“We can be extremely upset at the Biden administration for their policies with regard to Israel and Gaza, but the difficulty is that in the real world that you live in, you’ve got to take a look at a whole lot of things,” he said, sitting in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing room on Capitol Hill. “On the other hand, I would hope that most of the young people and protestors do not want to see Donald Trump, who is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe who doesn’t acknowledge the reality of climate change, become elected president of the United States.”
Also trump is aligned with Netanyahu and is friends with him. Do they think trump being elected will have Israel have peace with Gaza because it would definitely be the opposite. This is playing out like the Carter/Regan election with the Iran Hostage Crisis in a losing effort for Biden if they don’t figure it out.
Yeah, Bernie always carries water for the DNC, and it’s always to the detriment of progressive American politics.
…got to take a look at a lot of things
Record oil and gas drilling, multi-time failure to codify Roe, redlining, gave away the public option, Manchin’s removed, Bibi’s removed, tricked Warren to betray Bernie for nothing, fascist crackdown on peacefully protesting college kids, ancient dinosaur who’s out of touch. I could go on.
There are other options aside from red and blue, and as a swing state voter, I’ll be taking them. The establishment Dems would have you be angry with me and those like me, but this is a misdirection and also just another of Biden’s failings - no ability to take responsibility for his own reprehensible actions.
Americans like you are the absolute worst. So damn irresponsible. All that undeserved extra voting power you have, and you choose to squander it and use it for an act of shameful self-righteousness, with no regard for the consequences of your actions. You clearly have zero respect for progressive politics, progressive movements, and even progressive leaders.
Ignorant liberal voters: as useful for destroying democracy as ignorant fascists
I’m always teleported back to grade school and the token, “rough home life” kid. They sit there and back talk the teacher all day long applying their contrarian logic to everything little thing. Hell, on some level I’d even agree with them but not because they’re right in what they are doing but they accidentally make a salient point. The end of the day, though, the teacher was attempting to do good for this kid and we all just watch as they throw it back in their face.
To bad they also have no idea how they foreclosed our future, though the window for them to not have to confront the awful cynicism of their choices has justttt about closed (you can actually see the gates now off in the distance, they are the 33 named storms expected by quite shellshocked meterologists and storm forecasters to pummel the Carribean and North America this summer in what is projected to be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record by about as far as the distance is between the sea temperatures off the coast of Africa where hurricanes are born are being ALREADY AT THE TEMPERATURES THEY NORMALLY ONLY REACH IN LATE JUNE OR JULY and whatever the shitty record used to be)
Biden is not fuckin Hitler, you enlightened genius!
Keep voting for Ralph Nader Gary Johnson … err I mean Jill Stein instead of doing something useful.
Seriously, what’s the worse that could happen? It’s not like Bush will get us into a massive war and end any hope at fighting climate change err I mean, it’s not like Trump will enflame the ongoing war in the Middle East and decimate any chance the Supreme Court will side with minorities for an entire generation no wait, I mean, surely Trump won’t imprison his political enemies and dismantle the electoral process.
Ignore what I crossed out; it’s just American history. You probably wouldn’t be interested
Game theory is a tough subject, but it would be worth it for you to study to understand how you are acting against your less preferred candidate and helping what should be your least preferred candidate (assuming your ranked choice has the republican nominee below the democratic nominee).
Keep voting for 99% … gets us to the same place
You make it seem as though your protest vote does not also get us to the same place? Many voters have shared your mentality and voted accordingly for the past 200+ years and it’s not made a difference, what makes you think this time things will change?
Voting for Biden gets us to the same place. At least I’m voting for “not genocide”
So FUCKING TIRED of the “moral” wing of our single party govt this go round staying completely silent on Republicans and their policies to blame the world on anyone who won’t “vote blue no matter who” though even mainstream Democrats and pundits can’t come up with anything better than “yeah Biden does it but trump will do it worse!”
I don’t give a fuck how hot a take it is - if “voting for not genocide” makes me a filthy commie than let me fetch my sickle and hammer. Enjoy your “moral high ground” of blaming all our problems on people who think genocide is bad (or making it easy to strip leftist orgs of non profit status, or a handful of other things y’all libs purposefully ignore in lieu of pushing your false narrative that anyone left of Biden are “single issue voters” who “advocate for not voting.”
In “The Ultimatum Game,” the first player makes an offer of how to split $100 with a second player, who can then choose whether to accept or deny the offer. If they accept, they split the money as proposed, if they refuse, neither of them get anything.
The game theory rational outcome is for the first player to offer $99-$1, and for the second player to accept. Assuming, of course, that the first player knows the second will act according to game theory rationality. In real life, when experiments have been done, people tend to reject offers past about $70-$30. Because people tend to have a minimum line, it makes more sense to make offers more generous than $99-$1.
There’s a good reason why people behave that way. It’s because, in practice, when a comparable situation comes up, it’s usually not just a one and done interaction. The second player can tell the first what they will or won’t accept, and if they accept something less than what they said, they lose credibility in the future. In that sort of situation, the worst possible thing for the second player to tell the first is that they intend to act according to their rational self-interest, that they’ll accept any offer because it’s better than getting nothing.
I would argue that this situation is analogous to voting. The politicians make an offer on how much they’ll do for you vs how much they’ll benefit themselves, and the voter has the option to accept or refuse the offer. Just as in the above example, it’s sometimes better to refuse a bad offer even if the alternative is worse, in order to gain bargaining power and credibility in the future. Meanwhile, following a strategy of “lesser-evilism” guarantees that you will only ever be offered 99-1 splits, because they know you’ll accept 1 rather than zero.
Sometimes, an “irrational” strategy can be more effective than what appears to be game theory rational on the surface level.
There are other options aside from red and blue, and as a swing state voter, I’ll be taking them.
me when I decide to waste my vote as a swing state voter, instead of meaningfully pulling my support for a candidate that’s ultimately going to get elected anyways out of protest as a non-swing state voter:
Thanks. Everyone needs a mirror held up to themselves or have their actions questioned. No one can be truly objective, but we’re social animals. Take it easy.
How is failure to codify Roe on your list and you don’t give a shit if we have more fundamentalist judges or not?
How is oil and gas drilling on your list and you don’t give a shit if the executive branch is actively dismantling the EPA or not?
I also hate Manchin, you think a progressive Dem is going to be elected in WV? It’s either him or a Repub.
I’m not mad at you, specifically, but it is enraging to see dimwits throw their ballots in the trash. Good luck to all of us. Your preferred system is not going to rise from the ashes.
Resize the court is obviously the only solution to this broken situation primed to let the criminal, traitor Trump walk free.
EPA doesn’t mean shit when energy companies are lobbying both sides. Is this supposed to be a determining factor? Look no further than mayor Pete’s handling of East Palestine, OH for your answer.
Richard Ojeda actually had a good chance in WV until the DNC poured millions into attack ads to keep their establishment dog in power. Said dog went on to ram through yet another disastrous pipeline thanks to Biden , lining both their pockets with oil and gas money, before riding off into the sunset.
Luck has nothing to do with it with a system so brutally rigged against the populace. Neither of these “sides” is ever going to do anything beyond exploiting us. I’ll use what little power remains in my vote to try for an alternative. If more people believed something better was possible, perhaps we could yet achieve it.
Can you just save it for a different election? I’m all about 3rd party politics making inroads. But, Jill Stein is NOT going to be elected this time around. Sorry to break it to you. And if Trump gets elected, guess what: we might not have free and fair elections to vote for 3rd parties at all! What’s the plan then?
We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there “is” such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action. -Martin Luther King Jr.
Not sure how long you’ve been voting, but as it turns out according to DNC every election is the most important of our lifetime, and the alternative would be all out fascism. I invite you to consider the words of Dr King and why they matter so much today.
Nah, you’re using what little power remains in your vote to line a trashcan. And you don’t care about the consequences because you are privileged enough that you won’t be directly targeted by Repubs.
But the important thing is you’ll have owned the “Bothsides Uniparty” by… helping Donald get elected? Yeah, the massive tax cuts will really sting their butts. Good thinking.
Steadfast in binary thinking, how boring and small.
Not sure if you’re aware, but Biden admin is responsible for locking in those Trump tax cuts for the rich and corporations you’re so upset about. I’m being targeted by Dems right now at college campuses across the country, and there is an option left of them which would instead prioritize green infrastructure and organized labor. The choice for me is clear.
Is the extent of your support for Biden limited to “not Trump”? Yikes.
The end of the day I won’t blame the young people, though. I will blame the red hat fascists who want to install an orange dictator.
Edit: Young people get a pass because at least they are passionate about something. I’m over here, dead inside, praying to a computer that things don’t get any worse then they already are.
Right. I wish people were upset about not having ranked choice as they were the genocide in Gaza. If we changed the way we voted voting for the lesser evil wouldn’t be a thing.
I’m not angry. I regret voting third-party in an election that barely elected Bush, a year before 9/11, that he used to justify a two front war resulting in nearly one million deaths. I’m encouraging others to learn from my mistake.
I’m voting Biden despite it not meaning very much in my deep red state. I show up for down ballot elections, though. The presidency is only one hurdle. Reclaiming the government at state and local levels is way more important.
The maximum penalty for poaching one Chinook salmon – a species that is protected under the endangered species act – is $750 per fish. If officials assessed fines for every salmon killed, Heckathorn could be asked to pay nearly $14m
Fucking do it. Throw the entire library at this fucker.
To be fair, these are tiny juvenile fish, not adult fish which the authors of the law presumably had in mind. The article indicates that only two- to four-hundred of the juveniles were expected to survive long enough to return as adults, which would correspond to a fine of $150,000 to $300,000. Still more than this guy would probably ever actually pay…
“a fertilized egg is a person”… Hm, so a salmon lays thousands of eggs and the male just mass fertilizes last I knew. I doubt the season matters much when they are kept in controlled environments. Wouldn’t they breed year round as their birth place is there home? If so. Jump that number up by a lot. If someone murders a pregnant mother the judge doesn’t say, well there is a x% chance it doesn’t make it to adulthood.
If I go out and kill a newborn fawn in the woods for shits and giggles without the appropriate tags, out of season, etc. it’s still poaching, just the same as if I went out and killed an 8 point trophy buck I didn’t have a tag for, took it home, ate it, mounted it’s head on my wall, etc. That fawn may not have survived, it may not have grown into anything impressive, but at the end of the day I killed a deer I was not legally allowed to kill. The guy writing the law probably didn’t have killing fawns for fun in mind, they probably pictured something more like the second example I gave, but I think most of us would agree that the fawn-killer should be punished just as or maybe even more harshly that the buck-killer.
I can’t think of any good reason it shouldn’t be the same for fish.
EDIT: also, usually with fishing regulations, there’s also size limits, you can’t keep a fish under a certain size, it has to be thrown back. These fish were almost certainly under the legal size. Not to mention creel limits, even if they were somehow all of a legal size, and even if he somehow did everything else legally (which he didn’t,) I suspect the creel limit on salmon is significantly lower than 18,000
Need to bring back forced labor for people that intentionally harm society.
Let them slave away the rest of their days, if they want to eat they will work 12 hours a day. If not they don’t eat and our problem takes care of itself.
That’s literally what For Profit prisons are designed for. And it’s constitutionally legal:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
What are the costs to grow another cohort of fish? What is the time value of setting the program back for the number of years that it will take to get back to normal, and that is assuming that we can?
Make no mistake this is a case of ‘the guy we voted for to Fuck with the people we don’t like is going after us instead’. Needle dick Ron laid waste to the state of Florida so he could play politics and the people of Florida got exactly what they wanted.
Well now the state is worse than it’s ever been and ol meatball is getting absolutely clowned on in the national spotlight. Eat shit dickhead, you thought you were the natural next choice but that’s all over.
Orange County, where Disney World is located, went for the D candidate 53-46. Don’t blame them for the malignant human tumor their state foisted on them.
But Disney themselves donated plenty to R candidates for years. The state and its inhabitants are finding out what that gets you.
I’ve spent far more time in the sunshine state than i ever would wish on anyone, Im not saying everyone in the state is brainwashed but there are plenty of people who cheer on as their state is imploding.
We have to acknowledge that Republicans have lots to offer if you’re a mega corp.
They pick up the phone for you and your lobbyists - day or night
They lower your tax burden
They functionally killed unionization - allowing you to pay your executives enormous sums of money while the majority of your workforce struggles financially.
If you’re somehow unable to outright buy their legislative agenda with bribes campaign donations, they can instead be forced to comply with subtle threats to leak details of their various homosexual escapades to the media.
They tend to have absolutely no morals - which is great for your shareholders.
But you see, Disney made the mistake of going woke. How dare they cast non-white or any gay characters in anything. Next they’ll tell us women should be able to vote. It’s a slippery slope.
Orlando and Tampa are both fairly liberal cities. Miami has a big Cuban population which leans conservative, Jacksonville is basically southern Georgia. Tallahassee is a weird one because you’ve got a bunch of government workers and it’s a college town. I think DeSantis would like to fuck with Tallahassee but doesn’t want to shit where he eats.
Oh he’s shitting there. How can one teach about the Seminole tribe without falling into the category of white guilt for subjugation of another group. Tallahassee is where Florida State University, who uses the Seminole as their emblem/mascot. The Seminoles faught a war (3 according to the U.S.) that spanned 42 years agaisnt the U.S. In the 90s and early 2000s they were still sorting out things, I think the Supreme Court was paying them a settlement over lands stolen.
That’s where it all gets dicey though, the Seminole tribe was made up of torn apart tribes they accepted into their culture as well as African Americans who were “granted” freedom after serving in the Civil War. The U.S. basically had tried to take a census per say of who they were, then tried to divy out the land as individually owned as per U.S. law. Previously it was all owned by the community/tribe I believe. Anyone that hadn’t been written down but was part of the tribe would essentially not get part of the payout.
Sorry I got way off topic. End of the day I guess what I meant is that stereotypically people who watch college sports are viewed as ignoring politics if they can. If the Seminoles had to change their name per request of the tribe stating “you can no longer use it if you are no longer allowing education to your populous about the subjugation you put us through.” People would get mad that they had to hear about it and mad they had to use another name.
Not to mention many would potentially protest it being changed and demand that their history be still an eligible topic. (Which would diminish the bills signed by Desantis)
There’s a lot of good facts in here, but I’m struggling to understand what point you were trying to make. Could you maybe clarify how all of that is related to DeSantis attacking Tallahassee and/or what point you were trying to make?
Yeah, Orlando is Orange county. Florida was the largest producer in the U.S. California is recently passing them up due to issues. Between the two it something like 95% of all the citrus grown in the U.S.
That said, if you want a sweeter, juicier orange, get an orange from Florida. If you want a longer shelf life orange, go with California.
We don’t know who this person voted for. They could be totally against Desantis and never voted for him like millions of other people did as well. I certainly didn’t vote for the premiere of my province who is corrupt and screwing us all over constantly.
I know a guy in the Reedy Creek fire department. He is a hard core Republican. When Desantis took over the board he didn’t think it would be a bad thing.
I like the guy and have known him for years so it’s sad to see it go this way but you get the government you votes for.
I have been practicing my pronunciation of “Cahnahdah,” trying to get it like Robin from 8 bit show & tell. Except I’m divorced with a kid and new partner who has a kid. I’d have to convince 10 other people to go with me so everyone can still see their kids.
Well Napoleon, my great great grandmother was from Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, it’s too remote for me to get the benefit of Canadian citizenship. But I’m willing to try - mainly for my daughter’s future. The US is fucked and I don’t see it getting better. And I won’t bring American bullshit with me. Maybe I need to meet a cute 40-something Canadian to smooth the waay.
This reminds me of the old women that were living off of their permanent alimony payments in Florida suddenly having that yanked by Republicans and who are VERY angry at DeSADIST as well.
Firefighters in Florida are about 90% conservatives. Even if this specific firefighter is not a conservative, his complaint is shared by his conservative coworkers. The conservatives are bitching and moaning about the results of their conservatism.
The most absurd people can still be hateful fucks. You can check for this by seeing if minority communities have worse response times or outcomes in the event of a fire.
Haha that’s hilarious! Seriously though, I bolt my dogs kennels to the roof of my car when I have our chauffeur drive us from Denver airport to our Aspen ski chalet, just like any common man would.
assault and battery are both vaguely termed legal definitions that depend on what state you’re in.
in MN, there’s no legal definition for battery, with assault being defined with multiple levels ranging from ‘mere’ threats through “poked me on the arm” to beating the shit out of someone.
In WI, where this happened, it seems they’re the opposite with the only mention of ‘assault’ be related to sexual assault. and battery being similar to MN’s assault charges. Though, I only took a cursory look through their laws.
Koichiro Ito was the producer, NOT the director who is famous for creating those movies. He collaborated with the studio, he did not write or direct the films. Please do not destroy and undermine these beautiful works of art over a single credited contributor who did not create the films.
Further, he was only arrested in February of 2024 so the studio hasn’t even had an opportunity to turn down future collaboration with him.
I was so salty when they gave the Emmy for Best Animated Film to Boy and the Heron instead of Suzume. Absolute travesty and so clearly only because of Miyazaki’s name and art style.
Suzume is honestly my favorite of the three and one of my favorite films of all time. I adore how well all of the fantasy and imagery connects with real human experiences. It comes so close to providing perfectly clear, direct metaphor without actually arriving at it and to me that is the most beautiful type of storytelling: where you can see characters, themes, etc and feel deeply how they connect to your own life but never with a concrete “this thing specifically represents that thing”. You can get really close with Suzume, but it never quite coalesces, leaving you with a powerful story, intense emotions, and a sense of wonder that sticks around long after viewing.
Damn. Sorry it has to be you, but i just can’t remain silent, as this agenda of “the creator of an artpice made horrible things, so the artpiece itself is also horrible and therefore must be forgotten” just drives me so fucking mad. I guess it’s hard to cope this thought, but an artpiece is still an artpiece and should be evaluated such. The author itself could be an absolutely terrible person deserving a death sentence, it doesn’t mean his metaphorical child couldn’t be as beautiful as of others. There’s no guilt in admitting it if you remember that even the creation of the most marvelous masterpiece in the universe cannot be an excuse for the creator’s sins. Not to mention this your way of thinking lots of time works other way around, painting famous creators as idols that cannot do nothing wrong. As soon as there will be both morally good and downright awful creators aknowledged of their particularly artistic skills, the aura of some kind of deities around creators of any kind of art will be demistified, therefore they will be finally judged just as any kind of other people, therefore it will be harder for them to cover up the fucked up shit, some of the hollywood directors are known for for example.
The artpiece should not be forgotten, so the wrongdoings of its creator won’t be forgotten as well. I think its a lot more fair, just and harsh at the same time.
I absolutely respect art irrespective of the artist. The problem arises when said artist continues to profit from my respect of the art. Take as a personal example, JK Rowling and her Wizarding World. I grew up with those books. I love that setting. But I’m not buying any of their merch or their video games or going to visit Disneyland to go to Potterworld because I don’t want Rowling getting her mitts on my royalties. She created a series of books that captivated me and many others as children and I respect the hell out of that. But I’m not going to continue to fund her tirades because of it.
Tbh, I think people should know what they are getting into with this, as that was one of the major moments that led me to stop reading it, if felt disrespectful to Hermione as a character and me as a reader
“disrespectful to the character”? I beg your pardon, what!? Characters are the tools in the hand of the author to convey certain plot. Characters themselves have their own, well, character. by writing in
spoilerthe death of Hermione
the author shows inhumanity of a certain character, their cruel nature, because, if you think about it, letting the ogre into the school full of kids is inhumane and cruel, its just that the original author prefered to ignore it, making out of it nothing more than a fun adventure. Not to mention, this is not the first demonstration of how cruel the antagonist is, you just prefered to ignore it as well because it was not about your lovely little girl you read romantic fics about at night. And i’m ignoring the fact that these are de facto complete different characters from ones in JKR’s book, similar names are here only for convenience.
i’m being a jerk towards you because you’re being a jerk towards random people who do not deserve this. I don’t care if you will do my request as the moment when i was angry at your jerkish behaviour has long passed, but you will continue to passively be a jerk towards everyone who never read the book but would’ve liked to. It’s kinda funny if you think about it.
Also, i’m making fun of you because your opinion is immature and dumb and i even said why. If the only thing you caught from my message are insults and belittling then you completely deserve it as your inability to separate emotional and rational parts of a message makes your perception as biased as it could be, therefore making you an idiot. Its ok to be emotional, but anyone should know when emotions should be ignored.
And i’m not gonna lie, i enjoy telling idiots that they are idiots. This is my little guilty pleasure. You can call me whatever you want for this.
Also, often the art itself suddenly changes before your eyes when you review it with a new eye for who the artist has revealed themself to be.
Like the fact the only asian person in the entire set of books is a girl to serve as plot fodder named “Cho”
Or the fact that there’s like 2 times that a girl gets specifically assaulted by a masculine representing figure in a girls bathroom while alone. (Troll attacking Hermione in book 1, and Myrtle by Riddle+Snake in book 2), its one of those “If I had a nickel everytime that happened, Id have 2 nickels, which isnt a lot but its weird that it happened twice” sort of dealios.
The list goes on and on, theres a lot to pick apart in the books if you go back and re-read them. There’s a lot of stuff that makes you pause and go “hmm, what?”
Like perhaps the “goblins” with pointy ears, sharp teeth, glasses, short statures, who strictly only show up working at the one big bank, and are commented on about hoarding money and acting greedy…
(Basically a play by play classic set of caricatures of jewish people the nazi party used constantly to dehumanize them… >_>;)
There’s a lot of issues with Harry Potter and JK writing in general. Even if you want to hand wave the Goblin thing, she also introduces and normalizes race based slavery and only addresses the issue by setting up the only character to have an issue with it as wrong and annoying for even noticing.
They said they loved it and hoped for more films, not that they were changing their opinion based on the action of someone connected to it, so I assume they’re just excited that there’s chance for more in the future since this dude was just a producer.
HARD disagree. You don’t have to enjoy it, everyone is free to like what they like, but all three films are critically acclaimed and adored by fans worldwide for a reason. And no, not all popular media is good media, but these are not popular enough to fall into that category.
Miyazaki’s movies are more in the “visually stunning but mid” status IMO. Like, Howl’s was great, everything else is meh to me. But I also know that many people love them - including my wife - so I respect that they are good movies.
Castle in the sky is definitely one of his better ones. Wasn’t trying to talk shit either. I know people love them and with good reason. I just don’t think they’re all that. Except Howl’s. That movie rocks.
all three films are critically acclaimed and adored by fans worldwide
You can get critical acclaim for a ham sandwich with the right publicist. And it’ll have fans worldwide with a big enough marketing budget. In no small part thanks to the obscene ad buys for this film and Suzume, they got exactly that.
Miyazaki’s movies are more in the “visually stunning but mid” status IMO
Jesus, this is what I’m talking about. The Boy and The Heron got goose-egg for a marketing budget and people still queued up around the block to see it.
Meanwhile, I couldn’t make it a city block in Tokyo or Seoul without seeing a ten story tall billboard for Suzume. Makoto Shinkai and Koichiro Itou ape the Miyazaki style, but fall far short in the script delivery. They’re riding Miyazaki’s coat tails with all style and no substance.
There’s simply no throughline in Your Name or Suzume. Things just… happen. The characters are never well-developed or distinguishable from their stereotypes. The dialogue is awful. Neither hold a candle to Princess Mononoke.
but all three films are critically acclaimed and adored by fans worldwide for a reason.
You start off by pointing to how popular it is, implying that must mean it’s good.
And no, not all popular media is good media, but these are not popular enough to fall into that category.
And then you go onto to imply that popular can be bad, but because these aren’t that popular (contradicting yourself), it’s implied that that makes them good. Which is, in and of itself, bizarre. . .as if unpopular media can’t be bad.
“popular media that is actually bad” typically involves a formula that panders or a franchise that has hit a critical mass where people start wanting to be part of the “in group”. I don’t feel like Makoto Shinkai’s films fit that type of pattern. That’s all I was trying to say (poorly)
This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.
But, let’s consider:
The Super Bowl is a private corporate event; any song may be performed ceremoniously. That’s protected speech.
Not standing up for the Black National Anthem is whatever. That’s protected speech.
The Black National Anthem is a colloquial title and has no legal status. That’s protected speech.
While there is a statute outlying etiquette for performances of the National Anthem, there are no penalties for not adhering. That’s protected speech.
“America the Beautiful” was also performed and there’s no legal basis for etiquette or participation. This song also has a long history of being performed alongside the Star-Spangled Banner to the point that it’s sometimes referred to as the National Hymn, even though that is a colloquial and non-legal designation. That’s protected speech.
This is apparently the fourth year that “Lift Every Voice and Sing” has been performed at the Super Bowl. That’s protected speech.
They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.
E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.
Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.
We know that though. We know they only care because they’re racist. The commenter doesn’t care if it’s a legal issue or not. They just think it’s stupid and listed 6 reasons they think that. Move on it ain’t that deep.
Because it highlights a very obvious reason they have no reason to complain other than racism. This is like the fucking “I like waffles” tweet manifesting itself.
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung
Oh look, another strawman.
Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
Are you actively trying to give us an example of what MAGA outrage actually looks like? Because from here, reading your rants…. You’re coming off like a very upset Trump supporter.
There’s nothing in any of my comments to suggest that I’m “outraged”. You can project whatever emotions you want onto my comments if that’s what makes you happy. There’s nothing I can do about it and don’t care anyway. Just know that you’re only lying to yourself.
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
Calling someone “delusional” isn’t a figure of speech; that adjective isn’t used figuratively, as a simile, or as a metaphor. It’s used in this context as a direct accusation, and its literal meaning is already implied.
The larger context of why anyone is talking about what is sung at the Super Bowl should have been enough of a set up, but apparently not.
This entire stunt is predicated on the right’s frustration that they couldn’t do anything about black athletes and allies being disrespectful during the National Anthem (a legally defined song with etiquette spelled out in the US legal code), which is protected speech.
Now, in my opinion, they have a Super Bowl to posture about eight months before a presidential election. They want sound bites and over-the-top reactions so that they can paint themselves the victims of a hypocritical, leftist, anti-freedom conspiratorial media machine. This part of that “projection” plank in the modern GOP.
My original post was simply outlining that no matter how you slice it, there is nothing to be mad about them “protesting” the Black National Anthem. I added in a rhetorical refrain to drive home the point while beating a dead horse for effect.
A warning to anyone coming across this after the fact like I am : do not enter the comments below. There is nothing of value here. Just block this user and move on for the sake of your own sanity, they are a known troll and intentionally stupid.
My head-canon is that John Wilkes Booth didn’t kill Abraham Lincoln (pun fully intended). He was from the future.
Abe, given a vision of what the Republican party would turn into since he didn’t execute or deport every last treasonous dog of the Confederacy, promptly shot himself in disgust.
Why can’t people be pissed off with what a private company does? Like if there is a sweet company that makes blueberry flavour and it’s the best. If they stop selling it then I can be pissed. The argument “well it’s a private company it can do what it wants” is in no way related to if I get to be pissed at it.
They have freedom to do as they please, but whining about it does about as much as whining about blueberry flavor.
We aren’t saying you can’t be pissed, we are saying it is completely stupid that you are pissed and there is nothing you can do. There are far more things to be worried about in this country. We are eating ourselves alive, life expectancy is dropping, suicide rate and overdose rate is climbing, our jobs are being given to foreign countries and robots, no one owns anything anymore.
I’m starting to believe people whine about these pointless things in order to avoid confronting the more complicated and deeply rooted issues we have.
Culture and community is absolutely important to a lot of people. In fact it could be very important for happiness.
Maybe people don’t care about monetary things as much as you. Or maybe they care about both. It’s possible to care about everything you said and the superbowl.
No. My capitalist country paid for most of my education the rest I paid for on a low interest government backed loan. Total came to just over a years median salary.
I used my grandads old car as it was largely worthless until it completely died on me within a year then I bought my own secondhand car. But that was after uni and working for a bit, so I used my own money for that car.
my government gave me a loan at 6.8%. The amount I have paid into it is the same as the original principle amount, I still owe 80% of it because of the interest. I am making 2x the average American and am still on a hamster wheel of the capitalist death cult. I will never own anything at this rate
But there are more capitalist countries without stupid education loans than with, it’s kinda just you guys. You really need some form of proporional representation.
Well, you can choose the things you care about. Why waste your energy getting upset about something that has zero negative consequences in your life when you could be doing something productive, <s> like arguing on Lemmy? </s>
Ahhh, but you see, Cuba is attacking the US with it’s dangerous ideas - such as, for instance, the idea that you could not treat healthcare simply as a glorified scam to enrich billionaire parasites and nothing else.
That is far, far worse than people flying airplanes full of people into buildings full of people.
This is what baffles me. Knowing what we know, how tf are they still considered an ally or friendly? Even recently with their manipulation of oil prices with Russia.
Because until we have energy independence (sometimes called green energy), they’re the devil we’re in bed with … Which is yet another reason to get away from oil
Riiiiight… and the US military was merely “defending” 'Murica when they dropped more ordnance on Vietnam and Laos than they dropped during the entire span of WW2.
No benefit at all, but I doubt the U.S. will be discussing much with Cuba unless they agreed to get rid of the Chinese base that was built there. Id rather it be lifted but it’ll be staying for awhile.
That would almost certainly be a better method than superdelegates and corporations/lobbyists/PACs choosing our president and pretending to give us a choice. The election is a year out and, unless one of them drops dead, we already know with certainty who our two choices will be, and at least one of them would never be an option for most people.
The electoral college elects the president. We just vote on which side gets to send it's people there. Don't know a single name of one of these voters and they can and do vote against the will of the people. It's a partial democracy at best and really needs to change to popular vote already.
Last time I checked nobody in the US got an option to vote for “let’s not be an psychotic, thoroughly evil mass-murdering neocolonialist monstrosity that threatens the entire planet with nukes.”
I’m so tired of seeing thread #35738272 of Lemmy not understanding how a liberal democracy works. ‘WHY ARE WE NOT VOTING OUT THE OBVIOUS FASCISTS AND VOTING IN THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA RIGHT NOW, CLEARLY DEMOCRACY IS BROKEN’
Or does it perhaps mean “engage in a rigged spectacle every four years where the majority of people get to choose between two overmoneyed bureaucrats whose allegiance to the status quo has been vetted by corporate interests?”
“Liberal democracy” is no more democratic than “social darwinism” is socialist - or Darwinist.
Yeah but western elections aren’t rigged are they. You get a lot of choice. The two final candidates are just one part of that in the US system. Elsewhere there is much more variety, but the people tend to vote for safe, mainstream moderate candidates (with notable far right exceptions), which is why they consistently govern Europe and North America. Sadly, the world isn’t just confused populist leftists. Everyone does actually just want what they’ve all voted for.
but the people tend to vote for safe, mainstream moderate candidates
Really? Is that so? It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the wealthy that prefers funding these (supposedly) “safe, mainstream moderate candidates” that won’t upset the status quo that benefits said wealthy at the expense of everyone and everything else?
No, not really. Funding is no guarantee of political success, some of the most expensive campaigns in US history have been failures. People don’t want the status quo upset, that’s why it’s the status quo. People are continually voting for it.
some of the most expensive campaigns in US history
And what got them into the utterly privileged position of running those expensive campaigns in the first place, hmmm?
People don’t want the status quo upset,
No, be honest… you don’t want the status quo upset - which is why you are pretending “liberal democracy” can actually be called democratic with a straight face.
People are continually voting for it.
People are continuing to vote for the narrow set of political options they are allowed to vote for - that is it.
If there was any impetus for change like you want, Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have been beaten in a primary. You can believe it’s all rigged, but then to be honest you shouldn’t be complaining on lemmy, you should be doing a left wing Jan 6. I’m not American, I have paid leave, social benefits, free healthcare, bicycle lanes, so I don’t really care what your status quo is, but you guys are just amazing at voting against your own self interests.
Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have been beaten in a primary.
The “marketplace of ideas” bullcrap has been thoroughly debunked, liberal.
you should be doing a left wing Jan 6
Your suggestion is for leftists to do a white supremacist lynch mob? What else should the left do, “enlightened centrist?” A leftist “version” of the Holocaust, maybe?
so I don’t really care what your status quo is
I don’t live in the Global North - I live in the extraction zone… you know, those places that your status quo couldn’t exist without?
at voting against your own self interests.
So I’m going to assume that the resurgence of overt fascist ideology in Europe is merely Europeans “acting in their own self-interest”? I guess it’s just the same ole’ Europe then, eh?
Please explain. Seems to me like democracy is people having a roughly equal say in what the government does. (If it’s a representative democracy, then though electing officials who will do so)
So… despite you living in a (supposedly) “democratic” society, your actual day-to-day life is governed by that which is decidedly anti-democratic, correct?
No my day to day life is literally governed by the government.
What would you call a democracy? Who should be citizens of a company? Right now, publicly owned companies do reflect the desires of their ‘citizens,’ the shareholders. Does that count as democratic for you?
So that means all the employees are citizens of the company? Only current employees? What about contractors? An equal say, or proportional to their experience or skill? And does every decision need to be made in that manner?
Well, you see, the “good” part is that your opinion doesn’t matter to the US government, if it makes you feel any better. Most Americans don’t support many things, yet they still have to live with the decisions of a small elitist group that have hijacked power.
And instead of banding together and doing something about those evil motherfuckers, you all meekly submit to other rotting flesh bags who have no more right to rule over you than a sack of potatoes does.
I would argue that Carter was, he was even pro solar energy back during his presidency. He got screwed by the whiplash from previous administrations economic policy and got all the blame, so that really framed his time in office. It’s only recently that people have really started looking at his tenure differently.
I know I’m gonna catch heat for this, but sex-segregated physical competitions is one of the very few places where trans women shouldn’t be treated the same. Women’s sports competitions aren’t segregated by gender, they’re segregated by sex. Trans women are women in gender, but their body isn’t a biologically female body. That’s the exact definition of transgender - when your body’s biological sex doesn’t match your sense of gender. So by definition, trans women don’t have a biologically female body.
The whole point of sex-segregated sports is for people with female bodies to be able to have a fair competition, instead of them not even getting a chance to compete at all because if they had to compete against biological males then almost 100% of females wouldn’t even make the team. This is the whole reason why sports competitions are segregated by sex.
TLDR trans women should always be treated as women - except for sex-segregated physical competitions
Kind of a contradiction in that trans women aren’t female bit lol. Very much depends on how you define that and how you measure it.
The categories are also not called female categories, they’re called women’s categories, which is effectively the same thing in this conversation. Female is a loose category encompassing people with many typed of bodies and many hormonal levels and many degrees of feminization and masculinization. This is effectively excluding one group of women specifically and ignoring all other groups that have advantages.
Trans women are not biologically female - that is not up for debate. Gender and sex were used interchangeably for the majority of the Olympics’ existence so you can’t “well ackshually” about the definition of women’s sports here - they meant biologically female and you know it. There is no contradiction unless you completely ignore the context.
Honestly, at this point I think the person you are responding to is either a troll, or just so violently obsessed with inclusion that they will refuse every single argument that does not align with their view, while defending all avenues that align with their way of thinking, no matter how ridiculous they might be.
My understanding is that's true for muscle mass. However, if they transition after puberty like Lia Thomas did, height and wingspan will remain; both of which confer huge advantages in swimming. Apparently that's a major reason why Michael Phelps did so well, his arm span is ridiculous.
Are there no cis women with large wing spans or abnormal height, though? Are they still allowed to compete? Why would trans women specifically be excluded for that?
While outliers exist, this has to do with averages. On average men are taller than women, and this difference usually manifests between the ages of 12-15. This confers an advantage. However, for trans athletes who transition before puberty it's far less cut and dry and there's a good case to be made for inclusion.
So again why are cisgender women who are above average allowed to compete but transgender women are CATEGORICALLY not allowed to compete even if we’re within the average for all women?
Because athletic associations decided long ago to segregate athletics by sex to account for this average difference, even though some women are taller and stronger than men.
So it’s just a ban on trans women from sports, just because with no actual logic or ethical rationale behind it. Even though it is literally not fair, and the justification provided for it is “fairness”. Gotcha.
It’s literally the most logical and ethical rationale that could be achieved. The ethical and logical rationale is that sexual dimorphism exists, and we understand it quite succinctly.
They are separated by sex, because people are separated by sex characteristics.
Since Gender no longer refers to sex, it only refers to perceived place in society, it has no place being used as a metric for sports.
Intersex people exist and the variation of people assigned one sex or the other is damn near infinite so no, the assertion that sex is binary is really only ever used to exclude transgender people and intersex people from rights and to assert that there is a biological basis for assigned gender roles. Sex is dimorphic because we choose to describe it that way, we could just as easily have more sexes just by creating more categories based on aspects of human physiology.
And I’m female, so the only ethical rationale would be that I would compete with other people that we consider female.
If I’m born crippled, I can’t compete in the Olympics. It happens. We can only produce the closest thing to fair that we all agree on. It’s not to exclude transgender people, it’s simply that the exclusion just happens to exist based on how we determine eligibility.
If the variation is so wide, then gendered sports are completely pointless. With such a wide variation, and the non binary nature of sex you describe, we could either make a ton of pockets, or simply not make any.
Literally the only reason we have a separate category of women’s sports is because, on average, women are physically weaker than men. If both sexes could compete against each other, women would barely exist in elite sports. If that wasn’t the case, there’d be no justification for excluding cis men from women’s sports. After all, being male is “just another advantage” like being tall, right?
On average, cis women are physically weaker than trans women also, and so the same logic applies.
The only equitable solution I can see is a third category of trans sports, where trans people compete against each other
So any woman stronger than the average for women ought to also be excluded then? Again, why is it specific that trans women be excluded?
There are not and likely will not be anywhere near enough trans people to occupy a single category at a single event. Refusing to allow trans women to compete as women, like every other woman, is a de facto ban on transgender women participating in sporting events. Transgender women are women, just like tall women are women and women with large lung capacity are women. Why should trans women be excluded for being above average but other women who are above average shouldn’t be?
No, not any woman stronger than the average for women, because by definition the leading woman will always be stronger than other women.
At the same time, plenty of cis men are weaker than the average female athlete, but we don’t let them compete.
We exclude all males as a category, including former males, because on average they have an unfair advantage. Attempting to make exceptions based on individual performance isn’t feasible.
Effectively, women’s sports are like amateur vs pro competition. You don’t let an ex pro play in an amateur match, even if they’re not as strong as they once were.
So de facto banning some women from any kind of professional sporting competition is acceptable because it’s too much work to include them? Why is that acceptable to you? And why is it necessary to couch these concepts in discussions about fairness when you yourself admit they are not fair? Excluding female people from female categories seems counterproductive to any attempts at providing level playing fields for women and girls in professional athletics.
Also there are other groups of women that are on average more physically capable then the average for women as a whole. Should they also be excluded?
I’m not sure where the disconnect is happening. It’s been explained to you over and over but you loop back.
The two categories exist to provide women a fair chance to compete in a category of their own. We don’t establish categories based on outliers, but on averages. On average male athletes will always outperform female athletes. There is no way around this fact. It’s not a matter of too much work to include females. There is no work to be had if we wanted to ensure fair odds. Most of the trans community agrees with this assessment. It’s not that hot of a take.
Most of the trans community absolutely does not agree that trans women should be excluded from women’s sports, no clue where you’re getting that from.
And trans women are women, excluding us from women’s sports is literally not fair. We are not men, nor are we male. So we are not going to compete in men sports or male categories.
And if we don’t make sports fair for everyone then why are you talking about fairness?? If it’s not fair already then what materially is lost by trans women competing?
Say a transgender woman wins at a competition in women’s sports, what materially has been lost here? A woman won a women’s sporting event. What is happening that is unfair?? She’s female, she’s a woman, so how can you assert that she shouldn’t be able to participate in women’s sports? To what end? What is lost by letting the half a dozen trans female athletes in the world compete?
The literal only justification for it is a fundamental belief that trans women are not female or are not women. Any other attempt at justifying it falls apart at the seams because there are more outlier women physically than there are transgender women at all, so banning transgender women but allowing outlier women to compete is literally just banning us cause we’re trans.
Most of the trans community agrees with this assessment.
No they don't...
I tried googling for some statistics regarding trans people's opinions on this matter and I didn't find anything, is there a poll either of you has seen that indicates this or is this the general consensus among trans people you know?
Level playing fields for women and girls aren’t served by allowing competition from people who haven’t always been female. Its not fair on cis women to have to compete against people who’ve had advantages from going through puberty while male.
The purpose of women’s sport isn’t to be inclusive of women, its to be exclusive of men. And its not that it’s too much work to include some trans women on the basis of ability, it’s that it’s just impossible. Do they include only those who aren’t likely to win? Maybe some that can win, but not by too much? What about a champion male who’s recently transitioned and would shatter the world record, making it unattainable for any cis woman for years to come, maybe ever? There’s no way of making those judgements, no matter how much work is done.
Its the same principle as banning performance enhancing drugs. Some clean athletes might beat some drug using athletes, but we don’t try to figure that out, we just ban drugs. And puberty as a male is getting a few years if hormone-induced muscle gain that isn’t fully lost even post-transition, even on hormone blocking drugs.
The bar for entry is and has always been several years of sustained hormone therapy with normal estrogen and testosterone levels. And even that is far too restrictive.
What about groups of cisgender women who are above the physical average for women as a whole? Why is the proposal to ban transgender women and not other groups/classes of women based on them being on par above average? I mean is it fair for women from South Korea to compete against women from the Netherlands? Should women from the Netherlands be banned from competition? They have an average advantage, so it’s unfair to the rest of the women that they’re allowed at all.
Your essential argument has to be that transgender women are not women. There is no other argument for excluding trans women that adequately explains why it’s necessary for trans women to be excluded and not anyone else.
Why should trans women be excluded for being above average but other women who are above average shouldn’t be?
Because by nature of their transition, they don’t fit in a single cleanly defined category. We should just change the definition to say: Those with XX chromosomal pairs. Because you can’t change those. Nice and simple. Anyone with double-X chromosomes, good deal. Anyone with XY - goes into the “open” category - which is by default, the ones usually with mostly men in them.
So would a cisgender man with De la Chapelle syndrome, who has XX chromosomes, be required to compete with cis women? Would a person with XY chromosomes whose body was assigned female at birth due to Swyer syndrome or complete androgen insensitivity be required to compete against cis men?
Or would you just disqualify anyone who has any intersex characteristics, which are about as common as having red hair?
Phelps has huge palms that support his paddling ability and is 14 feet tall, which essentially act as flippers (the kind of fingerless arms that seals have).
Probably not many, but that is because he is already in his 50s. If you do that with an Olympic level male athlete, on his early 20s and on his prime, then absolutely.
The thing that really sucks is that tran women are gonna get absolutely dominated by cis men. HRT for long enough really does so so much to the body (hence why most sports allow trans people who have transitioned to compete). Tho trans men also would have insane advantage overs cis women if they competed together
Maybe there isn’t any good solution. But what you are saying leads to a conclusion that there is no place in sports for trans people. Then again, these conversations always fall apart when we talk about cis people with abnormal hormone profiles.
End of the day, a lot of competitive sports come down to genetics. There isn’t much room for someone with disadvantagious genetics to become the best in the world. For me, I don’t see much difference in a trans woman who’s transitioned being world class in swimming and a tall ass cis woman dominating in basketball. Especially when we don’t see trans people sweeping in competitions as a wider trend
The problem is that fundamentally there are differences within the genders that favour one competitor over another.
Take Michael Phelps – “Michael Phelps’s height, wingspan, and large hands and feet give him an advantage in swimming. His body also produces less lactic acid than his rivals, which shortens his recovery time.” According to that he should have been disqualified from competing as his body was fundamentally different from his competitors.Yet he was glorified for his achievements even though he had an edge nobody else had.
Herein lies the biggest issue … trans people are disqualified for the simple reason nobody in power wants to deal with them, so the anti-trans movement wins again.
Stop labeling people anti-trans just because they disagree with you about the mechanics of a zero-sum competition situation. The majority of people here are PRO-TRANS, and ALSO pro-women. We all just want the system that provides the most fairness in a situation where there’s no way for it to be completely fair to everyone.
If there are 10 seats on a team, every spot taken by a person means that a different person doesn’t get that spot. So we as a caring society have to decide who CAN get that seat, and also who CAN’T get that seat. It all comes down to whether or not women born with biologically male bodies have a physical advantage over women born with biologically female bodies. At the very minimum, people who went through male puberty have a physical advantage over people who didn’t go through male puberty.
I think you make a valid point that someone could be trying to find fairness in a difficult situation without being anti-trans.
On the other hand, it’s sports. Which is not driven by fairness, but by money. I don’t give a shit either way, as far as I am concerned dope everyone up the gills and modify everyone into super humans, it is just silly sports. But I am not the person paying or advertising.
And that is all that matters. Will the advertisers put in money, and will people pay to watch. Currently, the society of those groups of people say no.
If it was purely about money, major league sports wouldn’t be spending millions on their players.
Sports is about entertainment. Entertainment is about money.
The sport has to be good, with talented players to make it entertaining.
In the case of the Trans male Swimmer, they competed as a male and got slaughtered constantly. This person on a olpmic level is a bottom tier competitor who you have as backup. The person as a male, constantly finished in the lower half of their bracket. THEN transitioned to female, and immediately started dominating her competitors. This person only wants to be the best in their league.
If it was purely about money, major league sports wouldn’t be spending millions on their players.
Of course they would, there are only so many to go around. They sell seats and products. That is how it works. You spend money to make a winning team, you appease the fans, you make money. OR you are really rich and want to brag about having a winning team. Money, Money, Money.
This person only wants to be the best in their league.
Who doesn’t?
I am not disagreeing that it is difficult to figure out rules if you want to make it fair for everyone competing, but the reality is businesses are making money, and this is a diversion that does not make them money.
Can you define male puberty though? Like qualitatively in specific terms and with specific language?
Being pro trans is being pro women. Excluding some women from women’s sports would be discriminatory to those women. In this case those women are transgender, and they are being excluded because they are transgender. Which would be opposed to their right to participate, a right we recognize for all other women and girls. That would be anti trans, in this specific context. It doesn’t mean you oppose all of trans rights, but you’re actively supporting the exclusion of trans people from professional athletics.
Preventing trans women from competing in women’s sports is a ban on trans women in sports. Trans women do not have testosterone levels anywhere near cis male levels. And none of us are going to degrade ourselves by being categorized as men.
If you would make trans women compete against men then you’re saying trans women aren’t women. It’s as simple as that.
You are saying it would be degrading to have a trans woman compete against men, but a trans man is not allowed to compete against anyone because they are taking a banned substance to transition. Which is more degrading?
True! Yes trans men should be allowed to compete in men’s categories. I think they are strictly speaking so long as their T levels aren’t abnormally high (same as all men).
I’m not sure what your complaint is with biologically male/female being bullshit. Do you think that a person who was born with male parts but a female mind/spirit/soul doesn’t have testosterone levels and musculature different from a person who was born with female parts?
You want me to read a book about what you think? Where can I find such a book? It sounds suspiciously like you don’t want to engage in a real conversation and just want to tell people who don’t agree 100% with you that they are uneducated morons.
I’m serious, too. Do you disagree that people born with male parts have different levels of hormones and musculature and bone differences from people born with female parts? I’m wildly in favor of trans rights and understand that I will never understand what it’s like for them, so I am always trying to learn new ways to look at different situations.
The most classic stereotypical retort of someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is trying to deflect because they know they’re unable to support their claim
I absolutely won’t sit down. You don’t have any authority to silence people, neither from a power perspective nor a moral perspective. You need to grow up and learn how to have a discussion with people you disagree with.
On a personal level I’ve been very friendly and engaging in serious discussion with other people. And on the subject matter I’ve been very clear, on-topic, rational, understanding, and providing of citations for my claims. You should learn how to do it.
That sounds like a more ideal compromise, though I am not sure if even that is without its own set of issues.
Basically, athletic performance falls on the same gradient as masculinity. The more masculine your body is, the more capable you are as an athlete on average. If you are a trans woman taking T blockers/estrogen supplements, your body becomes more feminine, but in turn you lose much of that athletic capability.
So hypothetically, if I am a trans woman and an athlete, where I am paid based on how well I do, am I incentivised to not take T blockers/estrogen supplements, or take them in more limited doses, in order to be a more capable athlete? Basically, am I forced to compromise my gender identity for a better paycheck?
We could force every trans athlete to undergo lab work before every match to make sure their T levels are within a certain threshold, but then is that someone’s fault if their body is not being as responsive to the medication they’re taking, and now they’re out a job? Not to mention how that would basically force their medical history to be public knowledge.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable inviting these sorts of scenarios to occur, to be honest.
Trans people get the lab work you’re talking about done regularly anyway, because it’s part of ensuring their levels are safe and correct.
You’re voting for exclusion (trans competitions will never happen) because you’re uncomfortable with trans people having to do something that is already part of their daily lives
I think you may have misread what I was suggesting.
Trans people should never have to disclose part of their medical history to stay employed. Even if you get regular testing and it’s no big deal, what goes into your medical record should be between you, your doctor, and no one else. There should never be a scenario of “Star kicker of [team] barred from competition because her labs showed she is too masc.”
My point was not to suggest that as an option, but more that it would be a bad proposition to try to avoid the scenario where trans people would be incentivised to partially detransition (MtF) or take too many supplements (FtM) when athletic performance is directly correlated to how many androgens your body has.
I don’t know how to avoid that scenario in a capitalist system, to be honest with you.
I’d rather submit my records to a sports oversight board than be excluded from competing.
You say “trans people shouldn’t have to disclose their medical history to stay employed”, but you’re seemingly happy to speak for trans folk and just accept that they should be unemployed.
The real irony being that anyone in elite sports, trans or not, already has to submit to the lab work you’re uncomfortable with, as a condition of their employment.
The scenario you’re trying to avoid? That’s why the lab work already happens, because many cis athletes take performance enhancing drugs to gain advantage, because they’re incentivised to in a capitalist society.
But somehow, that lab work is only an issue that you feel the need to speak up on when it’s for trans folk?
Honestly, I think it’s not that big of a deal. I’m sure something can be worked out sure, but it’s not the most important issue that trans people have to deal with.
Trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for 20 years now. There have been zero trans medalists. If this advantage actually exists, why aren’t they winning?
If i had to guess I’d say it’s simply numbers. Compared to the rest of the population, trans people are extremely rare, and so there likely just haven’t been enough trans people to have been there yet.
3% of the population, about 300 events per Olympics, assume 5 in the past 20 years, so that’s a conservative estimate of 1500 medals. You’d expect 45 medals to just be proportional, and significantly more than 45 would prove an advantage. 0 shows an extremely severe disadvantage.
Actually more like 60 medals would be the baseline expectation if you’re counting winter Olympics too.
Even if you estimate as conservatively as possible, 1% of the population and ignore winter Olympics, you have an expected medal count of 15, 0 is a massive anomaly without some sort of significant disadvantage.
Edit: triple all those numbers to include silver and bronze, realistic estimate of 180, extremely conservative estimate of 45.
You are completely ignoring the externalities of competing at the Olympic level. Trans people are going through so many societal, cultural, interpersonal, and internal conflicts that focusing on training at an Olympic level is going to be more difficult. You can be the most physically gifted athlete in the world, but if your head is not in the right space to train 12 hours a day while still going about your normal life then you aren’t going to be able to compete at that level. Hell, look at how far Tiger Woods’s performances fell after his public disgrace. Yes, some of that was drugs and some was from an injury, but a lot of sports is mental.
Also, you are ignoring that while the Olympic committee might allow it, do you think most countries in the world are so open about trans people?
Also also, do you remember the controversy around the East German women’s team from the 70s? How everyone suspected some were men? There might have been trans people winning medals, just maybe not openly.
There have only been 4 known transgender Olympic athletes so far.
And of those 4 it seems like none of them are born-male people who are now competing in a women’s event, which is the only situation where the trans person would have an advantage.
Of it was simply numbers, there would have been a trans gold medalist by now. Trans people make up 1-3% of the population. Over the span of 20 years and hundreds of competitions each year, surely a group that supposedly physically dominates the gender group they are in would at least have gotten one gold medal.
There have only been 4 known transgender Olympic athletes so far.
And of those 4 it seems like none of them are born-male people who are now competing in a women’s event, which is the only situation where the trans person would have an advantage.
You need to be a one in a million talent. I’m a male and despite not taking testosterone blockers I don’t have enough talent to be successful in any sport against women. Even with my testosterone, I just don’t have elite genetics
So… After they have been on HRT for a while? Periods are triggered by hormones, and there’s a lot more to a period than just bleeding. Many trans women experience cramps, bloating, mood swings, etc. on a monthly cycle. There are also some cis women who have irregular or no periods; would they still be allowed to compete or would you ban them as well?
So, monthly periods. Then exclude irregular women, women who have had a hysterectomy and such.
I agree with the point of trans women having an unfair advantage, but your reductionist point of view is moronic, unless you meant it as a joke, which certainly did not land.
I mean, it’s testable. On average, how do trans women compare to cis women in some particular sport? From my knowledge, when actually competing, trans women on hrt do not, in fact, do significantly better than cis women.
The real answer here is to do away with gender/sex separation and instead have classifications based of total mass, bone density, muscle fiber density, and maybe hormonal levels. Stop trying to deal with the generalistics and target the issues that actually matter.
it is important to understand the level of physical fitness/performance [trans] individuals possess relative to their cisgender counterparts. Unfortunately, there are few studies investigating this topic, and several complications that confound this research.
And skimming through the article extremely quickly, they say in several places that the data shows trans people do have at least a slight advantage over cis people.
And on top of all that, this is a review article, not a study. A review article is just someone’s overview and discussion of a topic, kind of like a newspaper op-ed
Infuriating thing was, this judge was clearly shopped for, but he kicked the case to the DC district Court instead of Texas. He himself even accused the banks of venue shopping in the ruling when he did so! Unfortunately the DC district court sent it right back and said he still had to take the case. He should have recused himself at that pont anyways given his stock holdings and things, but he now decides to reward the the banks for their venue shopping he’s clearly aware of. Judiciary is rotten.
The legal standard for an injunction also includes a “likelihood of success on the merits.” The judge agrees with the banks in his ruling that they are likely to succeed on the case. So unfortunately the injunction is a signal there is a good chance he rules in the banks favor ultimately. Though he spends a bunch of the ruling just talking about how he’s mad this case was kicked back to him. He only spends like a page talking about if the legal standard for injunction has been met or not.
Not just likelihood of success, but also whether any irreparable harm could occur while the case is being decided, in the event the case favors the plaintiffs. In this case, if card companies are only allowed to collect $8 while the case is ongoing, and then a judge ruling they are allowed to collect more than that, means there’s a monetary loss that will have happened. Now I wouldn’t be crying if credit card companies are forced to stop ripping people off, and absolutely fuck the Chamber of Commerce, but that’s what it is.
Yes I agree, but it doesn’t just have to meet some of those criteria to get an injunction, it has to meet all those criteria, including likelihood of success. They can’t just argue irreparable harm only if the judge thinks they’re unlikely to succeed. The judge seems to agree with them in that section of the ruling that he thinks that the rule is likely unconstitutional. And conservative judges have been pretty hostile to the consumer financial protection bureau in general. I’m not holding my breath, at least not for this judge, but maybe ultimately on appeal the cfpb will still succeed in the end.
Since credit card companies are currently allowed to charge outrageous fees, that would be akin to an ex post facto action so no they wouldn’t. Also while said fees are outrageous, the harm to consumers isn’t relevant because the suit is between credit card companies and the government.
So keep in mind that harm as a legal concept is not the same as the general definition of harm. In the legal world, harm must be caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs. In this case, the government preventing card companies from collecting outrageous late fees does cause them monetary harm, so the question will be if the government has the right to do so.
No shit. Groceries have gone up 40% in the past 1-2 years for no real reason while wages have not and things like housing are going up too. Amazing that people would be buying less ‘units’.
No doubt. I’m starting to eat healthier because a bag of Doritos is like $5 now when I used to buy it for $2.50-3.00. That’s just one example, but across my snacking ‘units’, everything is outrageous.
Where I am, cooking oil is now $14.99 for a 3 liter jug and never goes on sale anymore. It used to be $5.99, and would frequently go on sale for $2.99. I haven't deep-fried anything in months. This isn't the way I expected to start eating healthier...
The American dream is dead. When good people can’t even afford their first cardiac arrest from eating carnival food like fried butter we know lady liberty is sheding tears of regret.
It’s $3.11 canadian dollars from department and grocery stores where I live. Pepsi hasn’t gone up as much, which includes Rockstar energy drinks, which are now cheaper than Coke somehow. On the Walmart website, they show 52 cents per 100ml of rockstar vs 53 cents for Coke.
Sure, I noticed that part. Inflation is always a scam, built into the monetary system, and while manufacturers/distributors are paying more for their materials and energy also, the rest is price gouging. It’s ‘working’ because people have no choice but to you know, eat food.
Inflation is a natural phenomenon that will occur with or without any amount of central monetary planning. It's impossible to introduce new currency without it affecting the value of that currency. You either don't introduce currency, which causes the existing currency to become more and more valuable as economic developments create new value, or you print some new money which will cause some amount of inflation.
If your economy has $1000 dollars in it, and suddenly a new invention allows you to create 50% more widgets for the same cost, then the same amount of money is now more valuable since it can fund the creation of more stuff. You can instead add another $500 to the economy to represent this new wealth, but that will have an inflationary effect. You can try to balance it to keep it relatively low, which is what the Fed does with its 2% inflation target, but there's no real way to completely get rid of it. Additionally, some amount of inflation encourages people to put money into more productive assets like investments rather than simply hording all their money, allowing the existence of things like credit, which are pretty helpful for anyone looking to start a business or buy a house. But, credit requires you to either have a lot of money sitting around in order to make that loan, or you need to be able to print money. The latter offers a lot more flexibility, but again, thus inflation.
I’ve noticed a lot of things taste worse. Maybe worse ingredients, but also like things were burnt on the assembly line or left out to dry for too long
It has helped me cut down on eating processed food… It’s expensive and not even good half the time
You’ve noticed the trees but missed the forest. Housing is so astronomically worse. Sure, it sucks to buy bread, but have you looked at mortgage rates??
Mortgage rates aren’t the real issue IMO, but it is an indicator. The real issue is a mix of rent and food prices, which have both gone up drastically. Add to that financing costs for cars and you have basically increased the most common expenses most households have.
Mortgage interest isn’t something the bottom 50% need to interact with, rent, food, and cars are.
Where do you live that your groceries only went up 40%??? Here it was more like 100-150%. A dozen eggs from a company I like went from $2.89 back in 2021 to $5.69. They said it was avian flu, temporary, covid, etc. Prices today are still $5.69.
This went across the board. A bushel of green onions went from $.99 to $1.99. Some places went higher.
The worst part of all this is that both rent/mortgage and food doubled in a matter of 3 years. And you have to pay these. There’s no avoiding food and shelter.
It’s as if the entire world just threw you down and started rifling through your pockets. The nice ones let you keep a shilling…
I’ve found the prices very much depend on where you shop. A dozen good eggs at my local Albertson’s is $2.50-7.00 depending on how organiccy they are, but I can get 18 at natural Grocers for $5.50 or 24 at Costco for $7.50. Green onions are 2 bundles for $.99 at this Chinese grocery store near me, 89 cents at the local Kroger, or $2.50 at the food coop. A whole chicken at Natural Grocers went from $9.99 to $12.99, but at other stores they’re $15-25 (one is charging $4.99 a lb, which is definitely double what it was a few years ago).
Our rent hasn’t gone up much because it was already ridiculous when my girlfriend signed 3 years ago. Our neighbors who moved in 7 years ago are paying less than 50%.
And yeah, what’s happened with the prices of neccessities is absurd. It’s also absurd that official sources say ‘inflation of 6%! 10%!’. Complete bullshit when we can see prices that went up way more than that.
Jesus, where I live eggs are back down to $1.99 a dozen which is more than they used to be but not that extreme. I think pre-pandemic, we were paying $1.79. There was a period where the store brand was $5.99 and Egg Lands Best was $3.99 which made no sense to me.
It sounds like Charles Edward Littlejohn is a fucking badass and overall rad dude worth celebrating. Additionally, if he gets the maximum sentence of 5 years, that will be drastically longer than many of the January 6th rioters. I can't change the outcome for him, but I do wish him luck.
That’s exactly my point. Now people want more. Escalate it. Same bullshit as Israel/palestine. Well the first guy did “x” first, then the other guy says but you did the other thing first, etc., etc…
The height of stupidity, there is no end of the blame game of grievances, manufactured or real.
No, I’m not saying “both sides”, one side is objectively better (even if marginally), I’m saying a war of escalating tit-for-tat justifications is useless.
E: in comparison, according the following comments who apparently haven’t a clue and completely misrepresent my intent and argument: Biden should release any democrats from prison or reinstate democrats in positions after they left due to any impropriety. That’s the war of escalation I’m talking about, not simply following the law.
It doesn’t matter if it’s your point or not, it’s still a wrong-headed way of thinking about the situation because the world doesn’t revolve around fearing what Republicans will do if a Democrat pardons a righteous man. He should be pardoned regardless.
You are creating the us vs. them situation you’re accusing you opponent of engaging in specifically by making that argument. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We do not simply stop doing what is right because some assholes might pardon evil people in retaliation. We do what is right regardless, because that’s the whole point of righteousness.
Republicans will pardon their own anyway so it doesn’t even matter. We need to do the same.
My point doesn’t matter? So you discard my point to make yours? What the heck kind of argument is that? My point wasn’t about right vs wrong, it was about taking knee-jerk retaliatory action devoid of nuance or reason.
You accused me of making it about fear of republicans, that’s doing what you accused me of doing by “creating” the argument. I said nothing about appeasement or letting them have their way to avoid trouble.
In no way shape or form do I think actual and real harm should remain unaddressed. Bullshit must be met head on, but with measured and real responses. But just knee-jerk reaction? No.
Your point is irrelevant, because it is a fundamental misrepresentation of the situation you are imposing because you have an ideological agenda. One which we will not be bullied or manipulated into submitting to.
You’re not even really reading or thinking about what I’m saying, you’re just repeating what you said before like a robot. And I don’t argue with robots.
Misrepresentation of the situation I’m imposing…wow. Way to twist my words. I make a point, stick to it, and you accuse me of bullying because you’d rather I bend a knee to you? Fine. Feel free to engage in your tit-for-tat war. I’ll just hang over here to you finally set each other on fire while screaming “the other guy did it first”. What a fucking waste of time.
Are you willfully blind to what happens if you let your opponents oppress and abuse you without fighting back in kind? I am not going to the gulag. Have fun there.
Your methodology ends up with a dictator seizing power to put all their opponents in the gulag. All you’re saying is that you hope your dictator wins first. You’re absolutely clueless about geopolitical history if you don’t understand how this works.
I don’t see you offering a viable alternative. Your method is to just acquiesce? The rule of law has already failed. Trump is not in jail. The Supreme Court (1/3 appointed by Trump) is on the take from conservative billionaires. Congressional corruption put Gorsuch on the Court rather than Garland (longest vacancy by 3x the next longest), then turned around and replaced Ginsberg with an extremely quick turnaround.
The failure to act in kind has already weakened this country irreparably. Let’s keep letting them do what they do. It’s worked out terribly so far.
So yeah, I would rather my dictator than their’s, but I am going to get their’s.
The viable alternative is to follow the law and vote the assholes out. If you cannot manage that and/or it fails, and still wish to maintain some semblance of democracy, you’re fucked. I think that’s painfully obvious. You try to do the right thing, and if you choose the same path as the shitheads you hate you’re just the same. You just twisted the needle from a christo-fascist autocracy to a Stalinist communist autocracy.
Even if we vote him out, he is going to claim he won and run a rebellion. Probably better planned and more successful this time. His opposition is largely a bunch of pussies that let him and his ilk trample the rule of law. There is no outcome to this coming election that is not a disaster.
That seems like a rational take and I agree with you. Curious why the down votes? Because you’re alluding to Biden having shortcomings at all? Or because it’s perceived as a both sides are the same argument?
It’s hard to accept we’re living in such a tribal world. There’s no more nuance or middle ground in the majority it seems.
He’s getting down voted because most people in this thread are foaming at the mouth.
I hate trump as much as the next guy. What this guy did, tho, is currently against the law. Should the law be changed? Should he have gone through a whistle blower process? Questions to be asked.
But as of today, you can’t purposely get a job at the IRS to leak information that the IRS wasn’t ready/allowed to release. Full stop.
The folks arguing here that he should be pardoned or who are enraged that he is even being charged are presenting childish arguments. There’s a theme on Lemmy that I’ve noticed. Tribalism is strong as fuck.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.