Ohh and for the record idk what a fraser is and have absolutly no idea what sort of beliefs are in it.
Toxic ideologies have a way of coloring your thinking. When I listen to far right nut jobs, racists, sexists and other lunatics I feel stressed and anxious. So, why should I listen to them?
I’m all for discourse and discussion when there are two legitimate competing viewpoints, but not when one of the two viewpoints espouses hate and vitriol. I’m too old to waste my time on that.
Also, if you don’t know what Frasier is, why are you invested in convincing me to watch it? Or were you trying to make fun of my spelling while using “u” and “ur”?
Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons.
We have a lot of marathon data. There is a large, consistent difference showing the opposite. This article is horrendously unscientific, so many claims, assumptions, and over summarizing and simplifying
they make claims and assumptions to address it, they dont really cite anything. Shit like this "The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports." is a hypothesis, but it is not being stated as one, it's being stated as fact. It's a testable hypothesis, they could have controlled for the variable of pace setting runners that they bring up by only looking at statistics of running events that do not have this variable.
And like, the whole premise could be true, that women were also hunters, modern runners with modern sports medicine arent ideal evidence, that kind of endurance might not have been needed for their hunting, women are still humans and humans have the greatest running stamina of any animal. But besides capability, ancient humans also could have had roles determined by sex, it's at least prevalent in other apes like gorillas. Either way is possible without more solid evidence and it's pretty crazy to say one way or another is scientifically true.
I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can’t just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.
I mean, it’s also unlikely to be true. The difference between male and female bodies is the equivalent of years of high end steroid use.
If you wouldn’t let a man who had taken steroids for a decade and still takes them compete with other men, then you already acknowledge the biological advantage men have over women at physical sports.
I mean we also see a lot of what I would define as “outlier behavior” from men more generally. We see crazier olympic world records being set and broken, we see higher rates of suicide and violent crime, that sort of shit, which I’m personally kind of interested in figuring out the reason for. If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina and shit than comparing athletes of different sexes to one another, I think the gap would be smaller.
If you took some theoretical “average” man and some theoretical “average” woman I think they’d probably be a lot closer in terms of strength and stamina
They would not. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.
The difference between the average man and the average woman is the same as the difference between a man who’s been taking steroids since he was 12, and an average man.
Estrogen is also a hell of a drug… It’s actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.
Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one…
For example I am an average height and weight guy. I had never gone to a gym in my life, but at 25 decided to start powerlifting with some friends for fun. Within 3 months I was already lifting nearly as much as the world record lifts by women in my weight class.
I started going to my university powerlifting competitions, having lifted for less than a year, and was definitely lifting poorly compared to the other men, but I out-lifted every woman there most of whom had been training for years.
I don’t think you understand the average difference in strength between men and women, it’s rather large.
I don’t think I’m arguing against your evidence. It’s your idea that this difference in men and women’s strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.
Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people’s personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology’s role, but it’s only loosely related to environment’s role. It’s not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society’s artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women’s physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.
Testosterone is a hell of a lot of the explanation though. When people inject more testosterone they get a hell of a boost to muscle development and strength.
Although past sexual selection may have led to women being smaller and having less testosterone and ability to develop muscle mass, it does not change that women are indeed smaller and have less testosterone and ability to gain muscle mass than men, leading to the average woman being slower and physically weaker than the average man. My replies have been directed at the assertion earlier that men only hold records because of outliers, and the average man and woman are close in strength and speed, but that is just not true.
In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn’t disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you’ve already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don’t do any sort of strength training, and it’s not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.
And most women on Earth don’t do any strength training, and are much smaller than the average man.
Hell I was way stronger than the vast majority of women I knew well before I started any strength training, my point was a few months of training had me on par with the strongest women in the world in my weight class.
They point to women’s impressive performance in extreme distance events, like 100+ mile ultra marathons.
But that runs head long into the question of “How far do you have to actually chase an animal for it to collapse from exhaustion?” I’m having a hard time finding hard numbers but I don’t think gazelle have the endurance to run 10+ miles before collapsing. So women may be biologically equipped for ultra-long distances, but I don’t see how this correlates to endurance hunting as that advantage doesn’t play out hunting game.
That’s not to say the basis for the theory on male hunters/female gatherers is not without flaw, but the arguments being made against it don’t seem to really be citing evidence that backs up women being significant, let alone dominant, in that role either.
This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don’t even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?
This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don’t even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?
I can’t read the article so unfortunately don’t have the grounds to agree or disagree with you. But I’d be carefull voicing my option like this when your only source is Wikipedia and isn’t speaking about the claim you are trying to disprove.
Edit: incase anybody is interested in reading some more real evidence instead of Wikipedia, this study goed deep into mens vs womans endurance and highlights a few problems with research focusing on males as the baseline.
What’re you talking about? The study linked has 43 references and has been cited 140 times. It even has their method and approach pretty clearly stated right at the start of the paper where they outline where they gathered their data from. Did you click the wrong link or something?
Here’s the full abstract as well just for further clarification:
Unlabelled: Studies on nonelite distance runners suggest that men are more likely than women to slow their pace in a marathon. Purpose: This study determined the reliability of the sex difference in pacing across many marathons and after adjusting women’s performances by 12% to address men’s greater maximal oxygen uptake and also incorporating information on racing experience. Methods: Data were acquired from 14 US marathons in 2011 and encompassed 91,929 performances. For 2929 runners, we obtained experience data from a race-aggregating Web site. We operationalized pace maintenance as the percentage change in pace observed in the second half of the marathon relative to the first half. Pace maintenance was analyzed as a continuous variable and as two categorical variables, as follows: “maintain the pace,” defined as slowing <10%, and “marked slowing,” defined as slowing ≥30%. Results: The mean change in pace was 15.6% and 11.7% for men and women, respectively (P < 0.0001). This sex difference was significant for all 14 marathons. The odds for women were 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.50; P < 0.0001) times higher than men to maintain the pace and 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.38; P < 0.0001) times that of men to exhibit marked slowing. Slower finishing times were associated with greater slowing, especially in men (interaction, P < 0.0001). However, the sex difference in pacing occurred across age and finishing time groups. Making the 12% adjustment to women’s performances lessened the magnitude of the sex difference in pacing but not its occurrence. Although greater experience was associated with less slowing, controlling for the experience variables did not eliminate the sex difference in pacing. Conclusions: The sex difference in pacing is robust. It may reflect sex differences in physiology, decision making, or both.
That’s very unclear from your reply above. Do you always act so condescending when people seek clarification? Because even this short conversation with you has been challenging. Perhaps try to be a little less of an asshole. It would be easier to clear simple communication issues especially when you use pronouns and the antecedent isn’t really clear.
Yes, especially when people start lecturing me that I’m wrong when they haven’t even made an effort to understand the issue at hand. All just to prove that I’m so wrong and they’re so right.
Happens more often than you think and I really don’t like it.
Right so change it. People are going to meet hostility with hostility. If you approach every conversation from an advsarial position you’ll get a lot of “I’m right and you’re wrong” and “lecturing” from the other side. If you had simply clarified that your vague statement was about the original article, and not the one linked in the comment you replied to, then we could’ve walked away with a positive interaction…
Men are faster than women in a marathon because they can maintain a pace for longer without slowing, that’s called endurance.
I can’t believe the superior endurance of men can even be up for debate, but clearly no one does enough exercise anymore for the self evident to reveal itself.
Endurance is not speed. If I can go 4 hours at 5 miles per hour before I have to take a break to rest and you can go 2 hours at 10 miles an hour before you have to stop, you’d be much faster than me in a 2 mile race. But that doesn’t have anything to do with endurance.
Why are you changing 2 variables. Endurance is your ability to perform at a certain level for a period of time. Kipchoge has more endurance than me because he can maintain my 800m pace for 26 miles. Speed is literally only a consideration for sprinting. As soon as you’re performing past that, it’s all endurance. And when we look at all tests of endurance; iron man, ultra marathon, military fitness, triathlon, etc etc. Men come out on top.
I think, better phrased, men as marathon and ultramarathon outliers tend to do better than women, but in terms of ultramarathons, I think women tend to do better on average. citation needed obviously but that’s going off the top of the dome.
I don’t even think that they’re racist in the same way as white officers, or at least not all of them. I think for a portion it’s like a Stockholm syndrome kind of thing where they finally are working side by side with their oppressors and want to be part of the in club and will do anything to get there.
“cannot use her own constitutional rights as a shield to violate the constitutional rights of others while performing her duties as an elected official”.
"It's my right to deny your rights."
Remeber these are the people shouting about religious freedoms.
This is something that needs to shouted loud and clear.
The Constitution protects citizens from the government. If you work for the government, you are what the Constitution protects us from. If you do not understand that, you do not need to be getting a paycheck drawn from taxpayers.
They literally believe the very existence of gay married couples is an assault on their religious freedom. The unchecked “religious freedom” they want logically would include bigamy and pedophilia, but better not talk about that.
Evangelicals and conservatives want to be protected by American laws but not bound by them, while everyone else is tightly bound by laws, but not protected by them.
Rob Corddry did a Daily Show interview way back about the pharmacist and birth control (the abortion pill). The pharmacist kept saying about his right were being violated when the courts said he had to go against his beliefs. Rob sarcastically says (I’m paraphrasing), “yeah, how can they push their beliefs on you! that’s your job to do the customer!”
“The ice we skate is getting pretty thin. The waters getting warm so we might as well swim. My worlds on fire how about yours? Thats the way I like it because I never get bored.”
And they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming and they
If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there's a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court's decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed.
Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It's basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn't apply here.
So, to answer seriously: if it’s an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it’s an official act, he’s presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there’s no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they’re not allowed to use motivation to make the case.
The president isn’t given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He’s given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.
So it’s a question arguing how “the president can’t kill members of the judiciary” doesn’t hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.
Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn’t matter to him.
Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.
My wife and I are well to do in the US, with a good household income that probably puts us in the top 2% or some shit. And to maintain the sort of life that used to be considered “middle class”, we need all of that income for our family of 4. Which means that we both work. We would have liked more kids. But there is only so much time to go around. Fuck are we supposed to do, have another kid and hire a nanny? Fuck is the point of that, we wouldn’t even be parenting.
You want more kids? Give people more time. Which means LESS WORK and BETTER CHILDCARE OPTIONS.
I hope you don’t have children that you’re forcing to be babysitters. I know people who did that growing up, their relationship with their parents is… not good.
What are you talking about?
I'm 6 years older than my sister and when we were younger, I have babysitted her every day after school until my parents came home a few hours later. That's just not a traumatic thing at all.
My parents had nine kids. The eldest still doesn't talk to them, ten years after he left. Our two experiences must mean that the average reality is somewhere in between. Resentment sounds about right. /s
Isn't it neat how we can have different experiences? Just because you are happy with your specific situation does not mean that certain actions won't tend to cause resentment in the average home.
I think you'd agree that there is a stark difference between "babysitting your one sister" and "babysitting 8(!!) Children". Yet, the comment I replied to just said broadly "letting one sibling babysit will traumatize that child and they will hate their parents" which I refuted as not being the universal truth the comment made it out to be. "Don't cover your toddler's nose" or "don't let a toddler's head fall back or forwards" are such truths. "Babysitting leads to resentment of parents" isn't.
Also, babysitting and "caring for" are different things. While I absolutely agree that you should not be in a parenting role as sibling and being responsible for the upbringing of your younger siblings, babysitting usually means "watch for a few hours and keep the status quo so the child doesn't starve or kill itself while the parents are away", nothing more.
Besides, you closed your reply implying that I'm the outlier here because my experiences aren't doing what would happen in "an average home". Now don't get.me wrong here but isn't my home a little more average than your's? Like... Going by the numbers in the very post above.
the comment I replied to just said broadly "letting one sibling babysit will traumatize that child and they will hate their parents"
It's funny, i thought the exact opposite; your comment was saying that kids babysitting kids will never cause resentment, and the comment you replied to was obviously saying that kids baysitting kids is a bad habit to get into, but not terrible in moderation.
I am well aware that my family situation is an outlier, i just understood your comment to mean that kids babysitting kids will never cause resentment, so one counter example was enough to make my point, which was that you need to be careful about choosing to have enough kids so they can 'parent themselves'.
Yeah, my last sentence sounds wrong in hindsight. Should have said "That is just not a traumatic thing to me at all" or "That was not a traumatic thing at all.
I absolutely agree that a line should be drawn where you expect children to prematurely... well... mature and be parents/adults.
In my case, I was 12 or so and my sister was 6, so we both came home from school and were alone until our parents got home from work. They never expected me to make her do things or something. When we hadn't done our homework when they got home, the consequence was that the homework needed to be done still and we couldn't go out and play. That's it. My job was to make sure my sister got a warm meal (reheated; pre-cooked by my parents) and basically didn'T die. They asked us to do certain things while they were away (vacuum the living room or something) but they never really made a fuss when we failed to do it. They just made us do it later then.
The problem is that a child is the responsibility of the parents, and the parents alone. Could you have said no if you wanted to? You should have been able to, every time.
I personally take offense in strangers who tell me how my family life which I'm rather fond of "should have" been. You have no right to stamp your ideas of family onto me and my relatives. Period.
Oh? So uranibaba did not postulate their opinion on how responsibilities in a family "should be" and formulated them as absolute rights or wrongs? Did we read the same comment?
Uranibaba did not postulate an opinion. He stated a fact:
“a child is the responsibility of the parents, and the parents alone”
Parents created the child. So they are the ones responsible. It’s the same reason parents can be held legally accountable for the actions of their children. Just because parents can force someone else to raise their children doesn’t mean it’s ok.
He also indirectly told me how my parents "should have" handled the situation. No knowledge on what was on, nothing. But a "uhm, you know that your parents were wrong, don'tcha?"
I'm a freshly baked father myself and have noticed how easily many people just blame parents with wholesale statements and without the slightest bit of knowledge about how being a parent is and how raising a child actually works, yet everybody claims to be an expert.
I think we need to clear something up here. The term in question was "babysitting" not "raising". Just as I would not expect someone to "raise my children" when I hired a babysitter, why would that term be different when siblings do it?
I was 12, my sister was 6 and we were home alone after school until my parents came home from work. That's "babysitting" to me.
The fact that ppl just assumed I meant something completely different and started the judgement train speaks for itself.
I apologize for offending you, but your earlier comment seemed to imply that a child should reasonably share a parents responsibility of their children.
My oldest daughter is a bit over 6 years older than our baby. I might ask her to do something similar to what you are describing. Most people on here seem to think helping the family out equals trauma because birthing someone automatically means you retain full responsibility for them existing. It’s more complicated than that and I think the thing people are mad about is choosing to have kids in a way that you expect them to take care of each other.
For me, this always went under "caring for each other" which is something children should learn and practice. Besides, we always had a grand old time. They always made absolutely sure there was food to be warmed up, so that was.taken care of. After that, I'd play computer games upstairs, she'd watch cartoons downstairs and then shout for me when she heard someone coming. Then we'd tell our parents how we practiced piano or some shit and they knew what was up, yet let us go on.
Not to mention better healthcare! Healthcare costs are the primary reason US citizens go bankrupt. Kids get sick, adults get sick, and if one of the adults in the house gets sick and can’t help bring in money for the kids then the entire household essentially goes from upper/middle to lower or bankrupt. If a kid gets very sick, oftentimes one of the parents has to stop working to argue every single claim that insurance would be paying but doesn’t, and call every department of every doctors office or hospital to get an itemized bill and get it lowered to a reasonable cost rather than them asking for a blank check. I’m afraid of having a sick kid and losing my job to their healthcare organization (note: not their healthcare directly, but calling insurance asking them to pay for life saving care, then calling hospitals asking why a small bandage is $1200), losing my house to bankruptcy after healthcare costs, and losing any semblance of future career due to time off and losing myself.
Absolutely. Taking healthcare costs off our backs would go a long way. The birth of my first kid absolutely wiped out the savings I had built up since getting out of school, and that was WITH insurance coverage. Six years of careful planning and saving just flushed down the toilet in an instant. There's just no financially-responsible way to manage the risk of a hospital bill that could range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands depending on what does or doesn't go according to plan, not to mention the following 18+ years of unknowns. It's kind of a wonder that people are still having as many kids as they are these days.
Not to mention insurance won’t tell you what they cover until you have someone done. “Do you cover this” could mean they cover 10%, 70%, or 100%, and they don’t even know what their system will approve. This is with good insurance. Unless you are apart of the top 5% then everyone can be wiped from you very quickly without notice. Eat the rich anyone?
Not that we had much choice along the way, but you're right, we were almost completely in the dark about how much anything was going to cost as it happened. Various groups were mailing us bills for the full amounts even before insurance had settled their portion. Nobody in the entire insurance and billing game is on your side.
It was a shock to my system to hear Americans setting aside 10k+ for delivering a child. What the fuck? For a country that claims it wants kids it sure as hell doesn’t act like it.
Here is the Canadian version: you go to the hospital, you deliver, you get the after care, then you go home. Cost to you: $0 (unless you came in an ambulance, then expect somewhere between $150-400?)
In the US ambulance can cost another $10k. They are local companies that have good connections with the local police stations, and the only way to contact them is through the police, and you can only get whichever has the best relationship with the police. I say police because to get an ambulance is the same emergency number. There is usually no competition and they can charge whatever they feel like and insurance may not cover much if anything. For an ambulance, there is literally no way to know how much you need to pay, because insurance determines if you were really experiencing an emergency or if you could have driven, and being unconscious isn’t enough to determine an emergency in many cases.
So much freedom. Freedom to die from preventable causes. Freedom to experience bankruptcy often. So much freedom.
I am you. I have two kids and fucking hell our expenses are getting out of control. Fortunately we spaced them out enough that only one is in day/preschool. But it’s still basically impossible to justify my wife being employed with only our youngest kid’s expenses. Looking at $2.5k per month of childcare expenses for one kid makes me want to give up.
My state, Oregon, passed a leave law that is currently saving our lives. Extra 4 weeks of leave that can be taken intermittently. We are financially fucked the moment we are out of our state leave. For reference I have an MS in ME and work in manufacturing. And my wife is one of the highest paid dental assistants I’m aware of.
Judge Aliyah Sabree, who has the No. 2 leadership post at the court, released a statement Wednesday night, saying King’s conduct “does not reflect the standards we uphold at 36th District Court.”
If someone does a thing and isn’t stopped or reprimanded then their actions do reflect the standards because those things happened. If your court lets a judge treat a child like a criminal for falling asleep, that is who you are as a court.
Fuck anyone who says “this isn’t who we are” and doesn’t actually do anything to prove that is the case.
It's just PR to protect themselves, not about actually doing fuck all about what just transpired. Many people like this show such cowardice to make a difference.
I want to say that the issue in this case with stopping him is that the other judge wasn’t present to alter it. But then you are still right because presumably that other judge is never there to stop this kind of thing.
They’re going to, probably in every single red state.
They’re going to throw so much shit at the wall due to election ballot timing that unfortunately I think something will stick… it more than likely wont be legitimate, but we have way too many corrupt judges out there :(
I don’t think it’s a given that something will stick in a way that actually throws a wrench in the election. It would have to be in a swing state, the judge would have to be willing to become infamous around the world, and willing to ignore the precedent that generally political parties can choose candidates how they want and of course a nominee can decline the nomination.
Except other states could use that as a case to federally disqualify a candidate. “Well they weren’t on the ballot in all the states, can this be said to be a representative vote?”
Ironically, this is where the SC’s ruling to keep Trump on the ballot can be helpful. Because as long as the proper paperwork is filed in time, the committee can nominate whoever it wants, and the state doesn’t have the power to disqualify someone.
They aren’t going to sue. They are going to start shooting. They’ve outright stated that. It’s crystal clear: they’ve said that the revolution would be “bloodless” only if the left “allowed” it to be. I really wanted to live long enough to build a family,.
The only nice thing about those red shitholes is that it’s stupidly easy to get a gun. Get one. Join your local chapter of the SRA. Train at the local range at least twice a month so that you are proficient with it. Learn all the local stand your ground laws. Memorize them. When they start shooting, aim center mass.
While a pistol is far more portable, it requires far more training, as the lower mass of the firearm results in a larger than expected kick. Shotguns are really the weapon of choice for urban defense.
I personally have a couple of extremely nice sniper crossbows, that are basically silent. Seriously, the bolt impacting my target makes more noise than the bow. A couple of T-33s, an AA-12, and a 30-06. Lots of ammo too.
Learning how to reload your ammo is also invaluable, should they start shooting. Have a “riot shield,” basically the largest piece of steel you can easily carry that is more than 2" thick. Body armor is also a useful investment.
Carry isn’t the right word here. I have a 6’ x 2’ x 2" piece of steel that I mounted on a stand and wheels. It’s technically mobile in that I can move the thing with effort. It is bulletproof though. I have tested it against AP rounds.
I don’t take it with me on protests, it sits in my house in one of the most defensable positions in the house.
I find it turns my stomach at the thought of training at a gun range with people who would rather shoot me in the head than tell me the time of day. That’s the kind of gun fetishists who live in the area I’m at.
Not that I’m advocating for training with intent cause there’s far too much gun violence as it is, but if you are in a gun range and training to use a gun, the wack jobs are all going to assume you are one of them. They really believe that liberals are scared of guns and wouldn’t dare to own one. Much less train to use one.
Speaking from experience, SRA in central FL/ Orlando is useless. Paid $35 to be put into the Jacksonville SRA and got a link to an inactive discord channel.
I’m all ears for a viable alternative until I get out to Colorado.
Yep. I got that while I was in the service. I like that bad boy. It has a selector switch for single fire. I don’t buy weapons for daily use, or for hunting animals.
Carry isn’t the right word here. I have one that is 12 sq feet, it is “mobile” in that it has wheels and a stand. I can barely move the thing around, but it is certainly bulletproof. I e tested it against AP rounds. Yes the thing weighs about half a ton.
Can we try not to talk like Trump? No state as a whole is a shit hole full of shit hole people, those kinds of statements reek of elitism and it’s not a good look.
They’re ginning up arguments about “cheating” in case they lose. Trump has never admitted to losing an election, always claiming the winner cheated. And as we saw on Jan 6, it really riles up the dirtbags that form Trump’s unique voter constituency.
That is the problem Etsy thinks it should be tackling rather than the fact that its small business sellers are being driven off the platform. Shows where their priorities are.
Chinese reselling is the most profitable business model. Etsy is a public company and must choose the most profitable business model. The idea that a publicly traded company will have it’s primary business model being selling handcrafted goods is asinine.
Not attacking anyone that didn’t see this coming, I’m just commenting on how stupid it is that every company feels the need to go public in our culture of greed regardless of their mission and place in the market.
Chinese reselling is the most profitable business model. Etsy is a public company and must choose the most profitable business model.
This is a definition of capitalism contrived by someone looking to dunk on capitalism at any cost. BMW could be “profitable” if they started flooding the market with $20k cars… for a while.
I have no context for how expensive a bmw is. I assume it’s more than 20k? - how much more? 50k?
I’m trying to save for a house downpayment but have also been thinking about a new car, and the Tiguan looks kinda nice, assuming it’s not one of those touch screen cars
(sorry everyone else for going way off topic here)
The Tiguan is indeed nice! It drives pretty well and had enough cargo room to hold a bunch of musical instruments last time I needed to do that. It has gotten expensive, though. For my money I’d either buy a gently used one, or check out the Taos if you don’t mind the slightly smaller size.
The Taos might be the play - I am very nearly in love with the Golf, and even though I love a small car, it’s just slightly too small. I want to fit at least a hiking backpack in the trunk.
Well the funny thing is Etsy actually made a different choice originally. They claimed b-corp status, which is supposed to mean they prioritize social good in their business strategy. It’s annoying that they seem to be so much more profit focused because if they were going to go to the trouble of becoming a bcorp they really should be working harder to stick to it.
It would do even more harm if people were more aware of how China is able to make things so inexpensively. Amazon and Walmart have standardized obfuscating slave labor.
In Xinjiang, the government is the trafficker. Authorities use threats of physical violence, forcible drug intake, physical and sexual abuse, and torture to force detainees to work in adjacent or off-site factories or worksites producing garments, footwear, carpets, yarn, food products, holiday decorations, building materials, extractives, materials for solar power equipment and other renewable energy components, consumer electronics, bedding, hair products, cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment, face masks, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other goods—and these goods are finding their way into businesses and homes around the world.
I’m sure I’ve used some of the slave labor products. To those who are captive, I am so sorry! I am an exhausted worker bee and just trying to get by in the world and wish I could help you.
It would do even more harm if people were more aware of how China is able to make things so inexpensively. Amazon and Walmart have standardized obfuscating slave labor.
And Etsy has turned obfuscating slave labor into a side hustle. What bleak times we inhabit.
Are conservatives activists so concerned with information related to living under Nazism because they don’t want young people to be able to recognize the steps if those steps occur to young people today?
Not it’s 100% tied to the resurgence of white supremacy. These conservatives groups are backed by humongous PACs that fund groups that push their agenda. Just like with turningpointusa and groups like that. Don’t mistake careful planning masked by racist zealots as idiocy.
Fair enough. All the actual humans I know that vote for these numbnuts are some flava of misplaced Jeebus worshipper. They don’t agree with racists (do they vote for them? Every time - while explaining how the candidate isn’t really racist) but they try not to do and say racist things. They don’t really know what fascism is in this context. Still they willingly hand over political power to those that do.
The actual racist / fascist shitheel who supports this garbage will do the Wavy-Jesus-Hands when they pray ostentatiously, but don’t really believe that crap, it’s just an important part of the grift for “the weak-minded”.
Ah yes, the historically marginalized vulnerable community, the cisgenders. How can a community even hope to live in peace with only 98.5% of the population?
bullshit. cis- is a latin prefix that means “on this side of”. So for example, the Roman region Cisalpine Gaul could reasonably be interpreted as “the part of Gaul that’s on our side of the Alpines”. The prefix trans- is the antonym meaning “on the far side”. Transalpine Gaul was the part of the Roman empire on the other side of the Alpines. When related to gender, the only way cisgender can be read in any context is “their gender aligns with their sex”. There is no way that could ever be reasonably be interpreted as a slur.
Ok but you did describe a specific chunk of rome nerds. You’ve really got three kinds of rome nerds: the “I just think it’s neat” folks, the ones who think of it as glorious western tradition and lean fascist (it’s how they turned the symbol of Roman right to rule into the “kill everyone in the name of tradition” ideology), and then there are those of us who see a society that’s full on clown shoes where a bisexual twink managed to talk his way into destroying a republic among many many many other fucking bonkers things that just kept fucking happening while this empire refused to trade with China because of dipshit toxic masculinity. So yeah us in the last group lean anti fascist because rome was a shit show of a caliber only America and Russia can compare to
People can be insulted (read as feel insulted) by anything and everything. If I refer to someone by a technically correct term all the time, but it was not customary to do so, they could easily (and justifiably) feel insulted by that. Whether something can be more or less generally be said to be a slur depends more on majorities, convention, and social protocol than on technical correctness. Neither you nor I are in a position to tell someone that they cannot feel insulted by something. And it might even be a communal thing: if a majority of users on X felt insulted by being referred to as cisgender, it would be correct to label it as a slur in that context/on X. Like cunt is an integral part of everyday language in Australia but a big no-no in the US. Think about that, you dry-nose primate.
The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.
I think there’s some confirmation bias on your end here. The local community (including me) tends to be young and liberal and knows the term cisgender. I’d bet that the majority (by a huge margin) of English speakers (including as a second or third language) has never even heard the term cisgender or doesn’t know what it means. Lots of them will react negatively if you label them cisgender out of pure ignorance and false assumptions - no transphobia needed.
Only complete asshole transphobes do. Honestly, not even they do. They just lie about it as a gotcha.
Sure, they exist. But what’s their percentage of the population or the X user base? I think you’re making a false generalization by an invalid extrapolation.
And just to be clear: I’m not saying cisgender is a slur. I’m just pointing out that the notion that community A or an individual can decide whether some word is a slur or not in community B is ridiculous, and that the argument, from the first comment I replied to, for technical correctness or intended meaning of a word is irrelevant for who considers what a slur.
I hope that made my point clearer to your dry-nosed primate’s brain.
I’m pretty confident the slur-status of a word is closely rated to whether or not it is used in a hateful way to refer to a people group or member of a group that is in some way disadvantaged. For example the n-word is obviously a slur and “cracker” or “whitey” obviously are not. That’s why cisgender isn’t a slur, even if people can and have use(d) it in a hateful way.
I’m just pointing out that the notion that community A or an individual can decide whether some word is a slur or not in community B is ridiculous,
As a member of group B I consider the word community a slur (purely because it is convenient for my argument to do so). Never use that word again because it is a slur and it would be ridiculous for you to say otherwise.
Right wing assholes get all bent out of shape over the computer world trying to do away with “master” and “slave” terminology, but they’ll rush to “cancel” using “cis” because it hurts their feefees…
The word is a threat because it linguistically separates biological sex from socially constructed categories of “woman” and “man.” That gender is a social construction undermines heteronormativity, critical to defending patriarchal sex roles and procreation.
Ok let me rephrase for pedantic people, adjectives with trans prefix have a correspondent cis adjective.
And an electrical cisformer would be something that would keep energy inside the same circuit at roughly the same voltage, so basically a wire. Feel free to use the term if you want to oversell something.
I will start using “cisformer” in place of “wire” from now on, in a similar manner to how we at work sometimes refer to “power aspect negation cycle” for pulling the plug on something and reconnect it.
Also, I guess a cisistor would be just a regular switch or potentiometer.
As one of the most average dudes in the world, I can’t help but feel threatened and marginalized, which of course means that the gay agenda is to blame for everthing that has gone wrong in my life.
Just to be on the safe side: That was sarcasm.
My gender: You can safely make assumptions based on appearance.
Orientation: Straight and boringly sprinkle-free
Favorite dinosaur: Triceratops
Opinion on this: Fuck Elon. Let people be people, for fucks sake. If he feels threatened by increasing specificity in language, he must have some real identity issues boiling underneath.
I don’t think Elon feels personally threatened. I think he feels hate and a misguided sense of heroism. If you listen to him speak enough, it becomes painfully obvious that he not only thinks he’s the most important person in the world, he also thinks he’s the smartest person in the world. Basically he thinks he can’t possibly be wrong, no matter how many experts who’ve dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge in a field that’s new to him disagree with him.
That, plus the constant stream of right wing propaganda from his Twitter addiction, has convinced him that the acceptance of trans people will lead to the destruction of society. His brain is rotten to the core at this point. So he’s made it his personal mission to make trans people’s lives worse.
My refined interpretation: He’s desperate to be liked, and as long as his Xitter-circle cheers him on, he’ll continue to be a Xithead shithead. He doesn’t have a circle of friends to keep him grounded in reality.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.