If we’re talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I’m broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports. I think it’s a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women’s changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don’t pretend that I have the answer, but I don’t think it is as simple as “I identify as X so I’ll use X changing room”. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t think this is a “sneaky perv” issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you’re not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you’re not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
I think all sports aren’t equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.
If sex doesn’t matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?
I do understand the sentiment of what you’re saying, but it’s not the reality we live in.
The “people who control sports organizations” only made separate leagues for women because some mens’ feelings get hurt when they lose to women.
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect; and even then, sports like chess don’t separate males and females (they offer female-only competitions).
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
What are you on about? There are two HUGE reasons: safety and fairness:
-
Especially in contact sports, allowing women to play with men is not safe, and would only lead to an environment conducive to women getting injured.
-
There would be zero professional female athletes (excluding sports that only require mental strategy ofc) if there were no separate leagues for women. They wouldn’t perform at even close to the same level as the men, AND would be at increased risk of injury.
I don’t know what fantasy world you live in, but here are biological factors that make it necessary to separate men and women in order to have fair competition. Female athletes would be infinitely worse off if forced to try to compete in a single league shared with men, because they aren’t be able to.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect
No, I do not.
Mens egos are so fragile that women were banned from minor league baseball when Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931.
Figure skating was segregated in 1903 for the same reason, Madge Syers took the silver medal from a man.
The history of womens’ sports is rife with examples like this, most sports started out as co-ed and only stayed that way until women started winning.
Figure skating is a perfect example of a performance sport, there isnt any physicality. Also, I think its absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jackie Mitchell striking out an aging Ruth and Gherig in an exhibition match is a woman ‘starting to win’.
-
Which sports do the women often beat the men in?
Ultra-endurance sports such as marathons (women show a statistical advantage over men above the 150-mile mark), Figure Skating (Madge Syers beat two men for the silver medal in 1902, women were then banned from competing until the sport was gender-segregated in 1906), Baseball (Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later), Shooting sports (Zhang Shang took the gold in shotgun skeet in 1992, women were’t allowed to compete again until the sport was gender-segregated in 2000, and women average higher scores in the rifle category to this day), etc etc.
Shootings an interesting one. Most people familiar with guns notice women take to shooting accurately more easily and quickly than guys (with rifles, not handguns). I’ve seen this lots personally. My theory involves lower heart rate and lower muscle mass being conducive.
I can’t speak to curling, but in chess the womens’ leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it’s more about gender than physical sex.
There are very few women chess players at the top level of the game. The reasons for this are debatable, it could simply be that women are less interested in chess or that women are put off by a male dominated “sport”, but I’ve also heard that men are much more likely to have a specific type of autism that makes them especially suited to doing well at chess.
I’m absolutely open minded to the idea that women can become top level chess players and that women’s titles could be made redundant, but I think it’s reasonable to see the evidence of this before we say that it’s an equal playing field for both sexes. I’d suggest that we should see a decent proportion of women in the top one hundred players of the world, or even the top two hundred and fifty.
Given the current ranking of chess players, it’s really hard to say that women have the same chess ability as the men and I absolutely don’t want that to come across as sexism, it’s just factual.
There’s actually a big different in mens and women’s IQ distribution. Men are all over the map, from extremely dumb to extremely smart, but women tend to statistically cluster in the middle with comparatively few outliers. Way less mentally deficient, very few Bobby Fischers.
Brain like squirrels, duh.
That’s absolutely not what I’m saying and I don’t appreciate the insinuation.
Squirrel spotted
They told us for so long gender isn’t sex, and then somehow it was, as far as this sports issue
Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.
Nah I think it’s because your reply indicates you missed the point.
Possibly, or maybe your comment wasn’t well written enough.
Yes, it does require you think about it a little bit
100% agree with everything you said.
Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.
Especially if that’s food that’s going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.
true. but next time, just buy/make less food.
Why?
because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:
- it is expensive
- it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
- if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it
is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?
- Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
- Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
- Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.
My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.
[Country] isn’t real, it was made up by [its founders] to [dodge taxes / dominate neighboring city-states / measure dicks with [Other Country]]
heh, just replace [Country] with [The Country I dont like] and you’ve got yourself a deal
Humans are doomed, destroy themselves one way or another.
Life itself is probably doomed by sheer laws of entropy lol
Using windows os should be marked as crimes against humanity.
The doomsday argument is correct, and becomes more obviously correct with each passing day.
You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.
until what age ?
Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat
I guess till they become and adult because they are in charge of their decisions at that point.
so they cant use a phone even at 15-17 ? a lot of kids have jobs at that point.
Flip phone or non internet phone. We have a phone for the kids, but its not one that can get them to the internet or sending pictures.
unfortunately they will almost certainly get picked on. i dont think abstinence is the best idea here, better to educate them on the dangers and monitor/restrict what they are using the phone for. lest they hate you. but certainly for someone under 12-14 they do not need a phone.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont want my kids to fit in with those kids, and thus we have them in private schools now. One main issue is even if you teach them not to just start watching porn, they turn into one of those kids that is on their phone all the time and then transitions into an adult like that too.
you realize most kids will still find a way, even if you tell them not to ? its better to actually educate them. which is the point of parenting; not just to restrict what they are allowed to do.
Gun laws are ineffective. There is zero correlation between gun deaths and strictness of gun laws. Despite limits and bans of short barreled rifles, “assault weapons”, machine guns, etc, gun deaths have continually increased.
Gun bans are only effective where there already isn’t violence, at which point it’s redundant.
I believe the culprits behind widespread American violence are high rates of youth delinquency and gang related criminal activity.
The culprits are an extremely broken social safety net, crumbling education infrastructure and institutional racism.
The destruction of the library of Alexandria was a win.
How so?
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
No one authentically hates the word moist. There’s no evidence then anyone disliked the word before Friends made an episode about it. Everyone since that has either been parroting that episode or someone who, in turn, parroted the episode.
Either these people saw it and decided it was an interesting facet to add to their personality, or it was the first time they’ve ever consciously thought about how a word feels and sounds and that shattered their ignorance and spoiled a perfectly good word.
There was a Friends episode about it?
I don’t remember a friends episode about this either. I do remember it being on how I met your mother though so possibly the person you’re replying to was thinking of that.
Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant. I didn’t watch either of them.
Slurp is an infinitely worse word than moist.
Personally I dislike squelch, mulch, ask, just a ton of words, but I dislike them because they way they fell in my mouth. Either they’re hard to pronounce or they don’t feel nice in my mouth.
Turns out liquids of unusual viscosity is an excellent heuristic for things you shouldn’t put in your mouth.
Most drugs should be over-the-counter. The especially dangerous or addictive ones maybe just require counselling with a pharmacist first. But I’m more concerned about people not able to access the medication they need than I am about idiots removing themselves from the gene pool by OD.
People in my dumbass country would rather 10 people with a genuine medical need suffer as long as 1 addict can’t get a fix, and it’s so many layers of bullshit.
If you think otc drugs are expensive now, waitl the scheduled narcotics find their way into the open market
there’s not really a way to know for sure but I imagine the price would actually come down somewhat due to removal of red tape and paperwork associated with drug control
possibly also from increased competition if that made it easier for a drug manufacturer to begin producing previously controlled drugs
for example amphetamine salt production is capped by the US DEA. if that cap were removed the supply would increase and the price might very well decrease
sadly this is largely useless speculation
Personally i hope it stays that way. There are enough legal ways to lose ones mind and life
I don’t know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they’re just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they’re talking about. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally going “and you are?” when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it’s just some terminally online teenager.
Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community. You don’t get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we “have to support” and it keeps fucking us over. No, I’m not supporting this business just because it’s black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).
Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:
Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you’re an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.
Now THIS is a hot take
That was the assignment!
Uhhh.
Driving shouldn’t be at 25, nor marriage.
Any higher on marriage would be antinatalist, but I’m willing to go higher on driving for sure.
That would just screw over young people
Same for all laws requiring X age.
hot take about the hot take: it’s about marriage, not about having babies.
I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.
Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?
We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?
Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?
I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.
I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.
I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.
You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.
I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.
Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.
Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.
Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.
The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.
However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.
I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.
As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.
I agree, the sooner the better.
Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.
But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?
My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.
Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.
For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…
The post topic is “hot takes”, so my “always curtail driving” position is technically on-topic for the larger thread. ;]
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk
lmfao
Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…
Ok, in that case I totally agree. But going into detail about actual sex doesn’t seem like a great idea that early.
Only because you think sex is dirty, because you were stigmatized against talking about it at that age.
Of course I don’t think that, it’s one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there’s things they definitely DON’T need to know yet.
Who said this is what sex ed is about?
There’s more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.
We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.
If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they’re developing, not after.
And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people
Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!
If I can’t vote until I’m 25 then I don’t want to be paying tax until I’m 25.
No taxation without representation.
Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.
If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.
Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.
provide free transportation
I’m totally on board with this.
Usa obsession with keeping the 4th amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don’t see in other countries, starting for the school shootings…
But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅
Agreed, but it’s the second amendment, not the fourth.
Yes but we also avoid problems that other countries with gun bans have, such as massacres of civilians by military and police.
It’s sort of a balancing act you see.
such as massacres of civilians by military and police
massacres by police
USA
Who’s gonna tell them?
Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.
Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.
We haven’t had what Myanmar had recently.
No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”
Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Goalposts status: moved.
You can look this stuff up.
I did. It’s how I learned about this stuff. But you, in the meantime, apparently think that
trigger happy riot officer killing someone
Is totally different and not at all a symptom of overall system. Cool. Don’t forget to keep your hands on the wheel in a traffic stop, lest an acorn falls.
Okay so you reached back 40 years and found an event where the government made 250 people homeless and killed 6 people.
Using a bombing raid.
Let’s see what I can find in the other column …
Oh look, a few weeks ago the government of Myanmar killed 30 civilians
So by reaching back to May I was able to find a massacre, in a country with a civilian weapons ban, five times larger than the on you found by reaching back to 1985, in a country with an armed populace.
Do you suppose they dropped bombs on these civilians?
So far thar’s two data points. Shall we continue one for one comparing the massacres of unarmed populations to those of armed populations?
Agreed, but it’s the second amendment, not the fourth.
The worst part is that I knew that but a movie I saw messed up my memory
Looks like you edited but kept the “th” suffix instead of “nd” :)
Okay mom
Beeing honest about mistakes you make is way better than trying to deflect or lie about them. This is true in professional and in social settings.
Own up to your mistakes, try to correct them and be open about you fucking up. Most people will respect that more than you trying to be Mr or Ms Perfect.
Why do I just see your name as Gloomy without the @servername?
Y’all’re on the same instance is why.
Thanks, I guess I don’t see many from mander out on /all lol
Edit: love the use of y’all’re lmao
Lmao it’s one of my favorite words. Yeah I don’t see many of y’all either lol, I’m guessing it’s a smaller instance which is cool.
You also may be able to change it in your settings to always display the full name btw, if you wanted. In Eternity you can for sure and I’m sure others too.
How is this a hot take
While I personally agree with most of what you said, I disagree with your assertion as to the reaction you’ll get from peers.
We’ve made admitting mistakes worse than the mistake itself these days, and it’s slowly unraveling accountability.
