The Refuge of the Toads

[fuzzy]

Prepare to hear lots and lots about Ryan Lochte's toxic masculinity and that Canadian 6th-place girl's transylphobia

[comhcinc]

Is transphobia an olympic sport now?

[Kirbmarc]

People complaining about the 800m final are showing a distinct lack of understanding about privilege. The extra testosterone in intersex athletes is simply levelling the playing field, although it definitely confers zero advantage. BUT if it did make better athletes then it's only fair play.

Fairness isn’t Fair

Even if we pretend (and this would be a big faulty assumption) that testosterone was directly and predictably related to athletic performance, what makes anyone believe that sports, especially at the elite level, were ever, or will ever be, fair?

How could one even disagree with the fact that countries in the global north have far more resources to train their athletes and prepare them for competitions than those in the global south?

The United States Olympic Committee, themselves, state that they have “established three Olympic Training Centers along with 17 Olympic Training Sites located in 15 states throughout the US. Millions of dollars were invested into these complexes to ensure athletes receive the best training in the country.”

Countries in the global south do not have the resources to build such remarkable training facilities, a fact not lost on these countries Olympic officials.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/oly ... -athletes/

So privileges do balance themselves out. White privilege is stronger than male privilege in this case. Good to know.

[piginthecity]

BTW, Great Britain just clocked up gold medal number 25, with a couple more probably to come.

Australia, meanwhile, are still stuck on EIGHT!

Pity there is not a decent picture of a kangaroo crying.

Got even more golds than China at present, which I have to admit seems a bit too good to be true. Yep, I know the UK's reaping the rewards of a long term lottery cash investment, but even so. I hope to fuck there's no doping involved.

The reason is simple and does not need doping to explain it. The Lottery cash was allocated on merit and focused only on those athletes who could show they had a chance of success. In some ways it is a brutal system but highly effective and highly motivating. So the cash allocation was focused and not spread thinly. The UK has far less actual entries than China across fewer sports. There was also a lot spent on ground roots facilities which bred new generations of athletes.



The whole approach is the total opposite of how an SJW would do it and I suspect the way many other countries do it too. They hate meritocracy and this 'medals for all' mentality is killing a lot of competitors chances through lack of funding.

This is true, Jack. It's a case of the UK's sudden volte-face in terms of attitude about sport. The culture used to be the 'amateur model' of dedicated people eschewing scientific analysis about sport and just competing as gentlemanly individuals who play the game and win or lose with equanimity.

Now, we have this "funding" approach where only elite sports count and everything is about obtaining these 'medals'. If you listen to our politicians and sports administrators it is as if these medals were some sort of precious resource the winning of which benefits everybody in the country by some sort of magic talismanic effect. Therefore the formula of success is simply the funding divided by the number of medals received.

I would say that this is exactly the way the SJW's would do it. The actual effort of winning these medals is outsourced to people who are less lazy than us and we sit at home and feel happy that the effort is being expended on our behalf and feel like we all have a medal.

[piginthecity]

My duaghter has been instructed by her teacher to put a "trigger warning" on her groups school project video because it referenced suicide.

You cannot, will not win.

There is a new Facebook page "Trigger me timbers" it has send up's of triggering. Not quite up to Slymepit standards. But good non the less.

Seems like Failbook took it down.

If 'Trigger Warnings' have made it to the younger Teen mainstream then I think we can count on that particular age-group to mount a backlash. All it takes is for "You're Triggered!" to become a playground insult or "She's so Triggered !" to be the equivalent of "She's so Lame !" and trigger warnings will be dead and the young people indoctrinated for life against this bullshit.

[MarcusAu]

I think that the olympics (and perhaps sporting competition in general) is one of those things that only makes sense if you don't think about it too hard.

http://qi.com/infocloud/olympics

from the link:

In the early days of the modern Olympiad, medals were awarded for sculpture, music, painting and literature. The founder of the modern Olympics, the Baron de Coubertin himself, won a medal in the poetry event for his poem Ode to Sport, which he submitted pseudonymously in French and German.

Also not to trigger Phil, but I believe that trampolening has previously been an event at the olympics.

[HunnyBunny]

So privileges do balance themselves out. White privilege is stronger than male privilege in this case. Good to know.

What happens when a white intersex athlete wins? :think:

[rayshul]

I note also that AFAB ladies are still owning the women's world records. There's probably more issues to be raised if those get broken.

[MarcusAu]

I note also that AFAB ladies are still owning the women's world records. There's probably more issues to be raised if those get broken.

I think that many of the intersex athletes were AFAB - ie they are morphologically female but genetically male (with the consequent higher levels of performance enhancing hormones such as testosterone).

It comes down to - what exactly is the point of the olympics? Entertainment? To inspire physical fitness or patriotism (or Pan-Greek nationalism)?

Either way I'm not watching the events (since they cancelled solo synchronised swimming) - though it will be interesting to see how the current gender controversy plays out.

[rayshul]

Also Brive I'm sorry to hear about your SIL, hope all subsequent news is good news.

[Shatterface]

I note also that AFAB ladies are still owning the women's world records. There's probably more issues to be raised if those get broken.

It's early days yet. It only takes one transgender athlete in each sport to put the record out of reach of cis-female athletes.

Cis-women may win the medals because of sheer numbers, but the standards will be set my transwomen.

Who wants to win a Gold when four years earlier a transwoman set the record 10 seconds faster?

[Oglebart]

People complaining about the 800m final are showing a distinct lack of understanding about privilege. The extra testosterone in intersex athletes is simply levelling the playing field, although it definitely confers zero advantage. BUT if it did make better athletes then it's only fair play.

Fairness isn’t Fair

Even if we pretend (and this would be a big faulty assumption) that testosterone was directly and predictably related to athletic performance, what makes anyone believe that sports, especially at the elite level, were ever, or will ever be, fair?

How could one even disagree with the fact that countries in the global north have far more resources to train their athletes and prepare them for competitions than those in the global south?

The United States Olympic Committee, themselves, state that they have “established three Olympic Training Centers along with 17 Olympic Training Sites located in 15 states throughout the US. Millions of dollars were invested into these complexes to ensure athletes receive the best training in the country.”

Countries in the global south do not have the resources to build such remarkable training facilities, a fact not lost on these countries Olympic officials.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/oly ... -athletes/

This is the writer of that article, I'm shocked, I tell ya. Damn this white skin!!

http://aisdsd.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 50x250.jpg

[Oglebart]

I note also that AFAB ladies are still owning the women's world records. There's probably more issues to be raised if those get broken.

I think a couple of them are still standing from the Eastern Bloc days of carefree, full on doping too.

[Shatterface]

Jewish group plans Hale eruv with 12-mile perimeter

One of the UK's largest eruvs could be created in Greater Manchester.

The Hale Eruv Project Trust has lodged a planning application for the 12-mile perimeter around the Trafford village.

An eruv is an area enclosed by a symbolic and physical boundary that allows orthodox religious Jews to carry or push certain items outside of their homes on the Sabbath.
However, a multi-faith group has claimed it will create community "tension" and benefit only 100 people.

The South Trafford against the Eruv group - made up of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and humanist campaigners - said 120 residents had opposed the eruv, which would have a detrimental effect on "social cohesion, in times when religious privilege could lead to hatred and factionalism within the community".

They wrote on Facebook that the "majority of the Jewish community in the area are opposed to this proposal as they prefer to live peacefully in our diverse community".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-36985433

[Kirbmarc]

It comes down to - what exactly is the point of the olympics? Entertainment? To inspire physical fitness or patriotism (or Pan-Greek nationalism)?

Money from entertainment which is fueled at least in part by patriotism and/or interest in a sport or in fitness in general.

Olympics execs care about the spectacle and their paychecks (which are linked one to another). The staff cares about their paychecks and their jobs. Media care about selling entertainment and controversies/scandals. Sponsors care about exposure. Politicians care about bouts of patriotism and their value as a propaganda tool for other projects. The general public cares about the sports they like, the athletes they like and/or their country/a country they feel some kind of affinity for.

Many people also care (or in some cases pretend to care) at least a bit about the respect for some rules and a vaguely defined "Olympic spirit". This is part due to the effects of Olympics propaganda and in parts due to psychological and sociological reasons. In general people are upset by what are perceived to be unfair advantages due to the foundations of their morality.

According to the moral foundation theory by Johathan Haidt there are six foundations to an automatic moral response: Care (shielding people from harm) Fairness (respect of rules equals for all) Liberty (absence of coercion), Loyalty (standing with your group) Authority (obeying traditions and respecting hierarchy) and Purity (the "yuck factor", avoiding actions or things which are perceived to be disgusting). Those six foundations were evolutionary selected to promote in-group cooperation, avoidance of in-group conflict and avoidance of harm to individuals within the group. Taken all together, however, they're pretty bad when it comes to inter-group interactions (hence why in-group morality and out-group hostility).

Those foundations tend to be present in everyone, but it's possible to emphasize one or the other, or to attribute Loyalty, Authority and Purity to different entities (i.e. not recognizing a group as your own, on a hierarchy as your own, or having different ideas about what's disgusting).

[Sidenote: Haidt's model for the foundations of morality is probably imprecise, but it's a useful scheme to try and understand different moral approaches to the same event]

Fairness is emphasized a lot in the Olympics, which are by their own nature an international event. Research shows that international events and in general an internationalist approach to morality tends to emphasize Fairness because very different groups are present in a same setting, so Loyalty and Authority tend to be applied by different groups to different entities and inhibit inter-group cooperation, while Fairness can promote co-operation and lessen conflict through shared obedience for the same rules.

The promotion of "Olympic spirit" is an attempt to promote the Loyalty to the Olympic ideals and principles (by bringing together all athletes to an ideal in-group of "Olympians"), with a sprinkle of Authority ("the ideals of DeCoubertin") in order to reinforce cooperation by further inhibiting Loyalty and Authority to the different national groups. This is less successful, because for many the Loyalty and Authority spots are already filled by non-Olympic entities.

The rules of the Olympics were drafted by people who were interested in many different things and who had different values from ours (they tended to see professional athletes as "ungentlemanly", i.e. against Purity) but they tended to emphasize Fairness just like we do, because of the international nature of the event.

The problem with the "gender controversy" is that it makes the concern for Fairness (is it fair to allow people who have more natural performance-enhancing hormones against those who have less?) clash with the concern for Care (allowing people to compete in the gender category they feel more comfortable in, and thus less harmed by) of the generally progressive Olympian execs.

Progressives tend to emphasize Care even at the expense of other foundations, but international environments tend to emphasize Fairness. In this case those two principles are at odds with each other, which causes massive amounts cognitive dissonance. If you focus on Care you have to explain away the possible violation of Fairness (for example by claiming that "Fairness isn't Fair") while if you focus on Fairness you have to accept that the motivation for Care aren't strong enough to overcome it. Trying to focus on both leaves at an impasse.

[DrokkIt]

Here are the top 3, what do you think?

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news/images/ ... ya-250.jpg

http://igihe.bi/IMG/arton14833.jpg?1442212098

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/eebe0f0504ad4 ... g9w6pn.jpg

I've not watched any of the olympics so this has completely passed me by. Nobody on my social media has mentioned it whatsoever, I guess it doesn't support the narrative.

[Kirbmarc]

In general Haidt has found out that Progressives focus more on Care, while Libertarian focus more on Liberty and Conservatives tend to focus pretty much equally on all foundations. This makes sense since those foundations were selected to promote in-group morality (and as a side effect create out-group hostility) and Conservatives tend to preserve older structures of morality (religions, traditions), which were fixed in writing or in oral transmissions at a time where inter-group contacts were harder and rarer than today.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Space.png

In general I think that since society changes through time and people tend to have more and more inter-group contact these days (since we live in cities and countries which have far more inhabitants than the upper limit of stable social relationships which can form a group, Dunbar's number, not to mention all the problems of international relatioships) then over-emphasizing or simply giving equal weight to the "groupishness" cluster (Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity) leads to conflicts between different groups.

At the same time an extreme emphasis on Care is likely to create a clash with all the other foundations, just like an excessive emphasis on Liberty. Moreover I believe that some sort of "compensation" occurs, in the shape of new forms of Progressive or Libertarian Groups lead by different interpretations of Authority, Loyalty and Sanctity.

In the case of Progressives this is what happened with the SJWs, which have switched Authority over to their thought leaders, Loyalty to their ideological in-group and Purity to the whole "cultural appropriation" thing and to their own ideas in general (that's why they're so dogmatic: they see different ideas as disgusting).

Extreme libertarian groups (for example Youtube an-caps like the followers of Steven Molyneaux) have also switched Authority to their gurus, Loyalty to their group and Purity to their own ideas (creating hivemind behaviors and shared disgust for criticism).

A balanced view of society should emphasize Fairness (which Haidt not coincidentally puts in the center of his graphic) in inter-group interactions just a little bit more than other foundations. Personally I think that the overlap of Liberty, Fairness and Care shown in the center of the graphic is a better model than the extremes of Care, of Liberty or than the right-low part of the Conservative circles.

[Brive1987]

Also Brive I'm sorry to hear about your SIL, hope all subsequent news is good news.

Thank you. I'll ring the bell when something eventuates beyond pain, incoherence and moments of lucidity - when she apparently communicates her desire to "go". It's hard to gauge what's going on from 5 hours away,

Having watched both my parents die unpleasantly, I marvel at our capacity to enjoy life while pushing aside our most ominous probable future.

[Brive1987]

Here are the top 3, what do you think?

[i.mg]http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news/images/ ... ya-250.jpg[/img]

[.img]http://igihe.bi/IMG/arton14833.jpg?1442212098[/img]

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/eebe0f0504ad4 ... g9w6pn.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... --0EOTpsZw

:whistle:

[MarcusAu]

If trans-olympians are to be included in the mainstream games - is it time to end the (dis)ability-apartheid and include para-olympians too?

If so, could someone be disqualified for amputating their legs in order to gain advantage?

I note that the modern games have moved away from DeCoubertin's ideas of gentlemanly amateurism - in which case why not include other professional categories too?

http://qi.com/infocloud/olympics

from link:

Olympic contests in various artistic categories including Town Planning were held until 1948. The reason they were eventually discontinued was that Avery Brundage, the head of the International Olympics Committee, was concerned that the winners of fine art medals were likely to capitalise professionally on their accolades, and that this would undermine the amateur spirit of the games.

[Brive1987]

.

War winning strategy #1267

[Tribble]

So, after c. 30 hours of grind, I'm done with NMS. 10^18 star systems -- all different, yet all the same. The game has, in effect, no content whatsoever.

Damn. This was my big fear. I would've bought a PS4 for this game if it seemed to have some kind of point. Also, the "proceedurally generated" hype turned out to be a load of bollocks, when all the animals are just a bunch of random parts bolted together.

Yeah, evolution decided to give up when NMS came around. I've seen the penis-creatures (I had one that looked like a willy on legs, have video too). Huge forelimbs and incredibly tiny hind legs, fins on the forelegs, horns, eats...well, it absorbs food somehow - through it's skin? Don't expect any kind of science in this science fiction - more like a science fantasy game. Not necessarily bad, but I prefer it when there is some kind of sense. I'll try it some more after I eat and see if the lack of engagement goes away. As others have said, you see a lot of the same things - buildings are structured the same, the same plants, research things, encyclopedia, galactic stock exchange things that give money. Pretty graphics (although I do prefer more realistic ones, these aren't that bad, although if you are colorblind you may be better off) don't seem to make up for the random nature. The creatures and land reminds me of early D&D (maybe traveller is a closer comparison) - roll on this table for land form, climate, creature type, # of legs, etc, etc. I assume they use "procedurally" to mean "random within some limitations imposed by early results".

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a partial list of the things the developers hyped in the game and failed to deliver in a meaningful fashion:



In the end it's a shallow and superficial sight-seeing game with no meaningful game-play and a host of problems. Glad I didn't piss-away $60.

[Brive1987]

We've lived in this apartment for three years without roaches, and now all of a sudden we have roaches.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8144/2904 ... 0fd349.jpg

roaches by Jim Habegger, on Flickr

What's all that there? Roach shit? Or mice? :shock: :o

[Kirbmarc]

Extreme focus on each of the six moral foundations creates issues:

Extreme Care creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed even remotely harmful is prohibited or discouraged.

Extreme Liberty creates anarchy and/or the rule of the strongest.

Extreme Fairness ignores all the specific features and possible exceptions to a rule or a law and demands perfect equality.

Extreme Authority creates an authoritarian, static society where obedience to tradition and leaders is the only way.

Extreme Loyalty creates discrimination and hostility towards anyone who's not a member of the "right" group or who doesn't follow the uses and customs of the group.

Extreme Purity creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed inappropriate is censored.

So it's possible to create huge issues by being too moral, if your morality pushes one (or more) foundations of morality to their extremes. For example Nazi Germany had an excess of Loyalty, Authority and Purity while Communist Russia had an excess of Fairness and Care. Muslim supremacist ideas over-emphasize Loyalty, Authority and Purity while the SJWs over-emphasize Fairness, Care and their own, weird brands of Loyalty ("with us or against us") and Purity ("cultural appropriation!") all at the expenses of Liberty.

[Shatterface]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... --0EOTpsZw

:whistle:

More like this one:

http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.g ... UY200_.jpg

From Wiki:

When it becomes clear to doctors who attend Jane that something strange has happened (since she can read and write, while the mother caste are illiterate) they arrange for her to be taken to meet an aged historian named Laura. It seems that Jane is in a society somewhat more than a century after her own time. Laura relates that not long after Jane's own time a Dr Perrigan carried out scientific experiments that unintentionally created a virus that killed all the men in the world, leaving only women. After a very difficult period of famine and breakdown, a small number of educated women, found mainly in the medical profession, took control and embarked on an urgent programme of research to enable women to reproduce without males. The women also decided to follow some advice from the Bible ("Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways") and created a caste-based society in which Jane has become a member of the Mother caste.

Laura does understand what Jane means when she talks of men. However, she is certain that they were oppressors of women and that the world is far better without them. Jane disagrees and feels the demise of men to be a terrible blow.

[MarcusAu]

What's all that there? Roach shit? Or mice? :shock: :o

I was trying to find the FFFB strip with the Texan cockroach in it - but this is the best I can do, sorry:

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tribble]

Also Jeri Ryan is 10/10 objective beauty standards.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 48873).jpg


http://www.theagencyinc.com/scripts/tim ... zc=1&q=100

MOMMY!!!!

[Tribble]

I think we find the slower runners more attractive than the fast ones because of rape culture.

Better chance of catching them, amIright?

[Keating]

Extreme focus on each of the six moral foundations creates issues:

Extreme Care creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed even remotely harmful is prohibited or discouraged.

Extreme Liberty creates anarchy and/or the rule of the strongest.

Extreme Fairness ignores all the specific features and possible exceptions to a rule or a law and demands perfect equality.

Extreme Authority creates an authoritarian, static society where obedience to tradition and leaders is the only way.

Extreme Loyalty creates discrimination and hostility towards anyone who's not a member of the "right" group or who doesn't follow the uses and customs of the group.

Extreme Purity creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed inappropriate is censored.

So it's possible to create huge issues by being too moral, if your morality pushes one (or more) foundations of morality to their extremes. For example Nazi Germany had an excess of Loyalty, Authority and Purity while Communist Russia had an excess of Fairness and Care. Muslim supremacist ideas over-emphasize Loyalty, Authority and Purity while the SJWs over-emphasize Fairness, Care and their own, weird brands of Loyalty ("with us or against us") and Purity ("cultural appropriation!") all at the expenses of Liberty.

Probably also worth mentioning that complete antipathy to any of the moral foundations causes trouble too.

[Gumby]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqSodB1WAAA8SiG.jpg

[Gumby]

Crap. :nin:

[Brive1987]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... --0EOTpsZw

:whistle:

More like this one:

http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.g ... UY200_.jpg

From Wiki:

When it becomes clear to doctors who attend Jane that something strange has happened (since she can read and write, while the mother caste are illiterate) they arrange for her to be taken to meet an aged historian named Laura. It seems that Jane is in a society somewhat more than a century after her own time. Laura relates that not long after Jane's own time a Dr Perrigan carried out scientific experiments that unintentionally created a virus that killed all the men in the world, leaving only women. After a very difficult period of famine and breakdown, a small number of educated women, found mainly in the medical profession, took control and embarked on an urgent programme of research to enable women to reproduce without males. The women also decided to follow some advice from the Bible ("Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways") and created a caste-based society in which Jane has become a member of the Mother caste.

Laura does understand what Jane means when she talks of men. However, she is certain that they were oppressors of women and that the world is far better without them. Jane disagrees and feels the demise of men to be a terrible blow.

Love that book. On my shelf. :dance:

[Kirbmarc]

Extreme focus on each of the six moral foundations creates issues:

Extreme Care creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed even remotely harmful is prohibited or discouraged.

Extreme Liberty creates anarchy and/or the rule of the strongest.

Extreme Fairness ignores all the specific features and possible exceptions to a rule or a law and demands perfect equality.

Extreme Authority creates an authoritarian, static society where obedience to tradition and leaders is the only way.

Extreme Loyalty creates discrimination and hostility towards anyone who's not a member of the "right" group or who doesn't follow the uses and customs of the group.

Extreme Purity creates an authoritarian, static society where everything deemed inappropriate is censored.

So it's possible to create huge issues by being too moral, if your morality pushes one (or more) foundations of morality to their extremes. For example Nazi Germany had an excess of Loyalty, Authority and Purity while Communist Russia had an excess of Fairness and Care. Muslim supremacist ideas over-emphasize Loyalty, Authority and Purity while the SJWs over-emphasize Fairness, Care and their own, weird brands of Loyalty ("with us or against us") and Purity ("cultural appropriation!") all at the expenses of Liberty.

Probably also worth mentioning that complete antipathy to any of the moral foundations causes trouble too.

Some of those foundations, when carried to their extreme, are antithetical, so complete support to one of the moral foundations is complete antipathy to another. Extreme Authority means no Liberty, extreme Liberty means no Authority. Extreme Fairness means no Loyalty (a 1984-style society where personal and social ties are seen as universally harmful and where the only loyalty is to the laws and leaders), and extreme Loyalty means no Fairness ("my group first, always, no matter what").

Purity and Care are the only one who can't be coupled. But yes, you're right, a society with no Purity at all means no private moral compass at all, where people put no limits on any behavior other than positive laws (and so everything which isn't prohibited is encouraged), and a society with no Care at all means an eternal civil war between different groups and/or an Objectivist-style society where the poor are blamed for their poverty and giving is seen as evil. Both ideas aren't great.

[HunnyBunny]

Semenya, silver medalist Francine Niyonsaba and bronze medal winner Margaret Wambui have all been the subject of suggestions that they may have the hyperandrogenism condition which imbues them with high testoserone levels, and have been encouraged by athletics’ governing body, the IAAF, to bring their testosterone levels down.

Looks like they needed a tad more encouragement

The fact that all three medals in the event went to women who may have the condition led the British athlete Lynsey Sharp, who finished sixth despite recording a personal best time, to say in a BBC interview on Saturday night that she and the other competitors were in a different race. Sharp then found herself attacked on social media.

White privileged whiner.

Caster Semenya said on Saturday night that sport should not be about how people “look, speak and run”

Ummmm...

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olym ... 01981.html

[HunnyBunny]

Fuck yeah, triple quoted on my phone, while in bed watching a video - also on my phone. Posting on mobiles should be an Olympic sport, no amount of testoserone is going to help a bloke multi-task.

[Tribble]

[youtube][/youtube]

One man shop. It's not AAA polished. But it's got an 80% positive on Steam and it's really amazing for a $25 game all things considered.

Fuel conservation. Gravity works. Real atmospheric aerodynamics. And you can read about it on Steam:




And he has a free demo of the game: http://www.starwraith.com/evochronlegacy/downloads.htm

So you don't have to piss-away $60 on a game to find out if you like it.

[Shatterface]

Love that book. On my shelf. :dance:

A couple of Wyndham's early books, The Secret People and Stowaway to Mars, are due for a Penguin reprint next month.

[Billie from Ockham]

http://i.imgur.com/KzYnLR8.jpg

The flowers are a nice feminine touch.

Did this person change their name to Semen Yeah! just to troll everyone or is that another strange attribute that they've had since birth?

[Billie from Ockham]

http://i.imgur.com/KzYnLR8.jpg

The flowers are a nice feminine touch.

Semen? Ya!

Note to self: log in earlier.

[Pitchguest]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqSodB1WAAA8SiG.jpg

:lol:

:clap:

[Billie from Ockham]

I note also that AFAB ladies are still owning the women's world records. There's probably more issues to be raised if those get broken.

Nah. They'll just put an asterisk next to the new records.

But then someone will point out that an asterisk looks like an (unstretched) anus. And then the fun will really begin.

[CommanderTuvok]

Also Jeri Ryan is 10/10 objective beauty standards.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 48873).jpg

Look into my eyes.....I said, MY EYES!

[Billie from Ockham]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Space.png

Six-dimensional space defined by only three axes? "Die" said the ant in one word. Then: "fuck."

[Billie from Ockham]

If trans-olympians are to be included in the mainstream games - is it time to end the (dis)ability-apartheid and include para-olympians too?

If so, could someone be disqualified for amputating their legs in order to gain advantage?

Sure. Just don't shoot your girlfriend through a bathroom door.

[CommanderTuvok]

Re: the 800 metres and intersex athletes....

....isn't it a bit ironic that the political correctness on display here will only affect and harm women athletes. The blokes are not affected by any of this.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

And by way of comparison here are the 4th, 5th and 6th placed athletes

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xboalbE1070/U ... 600/01.jpg

http://storage2.sportowefakty.pl.sds.o2 ... 624592.jpg

http://www.athleticsweekly.com/0/admin/ ... -Sharp.jpg

Anyone who finds these latter three more attractive than the former three, is a hater.

[Sunder]

I recall the most disturbing thing I ever read concerning Haidt's moral foundations was a Kos commenter who said they looked forward to future liberals completely abandoning the Liberty axis to focus solely on Care.

[CommanderTuvok]

BTW, Lynsey Sharp, the British athlete who finished 6th in the 800 metres, or 3rd in the women's 800 metres, implied that things weren't fair in her post-race interview, and is thus, getting a lot of abuse on social media. The misogyny will, of course, be given a free pass, because she is a white woman, and the ones on social media abusing her appear to be PoC.

A tough one for the SJWs to weigh up.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/30/eitheror

Interesting article, from 2009 but relevent now. Detailed and (TW) long.

The New Yorker (and NPR) cause brain rot.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/30/eitheror

Interesting article, from 2009 but relevent now. Detailed and (TW) long.

The New Yorker (and NPR) cause brain rot.

The writer is an unabashed third-wave feminist. The article was entirely sympathetic tripe. To say that it failed to address any of the issues arising from intersex conditions in athletics is an understatement.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

FYI, Cast Ur Semen Ya has an XY karyotype, with feminine external genitalia, but has undescended testes and no ovaries or uterus. Sounds like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

After xe was forced to take testosterone-inhibiting meds, xe suddenly was mediocre. For Rio, however, the IOC has lifted its testosterone limits, and Semen Ya is back on top.

This case completely destroys two SJW fantastical claims:
1) That testosterone has no direct effect on athletic performance;
2) That the appearance of the external genitalia is not a sufficient criterion for assigning sex. (For, in Castor's case, they do want it to be.)

[Kirbmarc]

I recall the most disturbing thing I ever read concerning Haidt's moral foundations was a Kos commenter who said they looked forward to future liberals completely abandoning the Liberty axis to focus solely on Care.

So he was proposing a Brave New World.

[Tigzy]

BTW, Lynsey Sharp, the British athlete who finished 6th in the 800 metres, or 3rd in the women's 800 metres, implied that things weren't fair in her post-race interview, and is thus, getting a lot of abuse on social media. The misogyny will, of course, be given a free pass, because she is a white woman, and the ones on social media abusing her appear to be PoC.

A tough one for the SJWs to weigh up.

White woman vs black tranny - nah, not a tough one for the SJWs to weigh up, unless the white woman was a muslim or something. Next time, Lynsey, stick on a hijab before making proclamations like that - you'll probably get away with it.

Anyways, these 'strong featured female' athletes aren't really anything new. Recall the Russian and East German entries in the womens' shot put events in the days of yore - they were blokes, end of. I don't recall any serious action ever being taken to address it, and it was pretty much considered a running joke. Likewise, I think it'll be the same with this present lot.

I can only see it generating a real outrage if it eventually affects the womens' combat sports - boxing, Judo and Taekwondo. In boxing especially, a woman could get seriously busted up in facing one of the quoteunquote women. True, Fallon Fox seems to have sorta gotten away with it as regards MMA, but MMA doesn't as yet have the impact and reach of the Olympics. Here's hoping it doesn't come to that, in any case.

[Billie from Ockham]

After xe was forced to take testosterone-inhibiting meds, xe suddenly was mediocre. For Rio, however, the IOC has lifted its testosterone limits, and Semen Ya is back on top.

May I ask you a personal question?

Yes?

Cool.


When typing the above-quoted paragraph, did you pause before writing "xe" or does that come naturally to you?


In fairness, my answer to the same question would be: "I paused for at least five seconds."

[Kirbmarc]

FYI, Cast Ur Semen Ya has an XY karyotype, with feminine external genitalia, but has undescended testes and no ovaries or uterus. Sounds like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

After xe was forced to take testosterone-inhibiting meds, xe suddenly was mediocre. For Rio, however, the IOC has lifted its testosterone limits, and Semen Ya is back on top.

This case completely destroys two SJW fantastical claims:
1) That testosterone has no direct effect on athletic performance;
2) That the appearance of the external genitalia is not a sufficient criterion for assigning sex. (For, in Castor's case, they do want it to be.)

In the case of 2 it's pretty clear that it's people like Muscato or Zinnia who are pushing for the idea that external genitalia aren't a sufficient criterion for assigning sex, because they want to be able to claim that are and have always been 100% women even though they have "girlcocks" and never plan to get rid of them.

Notice how much less SJWs care about trans men, and how many people often struggle to "pass" and want surgery to change the shape of their genitalia in order to "change their sex".

I don't have enough evidence for my idea, and I'd love to see some decent work on this subject, but I suspect that people like Zinnia or Muscato who claim to be trans but intentionally keep their "girlcocks" or don't even care about signaling their gender identity don't suffer from actual gender dysphoria (which I think exists and might instead have a neurological origin) but have other reasons to see themselves as women (possibly even paraphilic and fetishistic ones).

[Sunder]

You could say that it's genetically normal trans individuals appropriating the struggles of the much smaller intersex community.

[feathers]

Eh, if the parents swear, it's hypocritical to try to :twatson: restrict swearing as an adult thing. And futile, as they'll learn it soon enough anyway and just use it behind your back. It lessens the forbidden fruit aspect. My eldest daughter curses like a sailor, but my other daughter wouldn't say shit if she had a mouthful. My boys use it sparingly. I was allowed to curse growing up, and my parents had a policy against censorship. It served me well wheras my peers went overboard when they got a little freedom.

I do back up my kid's speech, tho there's only been one incident, and that with the MIL.

Yeah if you do, you'd better do it right.
"Johnny from 3b snitched me, and I told 'im 'e's a gobshirt..."
"Shite, darling, gobshite."

[dogen]

FYI, Cast Ur Semen Ya has an XY karyotype, with feminine external genitalia, but has undescended testes and no ovaries or uterus. Sounds like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

After xe was forced to take testosterone-inhibiting meds, xe suddenly was mediocre. For Rio, however, the IOC has lifted its testosterone limits, and Semen Ya is back on top.

This case completely destroys two SJW fantastical claims:
1) That testosterone has no direct effect on athletic performance;
2) That the appearance of the external genitalia is not a sufficient criterion for assigning sex. (For, in Castor's case, they do want it to be.)

In the case of 2 it's pretty clear that it's people like Muscato or Zinnia who are pushing for the idea that external genitalia aren't a sufficient criterion for assigning sex, because they want to be able to claim that are and have always been 100% women even though they have "girlcocks" and never plan to get rid of them.

Notice how much less SJWs care about trans men, and how many people often struggle to "pass" and want surgery to change the shape of their genitalia in order to "change their sex".

I don't have enough evidence for my idea, and I'd love to see some decent work on this subject, but I suspect that people like Zinnia or Muscato who claim to be trans but intentionally keep their "girlcocks" or don't even care about signaling their gender identity don't suffer from actual gender dysphoria (which I think exists and might instead have a neurological origin) but have other reasons to see themselves as women (possibly even paraphilic and fetishistic ones).

Well, that's autogynephilia, innit?

[Sunder]

It's probably the American chauvinism in me but I've never been able to think of British-isms like shite or arse as real cursing. It just goes in the same mental sorting pile as "oh fudge" or "son of a witch."

[Malky]

FYI, Cast Ur Semen Ya has an XY karyotype, with feminine external genitalia, but has undescended testes and no ovaries or uterus. Sounds like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

After xe was forced to take testosterone-inhibiting meds, xe suddenly was mediocre. For Rio, however, the IOC has lifted its testosterone limits, and Semen Ya is back on top.

This case completely destroys two SJW fantastical claims:
1) That testosterone has no direct effect on athletic performance;
2) That the appearance of the external genitalia is not a sufficient criterion for assigning sex. (For, in Castor's case, they do want it to be.)

Doesn't Semenya actually support the case that external genitalia are not sufficient to decide gender? In "her" case she has a male karyotype with female external genitalia - her hormonal status is clearly nearer to male than female mainly due to the presence of testes which would be in line with the preposition.