RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive391

People of RationalWIki
I have returned. — Oxyaena Harass  19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hope you have better luck in your next life. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Near died.
CW: Suicide

From marcan. For anyone who didn't know them, Near (formerly known as byuu) was the developer of Higan/bsnes. Some people may remember that emulator as being the one that was used to partially repair Stephen Hawking's voicebox. They committed suicide today after a 3 year long harassment campaign from Kiwi Farms.

I've been feeling a mixture of sadness, anger and emptiness ever since this morning. It's begun making the rounds and I wouldn't be suprised if some news sites will begin talking about this soon. If anyone is feeling suicidal, please talk to a suicide hotline. Techpriest (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Kiwi Farms is such a cesspit. What were they going after Near for? 20:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because they could and they thought it'd be funny. The same reason they go after anyone. 20:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the crime of being a non-binary furry and nothing else. It's a disgusting cesspit of a website. Techpriest (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They mock people for being fat and shit, but their founder is a basement-dwelling overweight momma's boy. The universe has something of a sick sense of humor. — Oxyaena Harass  20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * God these whack jobs must seriously have nothing better to do than torment someone. --Boterham (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like Furries are the most harmless subgroup on the internet. They are weird, sure, but not really worse than people who dress like superheroes.  We are more "badass" than KiwiFarms, because the people whose attention we receive are a lot more dangerous than some random teen with a fursona.  05:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly everybody here is obsessed with destroying the lives of anyone who even remotely trifles with the Orthodoxy of CRT. In fact...it is only a matter of time until we turn on one another and ruin each other's careers over mild disagreements of CRT dogma. Then when that is done we will turn CRT into a pathogen and dump it into the water supplies of the world's cities so that everyone will ingest it and have no choice but to live and drink CRT. Nothing short of world mind control is acceptable. HUZZAH! Shabi  DOO  06:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not me, I haven't used a CRT in over a decade now, not since I discovered the wonders of LCD and OLED. 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikistuff
Hi all. Suddenly any wikisite I visit (including here) is in the ancient wikiformat. If I use an incognito window, it shows as normal. I am not sure why every single wiki I visit is like this. I haven't installed any extensions or changed my settings on any wiki. Anyone have any idea what I might have done to make this happen? (no other websites are effected). Shabi DOO  22:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shabidoo: I believe that it is probably a Javascript-blocking extension -- it happens to me quite often when I end up setting my adblocker to be overly strict. Celeste  ( scream at )  13:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone blocked every url that contained the word "media" in it in EasyList (the source for a lot of AdBlocker lists). It's since been reversed. Techpriest (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Bible: The world's longest game of telephone. A reason that the Bible cannot be taken as literal fact
Starting with the original texts in an of themselves, the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew but after Alexander the Great and the Macedonians took over, the New Testament was written in Greek. People at that time who written the Old and New Testaments had to learn a radically different language. Obviously then, mistranslation would be an issue.

Next we the Bible being translated into numerous languages over a period of 2000 years. Many parts of the Bible were removed or added to fit political agendas.

Lets not forget that words that mean something in one period of time may end up having a radically different meaning in another period of time. Lets not forget that many languages have numerous dialects. That would lead to words of an original language having a different meaning in a dialect.

Considering all this, how can a single version of the Bible in a single modern language be literal fact? I doubt that something translated, torn apart and added to can be literal fact. --Boterham (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The book it littered with conflicting claims in which both cannot be true. That alone is enough to dismiss it as "fact". Probably the most obvious conflicting claims are the many times it says God is loving and caring while the first five books of the bible are filled with God being unspeakably vicious and cruel to his puny creations and the new testament threatens you with eternal torture numerous times. This is enough to put to rest the absurd idea that this obscene book full of immoral barbaric horror is "fact". Shabi  DOO  00:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question may be addressed to the wrong people. The many atheists/agnostics/non-Christians on the site certainly don't need persuading that the bible can't be taken seriously. Any active Christians probably won't be fans of full biblical literalism for their own reasons. So you may be pushing at a door which is not only open, which is probably non-existent.
 * You really need to take it up with an explicitly Christian site. (Which actually allows discussion.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I always feel a laugh coming on when I hear the idea that people who believe the bible is some kind of a real history, those people, can be convinced otherwise. Trumpists are often like that as well.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i feel we should really push the idea it was divinely inspired, thus my new book that trumps the current bible, koran, and what ever arse the mormons added is totally legit and involves jesus deciding to gay things up and speaking entirely in polari. i have a feeling thats already been done, but this version, that was divinely inspired and super genuine i might add, is very keen you for you to be tithing to my bank account. i checked and it is my bank details, thats how i know its genuine, and it goes no to say say no bitcoin, that can do one. he moves in mysterious ways and all, and nice to see hes moved with the times a bit more. who are we to question that was divinely inspired? i think i will be divinely inspired in a bit with more detail on tax havens and legal ramification of a holy gofundme so be sure to have credit/debit cards to hand when its all ready it bring a forth a new era of peace and enlightenment, or at the very least clear my fucking over draft. i feel like maybe im a prophet of some sort. i think he just divinely inspired me again just to confirm i am a prophet you all are not, so dont question it. no american express either. but do send money. bank details to follow. its all voluntary but he'll know if you dont and you dont wanna look cheap in front of the lord do you. no need to remortgage ya house, but small bank loan can be had in minutes over the internet so no excuse. amen or koom by ya or some bollocks. oh and while we all here filled with his spirit, my new update will reveal a more chill deity than we used to but going insist we not suffer anyone involved with love island to live. and method you like, just go ham on em if they cross your path. all this divine inspiration has worn me out. i gonna go smoke meth. thats allowed now. send me money. anyone else claiming divine inspiration is a liar. its just me. i will suggest he get a twitter when im rich enough from all your generous tithingAMassiveGay (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * how do I sign up for this religion thanks 12:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know any details about this book but I cannot think of any reason why you would make this up. This must be the new divine word of God! What is your bank account number and how many bitcoins do you need? Shabi  DOO  12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This made me laugh out loud: "involves jesus .... speaking entirely in polari."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My podiatry appointment was interesting
After reviewing the MRI, I found out that I had a diseased tendon with bits of bone stuck in it.

I got a steroid shot in my foot and ankle bracelet. That injection was pure agony. The needle was moved around through tissue and bone. --Boterham (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Shabi  DOO  19:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * During and after the injection I shouted out some vulgarities. I was also told the surgery would be a last resort as it might cause more problems that it solves. My next appointment will be in 6 weeks. --Boterham (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good lord, how is "pieces of bone stuck in the tendon" a thing? That sucks, man. Artificius (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What happened was that the fracture never healed properly (I misheard the Podiatrist the last time I saw him). Due to that, a few small pieces broke off and got jammed into my achilles tendon. I was shown the picture of my MRI results. The damage was very extensive. What did not help was when I hit the ground back in 2019, I twisted my ankle badly. Worse was the fact that I had to wait an hour before my mom could pick me up. Me and my second oldest brother were walking to the library in late December (the weather was a bit mild with no snow on the ground but still slightly cold). I stepped in a hole, twisted my ankle and I could not walk. We had no phones so we could not call and we were a little over a mile from home. Now we get the part of much worse. My brother had to walk all the way home to get help. Keep in mind that he has a severe learning disability. After I got picked up and taken to the hospital I was told that it was only a sprain and that is when my problems began.

Now here we get to today when I found out the extent of the damage. --Boterham (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump has the best people
So you guys know how Bill Cosby got set free due to a stupid deal he made in 2005 with a Pennsylvania prosecutor? Well, the prosecutor who cut that deal was Bruce Castor, who then made headlines recently by representing Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial and being an absolute idiot. And don't call me out for insulting Castor's conduct in that trial, since even Alan Dershowitz thought he was incoherent. Truly the best people. 23:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even before the latest revelations there was a lot of really strange stuff that happened at the trial. Having 5 people testify about behavior that wasn't at all related to the trial at hand, plus having an "expert" witness basically testify that everything an accuser says and every mannerism she exhibits should be interpreted as being evidence for telling the truth... it's pretty sad that it might take Cosby walking to get judges to be serious about the rules of evidence for everyone. I can't think of another context where people would actively rail against due process for a defendant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 23:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill Cosby is a rapist piece of shit. I think people are angry that he got off scot-free while Brittney Spears is still a prisoner of her father. — Oxyaena Harass  12:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was fucking pissed when I heard. How the fuck can random DA’s hand out get-out-of-jail-free agreements without oversight that have to be honored by a damn state Supreme Court? Our legal system is so fucked. 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh Bowie and Prince how you are missed
(forgive the youtube...I think this is a worthy exception)

Shabi DOO  00:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Insanity
I heard about this "Mark of the beast" conspiracy theory being the Covid vaccine. I look it up and found this. I want to die now. https://beastwatchnews.com/covid-vaccine-is-the-mark-of-the-beast-let-me-show-why-how-and-what-it-means VerminWiki (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I have some of that weed they are smoking. Got to be some good whacky tobacco. --Boterham (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They dropped the brown acid, man. Bongolian (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How a conspiracy theorist starts their day: smoke some weed, snort cocaine and finish it with some vodka. It would make sense. --Boterham (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * “Beast Watch News” lmao what the fuck. Imagine just being like “ah shit, The Beast is in the news again” 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fool! We RationalWikians are soldiers of Christ and must be forever vigilant against Satan’s foul plans! 14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Want real insanity?
https://birdsarentreal.com/

I wish this was a joke but no, there is a conspiracy that literally believes that all birds are drones because the US government killed all birds and replaced them with drones. These conspiracy theorists need to put down the booze and get help. --Boterham (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Any Furries in the House?
So, one of my favorite games, at least after it has been modded so much it might as well be a different game, is Fallout 4. Spoilers ahead. In one of the expansions to the game, Automatron, you have to stop a character straight out of a comic book. His name is The Mechanist, and he is a gadgeteer genius, bombastic, and has more ham than a butcher shop. Once you defeat The Mechanist, preferably while dressed as The Silver Shroud, The Mechanist reveals himself to be an incredibly shy, timid, but brilliant teenage girl, who struggled with rejection. She had created the persona because while she could never be the loud and confident hero she wanted to, she could pretend to be someone who could.

So that got me thinking. Furries also put on a suit, and pretend to be cartoon characters. Are Furries the same category as The Mechanist, in that they tend to be shy and have trouble interracting with others, and so they don the "Fursona" of someone who is outgoing and friendly? And could the fursuit be a means through which they can avoid the possibility of rejection, because it's the Fursona being rejected and not themselves? 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't consider myself a furry nowadays, most of the pornography I grew up with was furry porn. I was raised in a harsh household that taught me never to look at a woman with lust, and so I felt really guilty whenever I saw a woman at all and avoided them for the first 24 or so years of my life (I was homeschooled and wasn't really allowed to leave my house, so the first girls I ever met were in college and I stayed away from all of them because I felt guilty just by seeing them).  Because furry characters weren't humans, something about it didn't fill my heart with guilt so I felt more comfortable looking at it.  I think a lot of furries would view the fursona as their real self though, not just an avatar.  It is more a character on a pedestal they want to be, less a Twitter handle they throw away if too many people downvote them.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, this thing about sex with cartoon characters, has that received a Darin Award nomination yet? UncleKrampus (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What. Techpriest (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @UncleKrampus I blame an authoritarian and sheltered childhood for making me unable to talk to people for most of my life. If anything should receive a Darwin award it is overly strict no-social-contact homeschooling.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every furry puts on a suit afaict. That said, as someone who is fairly honest about enjoying art of non-human-but-still-humanoid characters (tends to sometimes veer into furry art, think cyborgs, robots, that kinda stuff, but it's not directly furry) and would count as a "robophile" I suppose, to me a large part of the enjoyment does come from the "it's not quite human, but it's close" nature of it. It allows me to well, think to myself that even when I end up navigating a conversation like a machine (which I have a habit of doing when not being careful with social cues... I'm awful in phone conversations lol), take solace in the fact that there is well, a way to at least pretend like that's something not super weird to do and that makes it comforting when people accept it with a justification like that. Granted, I've never been too much one for online RP (which is where this comes into play mostly, I don't do it much cuz I can't keep up pretenses for very long), but that's what it's felt like from my perspective. Might be useful for some extra insight on this matter. Techpriest (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I myself do recall being interested in human cartoons because of their attractiveness, when I was younger, like Jessica Rabbit. Often times I thought that drawings of people were more attractive than people themselves. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a Flashgitz cartoon series about the Black Templar space marines' ongoing crusade against furries (I think it's leftover animosity/rivalry from when the two communities - neckbearded tabletop gamers being the other - shared /b/ on 4chan. They'd draw up art of them retaking the board on their designated day), and the latest installment had them speculating that the modern furry movement started with Lola Bunny and Space Jam. I figure Disney's gonna be in there somewhere as well: not to give the trolls ammo, but sexuality is probably at least a bit influenced by experiences in our formative years. Wasn't there a generation of English dudes into GILF porn because of one too many paddlings in primary school? Artificius (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hard to research because ethics, but sexuality is somewhat fluid and not necessarily innate. It's problematic because we've accepted as gospel that sexuality is static, for reasons... 18:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One notable difference that has been quantifiable (at least if you take what people say in surveys seriously) between men and women is that men were far far far more likely to admit to being turned on by non-real things than women were (at a much much higher rate). Men can, and admitted in high numbers in surveys to being able to get turned on by a store mannequin, a cartoon, figures/dolls and even outlandish characters (like a sexy cat character in a comic/cartoon or even say a sexy mascot). This was admitted by both heterosexual and LGTBQ+ men. In this sense, it is not particularly peculiar to have had erotic thoughts about non-real and/or non-human figures/characters (be they sexualised or not). Shabi  DOO  23:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can at least say that the modern furry movement definitely long predated Space Jam. Some of the first formal conventions happened at the turn of the 90's, and there are furry comic books (like Albedo Anthropomorphics, which was where Usagi Yojimbo was first published) that date back to the 80's.
 * If anything, Disney's Robin Hood ('73). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting video that I recommend for a watch about the history of the Furry community is the Down the Rabbit hole video about furries. Goes into pretty good detail of how the community always has been so extremely sexual and the fact that a lot of the people who weren't comfortable with the sexuality of it all quickly lapsed into homophobia. As for hatred towards furries, at least in the early days; if I were to hazard a guess, a lot of it comes from two reasons:
 * Bad policing/gatekeeping of awful people and non-consensual exposure to fetish material. I don't know how many of you have heard of the concept of magical realms, but there's a lot of anecdotes of this kind of stuff happening on the early days of the internet. This seems to be mostly resolved nowadays, mostly due to the community no longer being fringe (when you can meet a normie on the internet and can be 50% sure that they're a furry, you can say it's been mainstreamed pretty well), so the people who made magical realms about their diaper fetishes aren't representative of the community anymore, nor are they the only exposure people will have to the furry fandom.
 * Outward confidence about being themselves. This is I think the bigger reason and it ties a lot into how communities like 4chan and SomethingAwful bore (and still do but they're considered boring fruit in both communities from what I can tell) hatred for them. Those communities used to be (and kinda still are) extremely cagey about their own identity; what you don't put on the internet, you can't be bullied for. Furries were pretty much the opposite of that: they were being themselves, drawing art and talking with each other sincerely about stuff they enjoyed and many of them also are LGBTQ+ and didn't really hide that fact (I don't want to paint this as there being no drama; we're talking about the internet here, of course there is drama, but I'm trying to say that they're more genuine). In essence, a lot of the hatred came from people who couldn't be themselves in the communities they wanted to be in (homophobic ties to furry hatred is actually reasonably well documented) and as a result were projecting the anger that someone else dared to be happy.
 * That's my thoughts on where furry hatred comes from anyway. Techpriest (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Magical Realm? Learned a new term... but... isn't every book or work of art a "Magical Realm" until proven otherwise?  It's pretty blatant that Ayn Rand wrote her books with one hand, A Song of Ice and Fire was formed out of GRR Martin's spank-bank, including the food, no, especially the food, Stephanie Meyer personally rubs herself on every copy of Twilight, etc.  17:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Furry here. Sirius is correct in that not everyone who's a furry owns a fursuit or costume (do you know how much one of those things cost, and how much effort goes into getting one??), but it is certainly one of the reasons some may pursue suiting, use a fursona, dabble in RP, etc.
 * I do kinda wonder who else is around here. All I know are myself, Rockford, and Narky (but I don't think Narky's edited here for a while). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

-Hastur! (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

China-Taiwan Situation: Things are really heating up
https://news.yahoo.com/japanese-official-warns-us-potential-200100225.html

Will China go to war with Taiwan and the US? This one seems to be very difficult to make heads or tails on this situation.

On one hand: China going to war with Taiwan and the US would certainly result in financial ruin.

On the other hand: China vowed to invade Taiwan if they declared independence or if the US formally recognized Taiwan's sovereignty.

I am curious as to how this will turn out. --Boterham (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With Hong Kong, the risk was minimal, the cost was not negligible and the gain was notable. With Taiwan the risk is high, the cost is enormous and the gain is meh. On balance it seems extremely unlikely to happen. The government is extremely stable for a totalitarian one. If things in China started getting a lot shakier or if Taiwian discovered oil reserves of the like of Saudi Arabia...then I imagine it would be a lot more concerning. Shabi  DOO  02:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think China is totalitarian, it's more authoritarian than anything else. I question the term "totalitarian" to begin with, since all countries share shades of it. It's really more of a loaded term than anything else. Other than that, Taiwan would essentially be China's Vietnam, and the CCP aren't stupid. — Oxyaena Harass  04:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The ROC does not want independence. That would nullify their sovereignty claim over mainland China. 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * taiwans economy is pretty well entwined with the mainland, and the plans been to further isolate taiwan and be ever more dependent on china, until taiwanese see themselves as chinese and are wwlcomed back with open arms. there has been saber rattling from the outset, and now sabers are rattled to scare off foreign investment and create ever more dependence. chinas star is in the ascendance and the whole is starting to turn to china to do business, with condition of not doing business with taiwan. there is no reason to go to war with taiwan. taiwan can do business with no one but china. recognition by the us doesnt carry much weight these days - businesses will still kowtow to beijing to access the chinese market. might be the chap to talk to about how the taiwanese actually feel. i believes he lives there. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do any of you know the history behind the relationship between the ROC/Taiwan and the PRC? 11:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. I wouldn't be speaking about it otherwise. — Oxyaena Harass  11:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I do indeed live in Taiwan. And I must say that there currently being any more tension between China and Taiwan than there has been for the past 21 years is news to me.

I will say that the ROC no longer expects to recover the mainland. Maps on sale in Taiwan now show Taiwan and the PRC as being two completely separate countries. A few years ago, I was teaching once a week in a high school. I asked if I could have a map in my classroom. The only one they had was printed in 1991 and showed Taiwan, all of China and Mongolia as being one country called the Republic of China with the capital in Nanjing. I and two Taiwanese teachers had a good laugh about that.

Right now, I'm much more preoccupied with how the pandemic has finally hit Taiwan. The country has been under near lockdown (Level 3 restrictions, they call it) since May 18 and will be until at least July 12. Schools might reopen tomorrow. But I think they'll stay closed and I'll have to carry on teaching via Zoom until at least September. Spud (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! so you think that having lived there for years, being immersed in the culture and talking constantly to other people who actually live there gives you a better idea of what's going on than those of us read the occasional newspaper article or sometimes watch a biased five minutes news broadcast? Give me a break! Though now that I think about it ...  Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think Taiwan has seriously entertained the idea of nationalist reunification since Chiang died. They aren’t stupid. The DPP even supports fostering a separate Taiwanese identity. 12:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, I stand corrected. 14:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oxy I'm not interested in post-modern definitional relativism. China demands absolute obedience from the people, it is a single party non-democratic state and despite having a more open economy it is still very much a controlled and centralised polity. That is totalitarianism. It is a useful term, even if Western countries aren't the perfect opposite of that. While life may not be easy for many people in Western countries, being a politically active, vocal proponent of justice and marginalised person would be a whole lot worse if not in many cases impossible in China. Shabi  DOO  14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Taiwan would never become China's Vietnam. Vietnam was Vietnam because the entire country was one giant border covered in jungle that had already had a bunch of tunnels dug under it, the people themselves had been in a constant state of war since before the US even existed and had no problems with soldiers pretending to be civilians, China and Russia had been funneling weapons and money to the VC, and the US never had the stomach to invade N Vietnam from where all the VC were coming from.  Islands are difficult to conquer, but once conquered, they are difficult to smuggle weapons and insurgents into.  If China were to invade Taiwan, if they can't establish a beachhead they can't, they lose a number of capitol ships and aircraft and sailors but the invasion is over.  If they do manage to establish a beachhead, they simply overwhelm the Taiwanese and then it's over.  There's nowhere to hide or smuggle weapons from even if the US tried to, and unlike fighting the US, if the Taiwanese decide to turn the island into a giant maze of tunnels or hide amongst civilians, the Chinese would have no qualms about the outright extermination of every last Taiwanese man and forcing the women into marriage.
 * Vietnam is also an interesting lesson about what happens when you break the cardinal rule of Realpolitik; "Though Shalt Not Let a Weak Ally Dictate Thine Foreign Policy". We haven't learned that lesson yet, but we will...  15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Arming teachers College hw assignment
Hey my fellow rationalwikians. I came across this topic as it is my online assignment that is due at 5pm est and could use some help as I type my response in my discussion post. Its dicussing the tired old topic of whether arming (a select few) teachers would be an “effective detterent” against potential school shootings. Here’s the video offered for more context. SensaurC-137 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Answers...


 * 1) The students can't view the teacher as the person whose job it is to execute them if they get out of line.  Otherwise the teacher is no longer the helper, but the enemy.
 * 2) Teachers aren't soldiers.  Yes, some were, but "firearms proficiency" isn't something you acquire in that line of work.
 * 3) Access to guns means mistakes will happen.  A teacher will make a mistake and a gun will be left out in the classroom, or the gun drawer will be unlocked.  The safety might be turned off and the gun may accidentally discharge, and so forth.
 * 4) Teachers freak out all the time.  The last thing a person having a freak out needs is access to a deadly weapon.
 * 5) This would further normalize guns as a solution to everything.
 * 6) If the only goal is to deter school shooters, you are better off letting people think the teachers have guns than actually having the guns.  But it still causes the problems associated with people thinking the teachers are armed.  Sort of like with Saddam Hussein, who found it to be easier to pretend to have large amounts of chemical weapons than to actually have them.
 * 7) School shooters, and mass murderers in general, are caused by 4 things.  Early childhood trauma, crisis point, inspiration, and access to the means.  You'd be better off expanding Child Protective Services and changing the media to not "glorify" mass murders.
 * 8) Speaking of, schools are targeted because the shooter wants to "live forever" by doing something that people will remember.  If we changed how we cover mass shootings, e.g., not showing the perpetrator's face on TV, not spending hours talking about the shooter, instead focus on the victims and heroes and whatnot, we would see fewer shooters.  The media has known this for a really long time, and honestly, half the reason they've been so slow to change it is because the individual stations that change their ways would see lower ratings for a bit, and as an industry, stopping school shootings would reduce "interesting" news stories and the whole industry would suffer.  15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having a bunch of panicky civilians firing guns during a situation like that would be much likelier to increase the death toll than anything else. 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * totally agree.Not to mention the total waste of tax dollars and federal school funding it would take to train teachers that would be better spent on actually improving the school educationSensaurC-137 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Everywhere but schools, it’s obvious and non-controversial that the primary way to defend against attackers with guns is to have friendly people armed with guns already on the scene in case they are needed. Banks, politicians, office buildings, etc. have armed guards because they have been judged to be an effective response to potential threats. When I tutored at an “urban” grade school, the doors were locked, with monitored access, the entrances had metal detectors, and there was an on-duty police officer to deal with trouble that may arise. Do you imagine that “arming teachers” would involve tossing a Glock 19 at everyone on staff and telling them to look out for trouble? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that arming teachers would involve arming teachers, whereas what you describe is having armed guards. Arming a select few teachers would be akin to arming a select few bank tellers, a select few politicians, or a select few office workers.  I think arming teachers is a bad solution, and I think doing these other things in these other contexts would also be a bad idea, a much worse idea than having guards.  It is also worth considering the difference in context.  A bank has good reason to be concerned about, say, an armed robbery, which might pose significantly different challenges than, say, a student-turned-suicidal-mass-shooter.  In the former case, at least, the point is to steal money; in the latter case, the killing is the point.  𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  12:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice everyone except 192․168․1․42 is ignoring the fact that most teachers aren't trained in killing people. Make of that what you will... 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that you ignored point 2 of my list... 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, you ignored what I said too. 12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For youngsters too young to remember early 2000s memes, let us not forget the lessons of Lee Paige, the "only one in the room professional enough" to shoot himself in the foot in a classroom (while purportedly demonstrating gun safety). Shaking hands with danger, indeed. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I derped and misread the posts. I blame the lack of coffee. 13:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to direct the conversation towards the actual issues and solutions, and going point by point through tangential comments is usually a distraction from that. But if you insist:

1. Teachers are not generic “helpers”. They are teachers, and their duties include disciplining students as necessary to maintain a proper learning environment. Teachers are not there to be friends of the students, and though they may be friendly, that is not a friendship between peers. The power dynamic is an important part of the student-teacher relationship at that level, where only one is an adult. Additionally, citizens in general have the duty to maintain the functioning of society. This includes dealing with threats to public safety as appropriate. In legal systems with the right to self defense (not a universal thing), it is generally the case that any citizen may summarily execute someone currently engaged in trying to murder another person.

2. “The policy under consideration is not currently in place. Therefore it is not implementable.” Denial does not constitute a refutation. And, after all, some teachers are currently proficient in the use of firearms, and have both personal firearms and concealed carry permits.

3. There is a common notion that a firearm to be used for defense should be kept in a locked strongbox, perhaps with the ammunition stored separately. There are regulations to this effect in many jurisdictions. This is silly, of course. Threats against which a firearm would be used are typically imminent, and locking things away defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. Armed guards carry their armaments while on duty so that they may be used immediately if needed. An armed teacher would generally use a personally-owned gun which would be stored at the teacher’s home. In scenarios where armed guards are being considered, there is usually some threat more pressing than accidental discharges. And FYI, the pistols usually preferred for defense use don’t have safeties to turn off because that would take time that the defender may not have.

4. Leaving aside your infantilization of adults, we are all surrounded every day by things which may be used as deadly weapons. Every student is issued stabbing implements in their school supplies. In case you are unaware, people didn’t invent murder after the invention of gunpowder, and forbidding guns does not prevent violence. One possible response is to acknowledge that guns are by far the most useful defense that law-abiding citizens can have against violent attackers who may use various mundane objects as weapons, and that regulations should be formulated with that in mind. Another is to ban screwdrivers.

5. I’m not aware of anyone proposing that guns are a solution to everything. They don’t seem to offer much insight into the Navier-Stokes equations, for example. Rather, it is proposed that guns can be used as tools to address certain particular problems. Keep in mind that the standard response to school shootings still involves people with guns coming to deal with the shooter. Perhaps your concern is the normalization of the idea that normal citizens should be responsible for their safety (rather than relying on agents of the state), since that’s what the proposed change in policy involves.

6. The thing about basing policies on lies is that it collapses on contact with the real world. So, suppose legislation is passed to put this into effect. What do you imagine it is supposed to say? “Teachers can’t actually bring guns to school, but schools should put signs out that say that they can.”? Then this is entered into the public record (people have to know what the law is in order to follow it), and it’s naturally reported on the news as something silly. What happens if a teacher tries to bring a gun to school in your proposal? How would they know that they aren’t actually allowed to while fooling potential shooters? As for problems with thinking that teachers may be armed, what problems are these? Just repealing the law that makes it so school shooters know they won’t face armed opposition for several minutes would go a long way to this.

7. A glib response, but inaccurate. Most are in response to social conflict at schools. Policies that promote social capital, particularly mental health and personal investment in the future, are certainly important, but the question is what to do in response to a present problem. It’s nice to say that buildings should be designed to minimize fire risks, and that people should be responsible when cooking or using electricity, but we live in a world where people’s houses sometimes catch fire. Should people be permitted to keep fire extinguishers for personal use, or be limited to waiting for professional firefighters to arrive?

8. Overlap with #7, so I’m splitting the topics between 7 and 8. Only about a quarter of school shootings are done for notoriety. Most are done to get back at people at the school who have antagonized (or are perceived to have antagonized) the shooter. With the school chosen because that’s where those people are. For notority-interested shooters, schools are a densely-populated environment where law-abiding citizens are generally forbidden from having weapons capable of effectively resisting a shooter, so they’re an obvious choice as a practical matter. Attacking some place like a church where people may be armed can easily turn out differently. As for media, are you proposing that the press should no longer be free? That the state should prevent media organizations from telling the public certain things which they would want to know? Because that’s what it comes down to here. Information about the shooter is more interesting than information about the victims because the victims aren’t in the news for doing something that viewers might have to watch out for. And it’s not like people wouldn’t notice censorship and draw their own conclusions. These considerations are similar to those of the reporting of terrorism, about which much has been said. But like with terrorism, sensationalistic but shallow coverage of school shootings serves both the media companies and policymakers. A serious public discussion prompted by serious coverage might ask why certain people would want to pursue terrorism as a policy, rather than serving to drum up support for international military adventures. Likewise, a serious discussion of school shootings might ask why our society has become fragmented and what should be done in response, rather than serving to distract from and justify policies that advance the reestablishment of feudalism.

Regarding panicky civilians, shootings typically end shortly after the shooter is confronted by someone with a gun who wishes to stop them. A shooter has the initiative against a public going about its business, but an armed civilian responding to the shooter has the initiative in determining how the counter-action will start. This may be as simple as quietly lining up a clean shot against the shooter, as in the church shooting video above. Shootings stopped by armed civilians typically don’t involve panic on the part of the armed civilian who intervenes. And in any case, do you imagine that letting the shooter continue unopposed would be less dangerous than the situation you’re proposing?

Regarding tax dollars, how these “arming teachers” policies often actually work in practice is that teachers who already own guns and have met various criteria (generally of the sort needed to acquire a gun and concealed carry permit) are allowed to have the gun at school. Which is more or less how things were before the Gun Free Schools Act of 1990, with a notable difference that there were fewer school shootings then and therefore less concern about students needing armed protection. This is in contrast to hiring armed guards, which does entail additional expense.

So with that out of the way, is anyone interested in a discussion about these issues and what should be done? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, school shootings happen on occasion, and on many occasions, they happen with an armed guard present who couldn't stop him. In fact, there's one study out there that says that armed guards actually increase the violence of the event. Active shooters are not in a normal state of mind, and just like you shouldn't feed trolls, you also shouldn't feed assholes who want to go out in a blaze of glory. Officers that arrive will be better prepared for this sort of event -- this is the sort of shit that all that tactical gear, pepper spray, tasers, and SWAT stuff actually might be helpful with. Police officers responding to this sort of thing will usually carry more than just a firearm, you know. Want to outfit teachers with Kevlar helmets too?
 * School shootings are high publicity, rare events. Firearm events do sometimes occur on schools today, but most of them don't involve a mass shooting. A fair bit of them are accidental events. A fair bit of them actually are suicides. A teacher who is improperly trained and improperly stores their weapons probably will increase the risk of both in everyday life. So unless one can demonstrate it can actually be helpful overall, why bother? The NRA's desire to increase gun sales doesn't count. Now, I'm fine with proper marksmanship training, mind you. But even the JROTC uses air guns these days, if I recall. (You don't get to handle the real weapons until college.)
 * The worst thing about US weapons culture is just how dumb, immature, and macho is. Buy a rifle and all your problems are solved, and then you buy some more. What, you're gonna buy a piano next and think you can instantly be able to play Rach 2? I've seen the link to higher suicides and accidental deaths that simply having a gun around the house entails, and hopefully you aren't buying your firearm for dumb anger issues either. Proper firearms skills aren't even *that* hard to acquire, but it's pretty clear that a buttload of American firearm enthusiasts don't have even that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is also going into how students would feel if their teacher is armed. It would certainly promote a far more hostile environment and would increase tension for students I feel. If I were an elementary school kid and knew my teacher was armed, that'll add a lot of stress just knowing that weapon is in there somewhere. Also that "well students could use other deadly weapons" is easily countered by that they're nowhere near as deadly as guns and a knife in a backpack won't trigger a lockdown nor would it risk being accidentally set off and also trigger a lockdown, and lockdowns have negative psychological effects on children. ". One possible response is to acknowledge that guns are by far the most useful defense that law-abiding citizens can have against violent attackers who may use various mundane objects as weapons, and that regulations should be formulated with that in mind." that's just typical pro-gun talking points. Guns are not the "most useful defense" (there are multiple accounts of them being discharged for threatening situations like freeway merging, snow shoveling, seeing someone talking on a phone in a theater, and someone playing music at a gas station) and law-abiding citizens are law-abiding until they're not. People vastly overestimate their ability to restrain using a gun as well. 03:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. Teachers also are not generic disciplinarians. Teachers have other responsibilities, which have the potential to distract their attention from their weapons.  Classrooms tend to have quite a few students, and, per your own source, 93% of attackers planned their attacks in advance.  The question is whether the benefits of arming teachers outweigh the risks, and it isn't obvious that this is the case.  The proper response to threats to public safety is what is at issue, and it is not clear that arming teachers would have a net effect of improving the function of society.
 * 2. There is a real pragmatic problem here. Most teachers are not qualified to carry firearms as is, and surveys indicate that a majority are opposed to arming teachers, as are most major teacher organizations.  That there is some possible world in which this could be implemented does not mean that it is the best or even a good solution.
 * 3. Having teachers carry guns on their person would create numerous risks. Again, teachers have many responsibilities in the classroom, and could not de facto maintain focus on their firearms at all times.  While the threat from school shooters may currently outweigh the risk of accidental discharges and other firearm-related risks, this would not necessarily be the case if arming teachers were a much more common practice.
 * 4. If guns are the best defense, they are also the best offence. A person armed with a gun can do much more damage much more quickly than somebody armed with a pencil or a pair of scissors.  Further, it is dubious whether guns are actually more effective as a defense than alternatives, while they are known to increase risk of serious injury or death in a conflict.
 * 5. CoryUsar obviously does not mean that such policies will promote the idea that guns are a viable solution to Navier-Stokes; this is a strawman. More likely, he is referring to the normalization of the idea that guns are the optimal solution to violent crime.
 * 6. I'm inclined to agree that such policies would be silly, and as far as I can tell that is what is being proposed here.
 * 7. Given that, per your source, 61% of shooters sought revenge and 75% felt bullied/persecuted/threatened by others, it would seem that addressing issues of mental health and related things would be highly beneficial. Your fire extinguisher analogy is poor.  Compared to the fire, the fire extinguisher poses no substantial risk.  The risk of having firearms open in the classroom (carried by the teachers or not) is not insignificant, including during those times when there is no active shooter (compare the risk posed by the fire extinguisher in the absence of the fire).  Furthermore, if the issues of mental health are addressed, the risk of shootings in general would decrease, while the baseline risk of armed teachers would remain constant, reducing the efficacy of the solution.
 * 8. Your church shooting source is anecdata. The media is open to criticism for their handling of reporting on school shootings, on ethical grounds.  As you seem to be aware, shallow and sensationalistic coverage ain't great.  One can point this out without advocating censorship.


 * It would seem that no one is interested in discussing how to deal with the problem, either long-term to reduce its incidence or a means to deal with when it happens. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think you are limited to 5 options:
 * 1) Eliminate the ability to acquire weapons (remove 2nd amendment and slowly attrition the number of weapons in the country over a century or two.) Likely to reduce number of incidents with firearms but increase number of incidents with knives.
 * 2) Increase access to Healthcare and gatekeep acquiring weapons behind a psychological evaluation. Would require overturning our current medical system and wouldn't be at full effectiveness without making going to mental health care mandatory.
 * 3) Prevent weapons from entering the premises. Have airport style screening at the entrance to every school.  Would make sneaking a weapon into the school (including knives) much more difficult, but would also dramatically increase costs at the school to maintain and purchase equipment.  Also wouldn't be as effective without...
 * 4) Increase number of armed guards on premises. At regular locations throughout the school have booths with an armed security guard inside (booths because otherwise a killer could just grab a weapon off the guard).  Would also increase costs and possibly intimidate students who are now surrounded by armed dudes.  Police already have an awful reputation in this country for shooting first and never asking questions.
 * 5) Arm teachers. This to me is the worst option because, while it is theoretically less expensive, it also distances the teacher from the students as no longer just a mentor and occasional disciplinary, but also an executioner.  It also dilutes the duties of a teacher into mixing with that of a police officer.  Officers have months of training to not just shoot some dude, but also to identify whether lethal force is necessary, how to calm a situation, identify unarmed civilians.  (The United States already trains its police officers less than most other nations, but I digress.)  These teachers would have to spend time doing repeated drills and active shooter scenarios.  As someone who works at a secure facility that has a continual threat of active shooters, I can tell you that those drills are a *daily* affair, and they last hours.  To arm teachers and do it right would require adding around two hours a day to their schedule.  Will they have time for that?  Will this make them suffer in their teaching duties in a country whose education is already suffering?  My biggest problem though comes from the conflict of the design space.  In order to be an effective teacher-guard, you can't just be a good teacher.  A guard is not simply some random individual with a gun.  They critically need to have three traits.  Having a "fight" response when the going gets tough, being trained and well drilled in use of weapons in tactics, and have either the determination or coldness of heart to kill someone who is a threat.  Imagine a Venn Diagram.  One circle is the group of people who make good teachers, another is the group of people who make good guards.  In order to have good teacher-guards, a teacher has to be good at both teaching, and guarding.  In other words, you have to fire teachers based on an inability to be a good guard, even if they are an amazing teacher, because otherwise you will have crap guards.  The population of people who make good teachers is already slim, and in order for this plan to work, you have to reduce it further.  You need teachers that when threatened, will point a gun at a child and kill them.  Anything less won't stop a mass shooter.  Are you willing to compromise on teaching quality in order to make sure your teachers efficient killers?
 * Note: None of these options are mutually exclusive and you can do any combination of them. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Japan already arms their teachers. They occasionally see some use.  But this is Japan, which 1) has a much, much lower rate of crime and violence*, and 2) isn't sofa king we todd edd as to arm the teachers with guns.
 * Japanese statistics are... dubious. The police are under immense pressure to solve all the major crimes, so when the crime isn't easily solved it didn't happen.  Thus, virtually no murders but a lot of "suicides".  But ignoring the "suicide" rate, property crimes are much lower, so we can assume that violence is less of an issue there.  15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1 is unworkable as stated. Weapons can be made from everyday items everyone already has within ten feet at all times. Prisoners make weapons while in prison, with guards who try to prevent it. As I mentioned above, murder was invented before gunpowder, not after. And as guns are a medieval technology, preventing people from making guns would require that they be prevented from having the means to perform industry, which is silly. So in practice this means that guns would be restricted to criminals. Presumably, you expect the government to have guns too, but that’s the sort of thing that should be kept in mind when making blanket statements.
 * 2 could have some benefit in principle, but it is enormously open to abuse. Who decides the criteria that determine what privileges people may enjoy, and who judges how people meet those criteria? Take care that proposals don’t reinstate serfdom. Unless you’re into that sort of thing, I suppose, but most people these days prefer “rights”.
 * 3 is already implemented in many schools (normal objects which may be used as weapons excepted, of course), as I mentioned above. It doesn’t prevent or stop shootings, but it can move the likely starting point to an entrance, where an armed guard is more likely to be nearby. As an indicator of a school not being an undefended target, it can influence the cost-benefit considerations of a potential shooter, which I’ll get back to.
 * 4 Armed guards are the standard response to the threat of armed attackers in all times and places through history. So yes, guards, if shootings are a serious threat that warrants actual defense. But the specifics here bear comment. Security booths as you describe offer neither cover nor concealment, and restricting mobility makes the guards sitting ducks to attackers with guns. A security checkpoint may have someone in a booth, but the people actually there to defend against attackers are mobile or in firing emplacements that cover approaches. Guarding something like a school would lean more towards the “guards on patrol” model. And taking a gun from a holster with the wearer being conscious and resisting is generally not a thing that happens. Police patrol holsters particularly. They’re made specifically to prevent that sort of thing. Can you find a single example of that occuring? Regarding this supposed reputation, it’s generally facts that matter. Do you know what the facts are here? If not, perhaps you could establish a goalpost with quantifiable metrics that would demarcate “shooting first and never asking questions” which we can then check against reality.
 * 5 Regarding “arming teachers”, again, it’s not about a policy of issuing guns to all teachers and having the school conduct training etc. It’s about allowing teachers who already have guns and carry permits (which generally involve training requirements) to carry them at school. Straw aside, there is also an issue of social roles here. In the “citizens” social model, adults are expected to maintain the workings of society, which may on occasion involve law enforcement or subduing a violent attacker with potentially lethal force. It is entirely appropriate that students be taught that they may be opposed or even killed by random people they encounter if they go on a shooting spree. But perhaps you disagree. Your proposed rights management above seems to imply that you favor the “lords and serfs” social model where the bulk of the population has neither rights nor responsibilities.
 * So these options you think we’re limited to involve methods to stop an incident when it happens, or preventing law-abiding people from having the capability to stop such incidents. So political football rather than a serious discussion of the issue. While maintaining the capability to deal with problems when they may arise is important, that’s not generally how problems are fixed. Instead, serious responses to problems involve root cause analysis. So, why do school shootings happen? It’s obviously not the availability of guns, since there were fewer school shootings back when guns were less restricted. Guns are just a convenient tool that can be used to kill people. Well, why do some people want to kill a bunch of people at a school? Generally speaking, because they think that that course of action is desirable, or more so than going along with normal life. Why would they think that? Probably something to do with the decay of institutions and social capital, the loss of cultural practices that provide a sense or purpose and life path, and the loss of economic incentives for good behavior. Without something compelling to look forward to in living a normal life, people tend to grab for meaning elsewhere, which can turn out horribly in all sorts of ways. So how to fix that? A variety of things, some obvious, some contentious, but the first step is admitting that there is a problem to be fixed. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you realise other countries dont this problem right? limit access to firearms is the only solution. arming teachers is just arse by people who will consider any option that does not involve banning guns. dont play that gameAMassiveGay (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a pretty strong correlation between no/minimal gun control (gun control does not necessarily mean gun banning, but regulating the shit out of gun ownership, training, storage, screening, safety knowledge etc) and mass shootings + gun accidents + gun suicides + tons of other gun related bloody nonsense. The answer is strict gun control. Change your fucking constitution, limit guns, control guns and get a handle on your violent society (America is a ridiculously violent society), viscous justice/penal system and all the other problems America has that helps violence thrive (abandoned homeless people, dismal mental health treatment, minimal social spending/programs, wage disparity, no centralised medicare, inequality, police brutality etc) and tackle the unspeakable bullying that happens in school I am fairly certain that the number of school shootings will go down. Arming teachers is a fucking deranged solution. The answer "Americans will never modify the second Amendment" is a pathetic excuse. Work to make it happen (even if it takes years). A gun free for all = endless tragedies. Shabi  DOO  17:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * “limit access to firearms is the only solution” How did you reach that conclusion? There were fewer school shootings back when people could order machine guns (actual machine guns) through the mail by catalogue, and guns in general were not subject to government restrictions. So perhaps some other factor is involved.
 * “There is a pretty strong correlation” The places with lower levels of civilian gun ownership tend to have more violence and crime, both within and between countries. In many cases involving guns, since making them illegal does not make them unobtainable. The general trend in the US for thirty years now has been a major decrease in violence and crime (over which period the number of civilian guns in the US nearly doubled). Violence in the US is high by First World standards but low by global standards. What relevance do you think suicides have to this discussion? And those “answers” you gave are goals, not policies with which goals may practically be achieved. As for a “gun free for all”, civilians used to be able to own warships with naval artillery. An actual gun free for all was the case for the majority of US history, and we’re a long ways from that today. Care to guess when it ended? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot identify a single meaningful argument in that text. It's mostly confusing excuses or irrelevant misdirects. Shabi  DOO  14:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The correlation you mentioned runs the opposite direction as how you used it to support your argument. As for goals vs. policies, consider "limit guns, control guns" above. That's not a policy, it's a goal that you want to achieve. What actual policies would you want society to implement in order to accomplish that? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. School shootings were a rarity until recently. How they began is irrelevant. They happen in numbers that are exponentially higher in the United States (one of the only Western countries with minimal gun control) than in other countries. Ignoring just school shooting, mass shootings in general also happen in exponentially high numbers in America (especially in states with minimal gun control). You're just arguing nonsense. If mass shootings at public gyms starting happening, you could be fairly sure they would happen with far more frequency in the United States (and especially in states or near states with lax gun control) than in the rest of the developed world (with at least some reasonable gun control). Comparing gym shootings now with the past (when gym shootings were a rarity everywhere in the world) would be stupid and pointless. How they started is irrelevant to the frequency of occurrences relative to lax gun control. Stop arguing nonsense, join the rest of the developed world and end your country's addiction with gun insanity. It's fucking madness. Shabi  DOO  19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * School shootings are actually a lot older here than people think, with a history going back to the 1800s. But the problem really escalated after Columbine, which was in 1999, and had as far as I can tell the first double-digit death toll. 22:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I said it was a "rarity". I can only find two examples of mass school shootings before the 70s in the US. There has been a proliferation of school shootings in Western countries (not just in the US) only what was once unheard of has now become a "rarity" in every country but the US while what was a rarity in the US has become a monthly occurrence. A school shooting is Earth shattering news in Europe (a continent with a much higher population and gun control) while it is not remotely a surprise anymore in the US. Gun control does not make mass shootings impossible but restricting guns makes it harder to get and avoids normalising gun culture. As I stated days ago, gun control is not the only answer. I had also mentioned getting a handle on American violence, bullying, inequality, police brutality and other factors. However gun control is an essential part of any solution. Shabi  DOO  23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 23:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Celebrating halfway through this rancid year
Hopefully it ends sooner than later.

ps, my timing is awful. Here's to me thinking the middle of the year was on July 2! For future reference, it is at noon July 1. Moria (talk)  23:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My friend's conversion to Christianity
So basically there was a group of three very close friends who had been friends since middle school and became roomates into adulthood. When we'd hang out on the same online spaces people would be convinced we were alts of the same person because of how similiar we spoke and our interests lmao. We were closer than many blood bonds. We went through very hard shit together. One of the friends is out of the picture now due to unrelated reasons, had a fight with them and haven't spoken in months, but we've fought over much worse shit and reunited later, so yeah. But besides that 2nd friend has converted to Christianity at a low point in his life. He knows how much I hate the church and view it as a destructive force, but he has the freedom to have his own beliefs so even though I tried to convince him it was retarded he ended up doing it anyway at first trying to convert me along with him (and still doing so less). But besides the fact that I'm quite annoyed that a friend who was once relatively reasonable and not a fan of Christianity (he was an atheist and then more of a spiritualist) has become so annoying. He doesnt like hanging out and having fun like we used to. And I don't mean going to bars and fucking women or doing hard drugs, I mean he basically is obsessed with Christianity and likes condemning "worldly things". So we who were once so similiar and bonded are not really able to engage in hanging out the way we used to anymore. Its really disheartening. He is obsessed with "conquering the flesh". And when he does agree to hang out with me he often delays is for very long periods of time with bullshit as he spends so many hours reading the bible and praying. Combined with him working more hours we barely get to hang out anymore. I'm really starting to hate him. When I don't talk to him he accuses me of not tolerating his beliefs and being a dick. I am pretty upset. I have made other friends of course, and they're good people but they have not matched the kind of bond me and my old friends had. They're nice to hang out with but my bros really really can relate to me in a way that my newer friends just can't. But with one of them not being my friend as of now, and the other choosing to be a Christian fanatic I feel pretty lost. How can I get my friend back without converting to Christianity? Or should I just let it go? Have any of you dealt with this before? It really offends me that my friend thinks a millenia old book is more important. Even his girlfriend broke up with him for lack of attention. 2603:9001:301:3600:C8B7:CB09:3FFF:877E (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound cold but I'll say this. To be honest, my first thought regarding his situation is that he is afflicted with a mental condition of some kind. Probably depression, but I'm not certain. What was his low point in life that started it all? Was someone else involved in his conversion? And it also seems he has developed a persecution complex. Did you ask a psychiatrist regarding his case? CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I hope you consulted a psychatrist first. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes he did seem pretty depressed. His ex-girlfriend used to discuss with me how she tried to get him to stop drinking and shit and to do better. She wasn't very successful. Then his new girlfriend that he got back with after she cheated on him over half a year ago, they broke up again recently as she felt she wasn't being paid attention to by him. He drinks excessively, he also has a severe caffeine drink addiction. He tends to sleep very very strange hours and when he comes back from work he often collapses or chugs more energy drinks. It has fucked his sleep schedule up immensely. He also started working much more often. Idrk whats going on. He started trying to convert me to Christianity as he converted and this honestly seemed pretty random to me. He was telling me that he felt bad cuz he'd been "Godless" his whole life. I was telling him it was pretty stupid and arguing with him but my reasoning skills had very little effect on him but he was still my good friend. But now he doesn't even like hanging out as much and doing casual fun because he sees it as worldly. When I try to ask him his opinions on the news or whats going on he explains he doesn't care much about it because the fact its "worldly", its really unsufferable. Theres not much to talk about. He sends me religious memes and bible quotes despite me not believing in it and sparks arguments with me. When he does agree to hang out and do stuff he often ends up delaying it because he spends hours reading the bible or praying. When I finally got him to watch a movie with me we were enjoying it but he fell to sleep before it ended. It seems like he doesn't really actually give a fuck about being friends but gets really upset when I say that or say I don't feel like associating with him unless he stops doing this. 2603:9001:301:3600:71B4:6FA2:3B3C:B56D (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From a baby-boomer - learn to let it go - you will likely have many friends who come and go over what I hope is a long and reasonably happy life. You shouldn't worry about that - it happens - mayhap htey will change again and seek you out later on and you can rebond....   or not - take it as it comes.  Good luck.  Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself, what does your friend actually want? It sounds like he was searching for purpose, and that's what Christianity offered him and many others.  If that's the case, do you like volunteering or other stuff to help the community?  Help him along.  After all, Jesus went around doing awesome stuff, not reading about how awesome he was.  13:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * friends drift apart as their lives inevitably diverge. new job, partner, family put demands on ones time, take you to different places, shift priorities. friendships need periodically refreshing once in awhile. your friends life is taking a new direction. sounds like they want you join to them on their new path, but doesnt sound like thats possible. you can still be friends, just not as close as it once was.
 * nothing stays the same forever. people grow. the world moves on. if it were not christianity, then it would be something else that would make your friend a different person to the who he once was. grow with them or grow apart. try not to part on bad terms. try to stay in touch. but accept a phase of your life is over sooner than what you would liked. let your friend grow as he must and consider your own growthAMassiveGay (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything changes, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Your friend is not the same person he was five years ago and neither are you. It's unfortunate that your friend has changed in such a way that he has found something silly like Christianity appealing and even more so if he is sending your Christian memes, but sometimes bad things happen.  From what you have said it doesn't sound like either of you are getting much our of the relationship at the moment and it might be best to give it a beak for a year or so and see what happens.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem like a fine person for being concerned about your friend. And, I honestly think that you believe that is what you are doing. But it also seems you are upset because that old comfortable situation between friends does not exist anymore. Your friend isn't crazy because he found a religion he wanted to follow. It is fairly normal for people to revert to common social norms as they age. If you were a true friend you would listen to him talk about his religious ideas despite knowing that they were based on an archaic middle-eastern narrative that you have every right to regard as pure horseshit. It doesn't amuse you to do so. Still, you can easily afford to wish your friend well as he leaves your personal community. It costs us nothing to wish happiness and success to our friends even as they depart from us, perhaps forever. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, my friend has become a buddhist. I know it seems extremely weird since yesterday I was arguing with him and insults were thrown about the KJV in an argument over the manuscripts, but now he's telling me about Nirvana and Samsara lol. I think that he really was trying to find a deeper meaning in life, I'm going to support him and help him find meanings. 2603:9001:301:3600:2008:CEE8:2E2F:4B11 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am officially out of the closet
I have accepted that I am transgender. I told my family and they were accepting of it. Now here is an issue my mom and brother brought up and I hate to admit it but they are right: If I tried to transition I would likely endanger my life as I live in Trumplican land. My brother also mentioned that looking Hispanic and being black can be a threat to safety as being in Trumplican land, many people are good for nothing racists. --Boterham (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats, hon! — Oxyaena Harass  17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you know how Trans you are yet? E.g., if simply living as a woman will be enough or if you need hormones and surgeries?  18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you in rural Trumpland? Because in Kansas, most of our decent-sized cities are mostly fine for trans people. At the very least, the trans people I personally know haven’t had any problems in Topeka. 18:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I live in rural Michigan where much of the Trumplicans are. --Boterham (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to explore the possibility of making a short-ish hop to a less-shitty place for trans people. Maybe Chicago or Gary or Toledo? 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, try talking to Oxy. She might have some insight in how to survive a community with shitty people like that . 07:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do.... but it might not be comforting. — Oxyaena Harass  13:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend find other people who are trans in your area, and making friends ASAP. Some of your friends are going to support you, but not all.  It's good that your family does as well.  In theory employers aren't supposed to discriminate, but they absolutely do, so you are going to need every last connection you have to get a decent job.  Best option would be a state job if you can get it, of course.  14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For my case, moving would not work. I don't have that kind of money and my family would not want to move either for psychological and medical reasons. It is a bit complicated. --Boterham (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When you are in a better position to move, have you thought about moving to Dearborn, MI? Most Muslims are not violent. Mpl23 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the likes of grindr or one of the dozens of similar apps can help to at the very least have chat with like minded folk, especially if such folk are thin on the ground in your parts. i needed an internet before i felt comfortable coming out or even to explore the possibility. i knew no gay people and the nearest gay establishment was couple of towns over and only open sundays. i would most likely have had some serious mental health emergency if i had not had that option. in many ways lgbt people coming out today have it so much better than even just a decade ago. even in bumfuck usa, where you are not only the only gay in the village but the only sentient being not live stock, there are ways of reaching beyond the isolation of small communities or just less than tolerant ones without having to take a two hour bus ride to sit on your own in a wank pub you dont know anyone in and cant drink because its sunday and you got work the next day, and wholly shit what if someone you know sees you coming the place? people bitch about social media and swiping and right and stuff, full of nostalgia for the time where you had to go out to places - maybe on your own at least at first - and buy over priced drinks and get ignored by everyone because you are an awkward freak and life is hard. bollocks to that. you still can if thats your thing, but i can feel like an unlovable abomination in the privacy of my own and get rejected by more people in half an hour that would fit in the dingy bar i could go to. and you needed to send your camera to boots to develop your cock pix and wait for them to be sent back so you could post them speculatively to strangers you like'd the look of. as for anyone trans? a year or so you'd be invisible at best and this conversation probaby wouldnt be taking place. you can explore infinite possibilities in the safety of your own home, and still find a community in a whole new world on your doorstep, and just to not have to feel so alone like you can when you know noone or how reach people to try and get know people. and you can avoid getting your head kicked in that much easier. fuck knows how people managed back before internet or mobile phones. those things save lives.


 * but yeh, take your time, feel things out. you can dip your toe in the water instead having to dive head first into things. build your confidence and your self knowledge. learn how you want to live your life. i suspect you are somewhere that might require a car to meet people in the flesh or go places safe to try things out in public that probably not advised in your immediate vicinity. social mine fields and doubts and all the fears and worries people can have are still daunting, buts there is no hurry. that all gets easier with experience. try to have fun and remember, you have a smart phone. you options. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm wrong (my source on this one is ContraPoints). But isn't "hon" the most offensive word for trans? GeeJayK (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it used as a slur before. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this is what I'm talking about. GeeJayK (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally don't pay attention to whatever trite Contra spouts. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * if that is really a thing (i am sceptical of the veracity of this kind of jargon and how widepread they are). hon, short for honey, is only going to that have that implication, if at all, in specific contexts. anywhere it else, its at worst overly familiar to some folk and a little patronising if used in artless pick up attempts by the socially inept. much like babe or similar. or you can be really condescending intentionally using it just right. you can probably find ways to be really twist the knife into people with all words and phrases if you so inclined and have a decent grasp of language. some folk have charm and can say anything to anyone, others you want to stab in the face before they've finished saying hello. i reckon 90 per cent of the glossaries we put together is stuff heard or said once and its only us that propagate these terms. you'd have to be super charming to get away with calling your boss hon, and fantastically arrogant if you thought it would fly. you ask your niece to pass the salt and say thanks hon when she does, she might need a stern talking if she told you to fuck yourself in response.


 * this way too much effort to say meaning changes with what you say, how you say it, and to who. thats soul crushingly banal and not at all necessary to enlighten you all with such profundities. ive given you the tools to make small talk with people you are already friendly with but still not refer to anyone as hun, unless its aleady in your vocab as it might sound a bit strange if you start now. personally i call most of my close aquaintances/partners/lovers 'babe', because i know they told me the name at some point, but after sleeping with someone for fucking years, i feel it might be little bit odd to suddenly ask for it now. i should have saved their details in whatsapp properly instead of using the grindr profile at the time we met. pretty sure fuckslut is not their given name. the contrapoint thing is arse though. ignore everything else. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a general part of my vocabular, after I realized I was trans anyhow. At first I started using it to have a more stereotypically feminine affection to my vocabulary, after a while it just became a general part of it. I'm autistic, and this thing about "hon" is genuinely new to me. If I offended anyone, I am sorry. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I will have things figured out eventually but I am having a positive outlook. --Boterham (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for first apartment
Hey RW community, im looking for my first apartment to rent. Without getting into too many personal details I am moving out of my parents home for the first time and have Zero knowledge on apartment or real estate.The whole experience is kinda nerve-racking. My time table for moving out is some time in August and currently have over $3000 USD in savings (and some stock investments). I currently work $10 part time and currently in the process for getting a second job. Apartments ive looked at so far go for 1200-1800 USD a month. Any advice? P.S: Yes im aware that i kinda doxxed myself. SensaurC-137 (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have friends? At $10/hr you won't be able to live on your own entirely, you'll need to find 2 other people and split a 3BR apartment.  If you don't have friends, apartments are one of the few things Craigslist isn't too sketchy for.  Some advice...
 * Check what the area looks like at night.
 * Look at the cars. If the cars look like death traps, the neighborhood is a slum.  If you see really fancy cars mixed with death traps, your neighborhood is full of drug dealers.  If the cars at least look like they could pass inspection, that's where you want to be.
 * ALWAYS TAKE PICTURES BEFORE YOU MOVE IN! Get absolute documentation on EVERY scratch.  Assume your landlord is trying to steal your deposit, protect your ass.
 * With roommates, establish clear rules on bills, guests, etc. People are in relationships, but if the boyfriend spends more time there than in his own place, he has to pay rent.  Break this rule, and he will move in, the girl will break up with him and move out, and he won't pay rent.
 * Don't be a dick. Clean up after yourself, and don't complain too much if you clean up your roommate's dirty dishes.  Ask they at least try to not make you miserable.  20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not being asked to leave, don't move out until you obtain a decent job. If you are being asked to leave, refer to the above.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to achieve this but if you can figure out what the neighbors are like at day and night, then try it. I have poor soundproofing so I hear every footstep upstairs (upstairs has a running kid too) but at least the residents do be quiet at night and morning. 20:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Several websites are available for people looking for a roomate to share rent (costs can be seriously lower). It is a bit of a gamble as you could end up with a great roommate, make new friends and share costs and have fun together or you could end up with a loud, disrespectful pig who makes life hell. Obviously the interview is an important time to seriously assess the apartment (check places that could easily hide dirt like inside an oven or the vegetable shelf of a fridge or cupboard under the bathroom sink) and ask questions up front about their habits re playing music, what kind of a cleaning schedule they have and inviting friends over to make sure it fits in with your own ideas of what sharing an apartment should be like). If you honestly don't care about that stuff then sharing an apartment might be a very good idea. In Europe, in cities and even towns sharing an apartment in your 20s, perhaps 30s and even possible 40s is quite common considering the insane rent prices compared with salary. I've had a mix of my greatest and funnest experiences in my life with good roommates and nightmare roommates who clouded my view of humanity. At 10p/h, rent over 1000 will be tough (especially considering there may be a two month deposit). One tactic I found helpful was to visit as many places as possible and say yes immediately when you had a very good feeling about a place (as you aren't the only possible candidate). Also, sometimes even 50 or 100 more in rent (when it comes to a flat share) can drastically improve the quality of the place. As you probably haven't had a place of your own before, you may need to get character references from work or even a former teacher if you are quite young. You may even need a cosigner. Be extremely vigilant in reading the contract and check for agency fees if it is for your own place (some places charge a months rent just for securing you the place and dealing with paperwork). Shabi  DOO  20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And some places will actually waive your first month's rent and application fee if you work for a major company in the area... 20:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks u guys. Im not being asked to leave per se but feel that i may be asked to at some point as im about to enter my last semester of college. I’m also on the verge of dropping out entirely. my biggest fears have always been getting robbed or not having enough for food or utilities. Ive been in talks about transitioning to full-time for $12/hr. I guess i forgot to mention that I live in Georgia (U.S) where the cost of living is (supposedly) more affordable. As for friends, me and my significant other are working out the intricate details for that.SensaurC-137 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * its all a little less bewildering when the list of realistically affordable places available limits your options to having to sitdown and cry a little. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Having no interests or hobbies
Sooo, I think I've found that I don't have any real interests or hobbies in life. Nothing that I would call a passion either. Everything has been just a passing fancy and little more than that. Seems like every week there is a new craze I'm into and then dumping a few days later. Every interest I've had has really just been something I force myself to do to not appear boring to other people. It's a curious way to be personally. I'm likely one of the few people who when asked what it is they want all I can really say is "I don't know". Nothing in my life so afar has been something I would be sad to not have. It makes a career impossible to decide though as all I can really put on those career interest tests are "indifferent".Machina (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You should probably see a therapist. Sounds like Depression to me as I have dealt with Depression for a long time. Not something you should ignore as your problem could get much worse. --Boterham (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Been to a therapist and it isn't depression.Machina (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It has to be something. I am not sure what though as I am not a mental health professional. I was merely going with personal experience. --Boterham (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Come and see the vaccines inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Freedom from health is now a human right because my god Tucker Carlson said so!"
The unvaccinated are disproportionately the poor, the working class and non-white. There is no way that you can demonize those who refuse to take the COVID vaccine, oppress them and treat them like shit without upholding racism, classism and systemic oppression. Boomers are also the most vaxxed group, and authoritarian pro-vax policies represent ageist oppression of younger generations by Boomers. There is no way you can believe in human rights and equality without opposing these horrible authoritarian policies.

Unvaccinated lives matter. Death to vaccinated privilege. Spunkonmakaylaprior (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The question being posed feels like in bad faith. The demographics of anti-vaxxers trend relatively well-off, middle class, and white. It's complicated to understand how black people (particularly pockets of communities with lower vaccine uptakes) are more likely to refuse the vaccination but it boils down to socioeconomic inequities as well as prior experiences such as the aftermath of the infamous Tuskegee experiments that further distrust by them on medical experts; there are antivaxxer activists preying on some particular minority communities such as influencing the Somali community to not vaccinate.
 * Anyway I've responded I hope with satisfaction but I'll also end the comment with this. 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumbass. 23:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even Unclescrooge wasn't this insane! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The biggest correlation with anti-vaccination sentiment is being poor and uneducated. Just look at the geography of COVID vaccination, it is highest in wealthy areas, including wealthy Republican areas, while it is very low in impoverished areas, both black and white. The bourgeoisie virtue signals like crazy about how great the vaccine is. If you want the government to punish the unvaccinated, than you support state violence against the working class, disproportionately POC. Wongus (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is something I've never seen before on the internet. Something so outlandish I cannot tell if this nonsense is sincere or mildly humorous satire. Shabi  DOO  23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Scrooge didn't strike me as being any worse than a kid stuck in his edgy right-wing Shapiro phase. Odds are decent that he'll grow out of it, I think. I did. 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is oppressing unvaccinated people. But if you aren't vaccinated, you don't get to participate in the nice things vaxxed people get to do.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many anti-vaxxers (I noticed it) are die hard religious fundies. Fundamentalist Christianity combined with lack of education or substandard education often results in anti-vaxxers. Keep in mind, this is what I observed. --Boterham (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * """""""""""""Oppressing.""""""""""""" There, I feel I've shown the appropriate level of intellectual respect for this topic. 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here in southwestern Connecticut (and the northwestern part too, though there are far fewer people), anyway, the antivax people are more likely to be one of three things. First there are the the ultra-hippie types who shower once a week (if that), and rail on about GMOs, water fluoridation, and similar; despite purporting to hate big business and the ample number of small farms around here, they seem to hang out at Whole Foods for whatever reason. The second, and both largest and most influential, is the parents (predominantly mothers) who fall for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. types and refuse all or almost all vaccines. When Connecticut ended the religious vaccine exemption, it was almost all this population who lost their collective shit in some ridiculous protest up in Hartford. Finally, you get some small but vocal groups of urban minorities who think more in line with Nation of Islam type conspiracy theories, and aggressively play the race card if you dare suggest that the COVID vaccine isn't actually Tuskegee Airmen 2021; somehow, despite the fact that early concerns about distribution were over whether focusing on age made for too eligible people being shot, it was actually all a roundabout way to experiment on black and Hispanic people (even LastWeekTonight fell for this bullshit, you don't get to play the race card for a free pass on being antivax and especially not as a medical professional). A lot of New England Republicans are a somewhat different breed from the rest of the country, think Charlie Baker or M. Jodi Rell, and don't generally fall into wackjob conspiracy thinking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 03:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

dont debate dogshit please. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to get vaccinated for many reasons, I would if I could, but I currently can't. I've been worried about this too, cause not everyone is able to get vaccinated, such as me and my partner. Please don't ask me to elaborate, you'll have to trust me on this. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  00:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel I showed this topic and its original poster the respect it deserves. 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Cosby Free
I always knew he was innocent, with the exception of the time between 2 years ago and a few days ago!

But in seriousness, the case was a legal nightmare, and I understand why the appellate court ruled the way it did.

First off, in the original case back in 2005, the prosecutor had little chance of convicting Cosby, but did have a chance of getting a verdict in a civil case. Cosby could hide behind the 5th amendment in the civil case, until the prosecutor outright said that criminal charges would never be pressed. So Cosby was no longer legally able to hide behind the 5th, and admitted to rape. Then years later, he was charged with rape using his confession as evidence.

Second, during the trial, the judge allowed all the prior women to come forward. Legally, this is prejudicial. If I were on trial for robbing a bank, the fact that I had robbed 10 banks before should not be used as evidence, my bank robbing case has to be proven based solely on the evidence of this case. Once a verdict is reached, then the fact that I'm a serial bankrobber can be used for determining sentencing.

It's an interesting legal issue. Let's say 10 women come forward and claim to have been raped by the same man. In each case, let's say there's a 50% chance the person actually committed the rape. 50% is not enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt". But with 10 women, there's slightly more than a 99.9% chance that the person raped at least one of them. The problem is each case has to be tried separately and has to stand on it own merits, so what is almost certainly a rapist will walk free. But if two of the women claimed to have been raped in the same room and witnessed the other's rape then they can testify together of course. There really isn't an easy answer. But I do know that no woman should ever go near the bastard. 15:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the 'allowing all prior women to come forward' thing is somethng that becomes necessary for these kins of crimes where significant time might have past and/or be related to one another and be tried together. no legal expert so cant comment on any implications of such practises only it was something that was seen as required in some of the  high profile cases of a similar nature in the uk not so long ago. note i say high profile cases. the prosecution of rape/sexual violence related cases is not good, if they ever come to trial in the first place. i understand there are similar issues in the us but compounded the dizzying amount of variance with how this stuff is handled from state to state, city to city so forthAMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The statute of limitations had passed for the initial women, ergo they couldn't be tried together. The entire purpose of allowing the women to speak was to prejudice the jury; "We didn't witness anything related to this specific case, but we are here to tell you Cosby is a bad person".  It's complicated because The Legal System needs to be the strict system that gets the greatest amount of desired results, and that means there are going to be cases where it doesn't get the desired result even though it's obvious that Cosby is a rapist.  That's why there's actually tropes in the Legal world about civil cases doing what the criminal side couldn't, e.g., OJ Simpson being bankrupted when the prosecution couldn't convict him for murder.  17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Canada, Ireland and New Zealand have no statute of limitations on rape, in the UK it is complex but historical rapists have been convicted. Until recently Indiana had a statute of limitations of 3 years. It should be up to a judge to decide if a historical crime can be fairly tried. A short limit is ridiculous and is just one more barrier to seeing rape justice. I know you were just throwing out a rough figure, but the likelihood that a rape victim's claim is genuine is at least 95%. Shabi  DOO  17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of statute of limitations by state. It varies a lot, obviously, but murder is almost always given unlimited time, and rape is almost universally extended if it even has a statute of limitations at all, though I guess it depends in part on what "aggravated sexual assault" is actually defined as.  I think in California, Cosby's actions were not the type of rape that gets unlimited time, e.g., the victims were adults, unrelated to him, etc, so the statute would be 6 years.  Mail a hand written letter to your local congress-critter.  Typed letters are usually spam, but hand written letters are always read.  17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * EC statute of limitation was one of the things that was amended to deal with historical cases. i'd had appeals for other victims to come forward must require some care to manage. im thinking of metoo twitter storms whetre ot of stuff comes, may or may be geniune, but never leads to any criminal investigations careers and lives ruined without ever really knowing the truth of things. dunno if there are legal limitations on diseminating stuff like thatin the uk or not or how its done (im too lazy to check right now), i just know its like a circus in the us. i remeber a prevous discussion here on something similar, and i remember looking at new yorks laws around treament of victims in court and it was shocking to me at how different the treatment was comparing districts next door to another and how the outcomes of prosecution were impacted. colleges i think had some baring on things for reasons i dont remember - they got their own way of sweeping rape under the carpet, further complicating things. getting women to report rapes is made an ordeal in itself that its not worth doing so for poor chance of a conviction and even can result in fines and/or other punitive actions if they dont follow through on some parts of it. investing in some kind chastity belt device looks like more reasonable option than expect justice or just be taken seriously and compassionately. i know what ever measures we took in the uk to combat similar problems, we have snce found ways to undo anything useful by continually making cuts to the courts that arent enough courts to actually bring things to trial. good news there is cuts to legal aid make easier to toss in jail without a fair trial. swings an roundabouts. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to need a crapton of citation for the "95%" claim, especially considering that I was accused of attempted rape in High School and had the police investigate me. Thank the flying spaghetti monster for things like "witnesses" and "cameras".  From what I understand, it's not that more than 5% of women claiming rape were making up everything, but rather that they accuse the wrong person.  In cases with more famous people, well, people do terrible things for disturbingly low amounts of money.  18:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article on false rape would be a good start (it has some statistics for several countries). Assuming a 50% likelihood that a rape accusation is true is a fairly standard trope that keeps rape rape-doubt and even rape-culture alive. Interestingly, while false accusations happen with other serious crimes, they seem to be doubted less and garner less outrage over the possibility it may be untrue (even though they can equally destroy lives). Also, children and the few men who allege rape crimes tend to be believed more than adult women. Doubting adult women of their rape crimes is an age-old tradition that still rears its ugly head even today in police stations where some cannot even be bothered to process rape kits or fill out forms or put effort into taking witness statements, let alone prosecutors who demand and absurdly high level of evidence before going further and laws and court practices that highly discourage victims coming forward. I'm sorry if it is the case that you were maliciously falsely accused. That's awful and it was a great injustice to you. Your personal experience, however, doesn't invalidate the likelihood of how genuine the accusations of traumatised rape victim's were (women, men and children), 99.5% of whom will never see their rapists imprisoned.  Shabi  DOO  19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my case, it was a heat of the moment, revenge sort of thing. She didn't exactly plan it out, just made the accusation in a fit of rage, and then the police came and checked the cameras and spoke with the people they saw me with, and her story fell apart immediately.  She suffered no legal consequences, because apparently she claimed she had a crush on me or some bullshit like that, I actually don't know the whole story on her side.
 * I don't think more than 5% are "lying", I think a good chunk of that is a case of mistaken identity or possibly some grey areas. As for why "rape doubt" is a thing, it's the only serious crime that doesn't require any other evidence beyond a claim.  There isn't "murder doubt" because there's always a corpse involved, there isn't "assault doubt" because someone is injured.   19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People can be accused of murder without a corpse being found (i.e. an eye witness claimed they saw a murder even if a corpse is removed or dissappears). Historical domestic abuse can result in no future physical scars. Emotional abuse leaves no physical evidence. Even in cases of rape where there is sperm in an orifice and signs of damage to genitals (with a doctor citing high likelihood of involuntary sex) it can be dismissed as "consensual rough sex". In any case, "being believed" is more than just something actually being prosecuted but the opposite of automatic doubt (as opposed to the less likely automatic doubt for other crimes). At least now the general public reaction to stories of rape is horror and outrage. These attitudes quickly change when it is a friend, family member or favourite celebrity who is accused. The default response for many people is "payback", "hysteria", "fortune seeker", "life-destroyer" etc over claims of rape or sexual harassment, even though that is not the automatic reply for many other forms of serious accusations. The baggage of historical rape culture will be very difficult to discard (remember it was not that long ago that women in general were considered by default as unreliable witnesses and rape accusation was considered an inconvenient taboo best burried). When 0.4% of rapes against women, men and children in America result in the rapist being imprisoned, it is obvious that the tiny progress that has been made on rape culture and believing victims has gone from an F- to an F+. Shabi  DOO  20:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, believing victims is around the C- to C+ range. The F range would be where being raped is the criminal offense of "sex outside marriage", e.g., Saudi Arabia.  I am not arguing that we should ignore claims, but that every rape accusation, or really any crime at all, should have a brief bit of police work done before an arrest is made.  There was a rather disturbing case I read about where a person wrote a random name on a fake check, and someone with that name was charged and arrested before the police had even checked the cameras to see that a different woman that was 100 lbs heavier and clearly not the person they were arresting was the one who wrote the check.  This whole thing took months.  Edit: read about it here.  In the meantime, the innocent woman's career was destroyed and life ruined, because the police didn't do their job.  I cringe at the idea that the police would've arrested me first and then take their sweet time to find out if there even is a case against me, that's what my fear is and I have every right to have this fear.  20:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Saudi Arabia would not even be on the scale and giving it any grade would be irrelevant. When the instinctual reaction of many people is to doubt something and try to punch holes in their story, and particularly so with this specific crime and not others, there is clearly a serious cultural bias against taking rape seriously. Obviously police should do their work before charging people as with any crime. That is a no brainer. Shoddy police work is terrible. But the fact that in the UK (which has a higher conviction rate than the US), and in the 21st century, there are hundreds of rape kits that the police never even bother processing and victims have to fight to get it done or just give up or female police quitting the force because they cannot spend another day watching male colleagues laugh about rape cases or throw away paper work...would point to the fact that shoddy or disinterested police work, works very much against victims. Again, being believed is not just about the police or the justice system. I am talking about the cultural bias to instinctively doubt rape claims (especially when the accused is known) and try to poke holes in the stories with a zealousness not seen with other crimes. This isn't even a case of "believing" or "withholding judgement" but instinctual doubt. Cultural baggage that will take a lot of work to go away. Shabi  DOO  20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No seen with other crime? Whenever the cops shot someone, there was nothing but people poking holes in the victim's story.
 * As for me, personally, if someone tells me they were raped, I generally do believe them. Every female member of my family has a story of some kind, whether that's "negotiating" forced sex down to a handjob or getting a bit too drunk and high with a guy she liked or so forth.  It's when I see a celebrity or other famous, rich person accused that I get suspicious, because money.  20:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the extent of our improvement: if the victim is someone you know you are more likely to believe it. If the suspect is a friend, family member or a favourite celebrity...ehhh...well...sounds kind of sketchy. Sigh. Shabi  DOO  23:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I've hated Weinstein for years before the accusations came out, I always thought he was withholding roles from anyone who didn't sleep with him, but I still think a good number of the women accusing him are exaggerating or lying even though I'm convinced he sexually abused the majority of them. I just don't know if a boss threatening to fire an underling if she doesn't sleep with him legally amounts to rape.  As for favorite celeb, I didn't want the Cas Anvar allegations to be true but the fact is he's a creepy asshole.  I used to like John Cleese's articles, but several accusations later he can go fuck himself, especially as all his articles suddenly make sense as a self-absorbed narcissist.  03:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Cosby's lawyers and the State of Pennsylvania's lawyers cut a deal under which Cosby faced no risk of prosecution and as a result could be forced to testify in a civil case. Ten years later the political winds have changed and the State no longer considered itself bound by his previous agreements, and in fact introduced his testimony in the new criminal case.  Obviously big deals like the Fifth Amendment and the ability to hold the government to its word are involved here, but to read the commentary from the usual sources all this is a 'legal technicality' and the decision an outrage against all womankind.  One more reason why I am not a feminist. 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My YouTube channel is rapidly gaining subscribers
Within a day I went up by 20 subscribers. One way I actually advertise my channel (Channel 48 EAS) is through word-of-mouth. Might be an older method of advertising but it seems to work. --Boterham (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you wanna get picked up by the algorithm, recite the following line after each intro:


 * Also, according to YouTube statistics only a small percentage of my viewers are actually subscribed, so if you end up enjoying my content, please consider subscribing. It's free, and you can always change your mind.


 * I know it may be trite as fuck, but I hear it'll make your channel really blow up. -- Goatspeed. 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. --Boterham (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ONE YEAR bitchesssss
Tomorrow is my one year anniversary of going on hormones. That’s cool as hell and I’m so happy. Everyone in the World knows I’m a woman now, I got big titties, I can do makeup, I got Long High Heeled Boots, and my voice is feminised. I’m also in the process of changing my name and gender on as many legal documents as I can. He’ll yea. 00:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I worked at the DMV or another public-facing government agency, I'd totally have some "It's a girl!" balloons to hand out every time someone changes genders. 00:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's beautiful! Congrats on your transition. -- Goatspeed. 01:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. 01:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats on transition! That is actually clever. --Boterham (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank u so much everyone 💖 04:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Bongolian (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rock and Roll Asela! Shabi  DOO  06:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm jealous, my HRT didn't work and now I'm off it completely. I was evicted a while back, almost got murdered, and was homeless for a time. Congratulations, Asela, I wish I could say the same. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  07:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s a real shame. I’m so sorry you’ve been having so much trouble with it. I hope it gets better for you soon 08:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats Asela!! Techpriest (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great news Asela. Really well done.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's wishing you great success as you try and learn about new things. @CU: they are not all girls.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'd have the "It's a boy" balloons too. Jokes are more humorous when you don't fill them with unnecessary details.  19:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!! Here’s to the first day of the rest of your life. Leucippus Talk 19:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So... questions.
 * What have you noticed different in how you are treated by strangers, compared to the before-time? E.g., do more strangers hold the door, do random guys hit on you, etc?  20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get a lot of stuff like that! My favourite part is that, when I’m talking to service workers who are also women, they are sooo much friendlier, they’re always calling me things like “love” and “sweety” and making jokes and all that, which feels very validating. Also, there has definitely been much more “chivalry” - I think the weirdest example of this is how, when I go to cross the road at a crossing without a traffic light, I used to always have to wait until EVERY single car had passed. Now? Most dudes will stop and let me cross first which is pretty nifty! Also when I’m out, if I ever seem tired or upset or sore or anything, a lot more strangers of all genders actually check on me to make sure I’m okay. However, I do definitely get hit on a bit more (which isn’t great bc I’ve realised that I’m not comfortable with sex/romance stuff at all), and a few dudes have started to ignore my physical boundaries (stuff like grabbing my shoulder when talking to me, etc). But so far, none of it has been like, distinctly threatening if that makes sense? Like I’ve been at a public enough place that they’ll stop when I ask them to. It definitely is still weird, and like, while I still definitely feel safer after passing than I did when it was obvious I was trans, I definitely need to be a lot more aware of my environment than when I still presented masc. But yeah! Overall the changes have affected pretty much every aspect of my life in a profound way. I look different, I’m treated differently, I walk differently, I behave differently, etc. And it’s been fascinating but also the best thing to ever happen to me!! 22:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are really interesting insights.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am actually questioning my gender identity. For the past few days I have not felt like a male at all but rather a women trapped in a mans body. Not too sure if I am actually trans though. --Boterham (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @RZ: do you have a notion of how to describe that feeling, that of being a woman despite appearing to be male? I ask because, I have never felt like a man. I have always known I am a man because many have told me so. Also, although I was picked on for being gay when I was in Jr. high school, I was never gay either. I guess what I am saying is most of what we know about ourselves we learned from other people. I think I am a man because that is the way I am regarded by others and I have never been motivated to think otherwise. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a masculine man in an effeminate man's body. Like, I put on too much weight I get moobs and a butt big enough that I could date Kanye West.  That's not even getting into my sexual functionality.  Half the reason I work out it to make myself a bit more masculine.  17:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I personally didn’t so much get the “wrong body” feeling, or at least that’s not exactly how I would describe it. Although I did (and sometimes still do) definitely feel dysphoria about parts of my body I don’t like and have a strong urge to change them, it was mostly just gradually realising that, as much as I was forced to do so, I just had no fucking clue what being a man was supposed to be like. I didn’t know how to act, or talk, or behave with “other” men, and the more masculine I tried to behave, the more trapped and uncomfortable I felt. For me, it was not until I first cracked through the first couple layers of self-protective denial, that I realised. “Oh shit, being a woman is an option”. And then imagining myself as a woman made me far happier. It was after that, that I gradually realised I had a lot of dysphoria for much of my body — dysphoria which had always been there, but which I had been able to ignore. Again, I never really wanted to “replace my body”, so much as just change it to be what I wanted. It is, however, different for everyone ofc. Hope that helps a bit at least. 00:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was listening to an interview with an FTM transitioned person once, he described the new experience of guys steering into his path (can't remember the term he used, I think it was "playing chicken") on the street. Has that stopped? I've always wondered if that was a thing: it's become impossible to ignore, and I'm always questioning if it's in my head. Artificius (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I never experienced much of that directly, but I definitely have noticed that guys in cars are definitely a lot less aggressive when I’m walking around. Letting me cross, not honking their horn at me, that kind of stuff. It’s quite nice actually, though still kinda weird to get used to. 01:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, are people from your place assholes? I've never ever had people honk or get pissy at me for just walking across the street in Kansas. 01:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, i live in a big city in Australia, so people are generally slightly less overtly friendly than in a lot of small town America — or at least Ohio, since that’s mostly where I’ve visited. That said, I don’t get honked as much here as I do in Europe, and also it usually only happens when I’m being kind of a dumbass (I get easily distracted/dissociated from my surroundings which can be troubling). That said, it hasn’t happened to me once since presenting fem so that’s nice. People don’t seem to get as mad when I’m a clumsy dumbass anymore, which is great bc that’s kind of my normal state of affairs lmao. 02:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Anybody follow the Pacific Northwest Heatwave in the news?
But Climate Change is not real/overhyped you doomsayer.-Flandres (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, I got my AC. If the water itself gets too hot and the coal powered plants can't function, that's a problem for poor people, I have my own diesel generator.  The diesel fuel is actually organically sourced from poor people's tears.  18:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard much from the Climate Denial caucus lately. Are they still a thing, or have they progressed to "can't do nothin' about it?" Artificius (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ben Shapiro is now "technological innovation will save us", so, I guess that's camp "it will go away on its own"? 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)In my experience, they mostly stick with "I totally want to do something about it but every suggested solution is too radical."-Flandres (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish the best for my NW neighbors. SoCal can get brutal days on summer and I've lived through a few without AC. All I can say is at least the heat is dry and not humid. Also we didn't get much rain last winter, like February was dry for us and the difference between the trees of June this year and June in 2020/2019 is like Mars vs Ireland. Also climate change deniers want this kind of futute and I wish they can go drown in a vat of SPF 50 sunscreen. 20:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The religious ones seem the most dangerous. I’ve read a discussion between a science-minded kid and her not-so-minded parent and aunt that could be paraphrased as “we admit there’s a problem, but we won’t be here.” So the Lord God gave us dominion over the planet but you want to let it go to shit right before he raptures you ‘cause the Liberals want to be better stewards? Sounds legit. ...Also, believing you know God's mind well enough to think he wouldn't let our species suffer through climate-related famines and plagues and shit has to be a fuggin' Darwin Award (at least honorable mention) and Bible verse. Artificius (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I already saw in the wild someone claiming that the heatwave cannot be blamed on climate change because warm summers are normal and always happened. 2804:431:C7F3:127A:BE58:4463:167D:9432 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate change didn't cause this, yes, but it certainly intensified the heatwave. I don't think heatwaves in of themselves are evidence of climate change, but check the frequency and intensity. I'm still preparing a sunscreen swimming pool and I'll remove the pool ladder after these people get in. 21:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've lived in the PNW most of my life. I've experience 'hot summers' before. What we just experienced is a level of magnitude I've personally never witnessed, and it seems that these instances of 'once in a lifetime heatwaves' are happening more frequently. For context, Portland is experiencing an epidemic of gun violence and deaths to the point we have partnered with federal authorities to provide more tools. More people died of heatbourne illnesses the three days it topped 107, than the entirety of gun deaths this year. Usually in July, temperatures are in the low 70's to high 80's, and we peak around August. This year I have no doubt August will be hotter than it ever has been, and the wildfires/forest fires will be hotter and more intense. There are already 3 active fires in Oregon right now. A city in Canada entirely burned to the ground. Debate all you want about whether humans caused this or contributed to it all you want, the concern now is that the frequency and intensity of these events will soon make the place inhospitable.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing an insider perspective! At some point we need to admit these "once in a lifetime events" are going to be the new normal and start preparing affected populations accordingly.-Flandres (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TBF violent crime is on the overall decrease, but heatwaves and violent crimes are a bit correlated. Also your normal temperatures do sound like normal SoCal and Bay Area July temperatures. California does have some bad heatwaves but even then 108 isn't common, more like a once or twice a year thing. In SoCal, we do have this that are the usual culprit, but I'm currently in Bay Area, so I don't know if they get the same kinds of heatwaves. I really don't think the place is going to be inhospitable. The normal temperatures you describe probably sound fantastic compared the July temperatures of places like the South in the U.S. You probably don't realize the general area is just a good relatively mild place. But it's going to have more unpleasant days over the years and I think the lack of rain here is really concerning. This winter largely disappointed me in the lack of rain and it's going to be really bad when fire season peaks in fall at California this year. It was really bad in fall 2020 when the complexion of the California skies made Trump jealous.  22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the aggregate, this gun violence is connected to a whole host of other factors, the point was more a comparison what the MSM tends to focus on. I feel the need to stress that those sort of temperatures are fine if you choose to live in places that get like that. People tend to choose the PNW to avoid that sort of heat. I lived in Illinois in college, and humidity was miserable. That type of wet heat was incomparable before. Last Sunday was like I was back in Illinois. Additionally, when you look at the way houses and buildings are built, it exacerbated the problem. Homes here are designed to absorb and store heat because it never really gets that hot. 1/3 of people in PDX don't have air conditioning of any sort, let alone an HVAC system. Seattle is even worse, 2/3 of their homes are without A/C. Getting hotter earlier and more frequently also exacerbates the problem of fires. In 2016 was the first time I had ever experienced smoke from a fire showing up in Portland. Since then, it's happened four more times, including last year when for two weeks, the smoke was so heavy it was dangerous to go outside. It was smokey in my office and in my house. I had to buy a different mask, to protect myself from the smoke instead of covid. We don't tend to get too cold up here either, again a reason people like living here. Every year since 2016 it's been below freezing for multiple days, causing power outages and destroying trees. Oh and Oregon has been in "Extreme Drought" basically every year since 2014. This is just a small example, I'm sure there are countless others with related stories in other parts of the country/world. Even near you, Paradise, CA was wiped off the map because of fires.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

While there isn't that much climate change scepticism in Canada, the heat wave is headed to the centre of oil production and, entirely not-coincidentally, the centre of full-out climate change denial. It will be interesting to see how the Alberta government spins record roasting temperatures and bizarre weather patterns. Shabi DOO  23:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it absolutely amazing that when weather that should not be happening to a region is somehow not proof of climate change. --Tgal (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Garland halts federal executions
Sounds like the Attorney General's handing a slap on the wrist to white supremacist scum Dylann Roof, who ruthlessly massacred 9 people in Charleston. The modern-day Democratic Party's emphasis on abolishing capital punishment over appropriately punishing cold-blooded racist shitholes like Roof evidently proves their lack of concern for ensuring black Americans get justice.

It should also be made a note of that Garland's reasoning lacks full context, given the support by blacks in handing the death penalty for those guilty of lynching in the 1900s. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Murdering citizens is pointless behaviour not fit for a modern Western democracy. Join the rest of the civilised world and learn that even the most vile person can be potentially rehabilitated after 25 long years in prison and rigorous review. Demonising a human beyond any possible redemption (short of mental issues which should be dealt with as a mental problem and not a justice issue) is in the same category as any other kind of dehumanisation. We are...after all...trying to limit forms of dehumanisation aren't we? It's interesting how some of those people who don't think the government should be trusted to do something like "regulate free speech" seem to not have a problem with the government "regulating murdering citizens". Shabi  DOO  02:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So we should simply force taxpayer subsidization by families of murder victims for the housing and feeding of ruthless, cold-blooded scums who sit in prison until they eventually rot and die? That certainly doesn't sound fit for modern Western democracy. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The goal is rehabilitation and fixing the fact that they are cold-blooded killers to make them normal people. Some people's idea of justice is indistinguishable from revenge though.  It does beg an interesting ethical question.  If someone murders someone and you could snap your fingers to make the murderer a normal person who wouldn't harm people anymore, should they still be punished for the crime?  Punishing in this case accomplishes nothing but fulfilling the bloodlust on the part of the wronged, but something seems unsettling about not having any punishment at all.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "So we should simply force taxpayer subsidization by families of murder victims for the housing and feeding of ruthless, cold-blooded scums who sit in prison until they eventually rot and die?" Given large swaths of them are eventually proven innocent, especially among African Americans, yes. That's why we have an appeals process. I suppose you'd also have us chop off the hands of thieves? 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's add on top of that fact the already stated fact that lethal injection is nothing more than faux civilized form of hanging. It still has all the odds of going wrong, with all the horror and trauma that entails. But, at least the spectators to the macabre spectacle don't have to see blood and/or gore. At least it looks civil, eh? Perfect for a society that favors false civility over actually dealing with problems. 12:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how you to invoke societal civility to defend ruthless murderers from appropriate punishment. Furthermore, the argument of possible innocence definitely doesn't apply in this instance, which we all know. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's interesting how you to invoke societal civility to defend ruthless murderers from appropriate punishment." I don't give a fuck about civility. Especially not the false civility that people like you promote. Further, I love how you openly essentialize criminality to the person, rather than understanding it as a set of events anyone can fall into, thus justifying the maximum use of force. "Furthermore, the argument of possible innocence definitely doesn't apply in this instance, which we all know." And here your acting as if my opposition to executions is selective, rather than a broader position I happen to be applying here. But I'll bite. We execute Roof, then what? Deterrent "theory" is bullshit, so no one's going to be deterred. Hell, Neo-Nazis will probably treat him as a maryr and up their activities. So then what? His victims magically come back to life? We live happily ever after and sing kumbaya? What? Tell me in practical terms, what does killing him accomplish? 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "I don't give a fuck about civility." I'm not surprised. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You don’t need to execute someone like Roof to punish him. Just toss him in a concrete box by himself for the rest of his life. Imo, spending the rest of your life in a place like the ADX Florence actually seems worse than execution to me. 03:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It costs more to execute a prisoner than to jail them for life (don't believe me...look it up). There are many other reasons to not engage in the barbarous practice of murdering citizens which include the number of innocent people who were executed, that it is extremely disproportionately biased against black people and that it is not a deterrent. The idea that you should inflict extreme pain and harm on people when it can be easily avoided should be a no brainer for anyone (and this applies in nearly every single moral and ethical system I know). Crying out for people's blood and wishing long term misery and suffering on even heinous people is a toxic, fruitless and counterproductive approach to justice. Basically you are acting like a character from the old testament rather than a 21st century citizen of a developed country. Shabi  DOO  04:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The system is also disproportionately biased against the poor and mentally handicapped. The last woman executed was put through some horrendous life experiences to seriously destroy her mental state. The murder she committed was grisly but her upbringing definitely influenced her judgement. She should be locked away and kept out, and I don't think execution is justice. The dehumanization at display is troublesome. Maybe we should continue talking about soccer instead. 04:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you emphasize dehumanization when cold-blooded murderers are put to death? Perhaps not every person given capital punishment were evil and egregious on the same level, but some certainly deserve no less than lethal injection. Also, to respond to Shabidoo, it's important to take into account the costs that have resulted from rulings by the Warren Court decades back that have legally favored criminals in the United States. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As GC put it, you are essentializing criminality on people, which I believe is the wrong way to approach this subject as it then isn't about justice but about give people leeway to abuse others. Oh they're murderers, they are thieves. Stuck with this label even after time is served. Overlooks mental state, socioeconomic circumstances that motivate people to do these, the laws put in place that make the punishment inappropriate for the crime (drug offenders). That mindset gives weak justification for abuse like record heatwaves torturing people in prison, people looking the other way when COVID inflicts more suffering in prisons and the practice of solitary confinement. No one should be executed. No one should be given the task to execute either. I'm not sure what you mean by the legal process favoring criminals. I mean I agree but only for white collar crimes and corporate malfeasance. But the schmuck that robs or assaults? No. The legal system is slanted against poor people (bails for instance, ability to afford a lawyer, shortage of public defenders, broken window policy, disproportionate punishment between rich and poor, the prejudiced juries, the length of these trials, etc) and the system is stuffed with poor people and minorities so saying "it favors criminals" as a general statement is blatantly wrong. AMassiveGay did suggest a name change for you and I feel it's apt because you demonstrate zero understanidng of US history and you don't show any idea you're really analyzing it. 21:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also . We already DO keep the "ruthless, cold-blooded scums". For years. Decades. On average. Want to get rid of death row? Then more innocent people will die. 04:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

i note garland does not mention roof at all the linked article nor is the an anti lynching bill from the 1900s 'full context' - its entirely irrelevant to the reasons stated by garland for the 'temporary stop'- 'In a memo to senior officials, he said serious concerns have arisen about the arbitrariness of capital punishment, its disparate impact on people of color, and "the troubling number of exonerations" in death penalty cases.'

Full context is provided in the article and concerns the shortage of appropriate drugs for executions and the arbitrariness of executions rushed through by barr under the trump administration. the assertion that garland is giving a 'slap on the wrist' to Roof via this is a dogshit assertion driven by an attempt to label democrats as supporting racism and white supremacy. the 'full context' they provided refers to over a century old legislation, but nothing to actually support his dogshit analysis and conveniently leaves out the fuller context of the southern strategy and who the actual white supremacists are today.

garlands reasoning is not addressed at all by the op. not to even to discredit it in some way or try to spin it to their own ends.

UShistoryanalyzer's user name should be changed to something more reflecting their poor grasp of history and shit analytical skills. its false advertising otherwise. im suggesting 'fucking imbecile' then any one unawares will know they are getting from this scion of cpAMassiveGay (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to Garland's actual reasoning, I support a limited Federal death penalty for egregious cases. I consider Roof one of those cases.  The 'troubling number of exonerations' is a point opponents often raise.  At least within the few cases where I consider executions appropriate, like Roof, this is a total non-issue.  Does anyone seriously imagine Roof is innocent and that we convicted the wrong person?  In the cases where I think it ought to be considered, there will be a trail of public statements and manifestoes, such as Roof favored us with. Issues about the perp's identity will not occur. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The arguments in this thread against handing the death penalty for Roof have been based on looking at capital punishment as a whole rather than in this circumstance, and some of the arguments such as the "wrongfully killing an innocent person" in zero way is relevant in this case. Furthermore, modern-day forensic science advancements have made potential wrongful executions far, far less likely, not to mention that the left's sudden concern for due process never appears to consistently supersede their sheer political vindictiveness, as witnessed in the Kavanaugh confirmation several years back. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it only about roof because you pulled him out of your arse to make point you fashioned with whatever else fell from there.


 * replying toi smerdis: the 'troubling number of exonertions' here refers to trump to killing as many people as possible before he left office. its very much the issue. roof is not mentioned at all, he's not relevent to any this beyond the op is a prick. heres the thing though, as i understand it yo get a number of appeals before they can finally kill you. i dont think any one is seriously considering roof might be innocent but with someone in such a high profile case you still need due process to at least make certain hes guilty as charged. inocence isnt the only consideration either. things like mental health and intelligence come into to play here. can take time do properly. people grumble about it taking so long. im not sure this was done in the less high profile cases that trump rushed through, and if it were was it rushed and not fit for purpose? im fairly sure one or two of were pretty controversial in their own right putting doubts on the suitability of the death penalty. roof is a red herring, except maybe in the arbitrary application of the death penalty and the suggestion we might not need bother with the usual safeguards. it wouldnt be the first time someones guilt was so clearly obvious to all that no one could seriously question it and then suddenly there is no way they could have been guilty.


 * i stress i am restricting what passes as my reasoning here to garlands statements and not about my previously stated opposition to death penalty though some of it may apply. the original post was essentially made of whole cloth while subsequent posts defended the death penalty, of the dozens of time we rehash this subject, the ops effort was particularly half arsed and we've all seen played out before. i doubt we are going to change the minds of any here when we havent at other times we've gone through this and probably weighed in with much the same. i cant be arsed just for the benefit of someone seemingly not bright enough to troll properlyAMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an airtight case. Even if there is a confession and 50 eye witnesses there are still mitigating circumstances which we could not possibly be fully aware of (people, even those who confess may hide mental illness or circumstances which may make the criminal less culpable). Many airtight cases turned out to be false or at least more complicated than first thought. And even if there are no doubts, a system in which the government murders marginalised people at a higher rate is inherently immoral. There is nothing more dehumanising than murdering someone. Any argument for murdering someone when it can easily be avoided comes from our primative nature and our biblical-cultual-baggage. Shabi  DOO  16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fuck morality for a moment. The actual point of the death penalty, deterrence, has no actual measurable effects. We shouldn't do it, not just because executing people is morally bankrupt, not just because it's more expensive than just incarcerating them, not just because the process isn't sound enough, but because it doesn't actually do anything. And by the fucking way, all you fuckers talking about how prisoners live it up have never fucking been in a detention facility in your lives. It's so fucking obvious it borders on farcical. I have. I know what prisoners experience day in and day out. I fucking know what affects their minds and what fucking doesn't. 18:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Were you in prison, or did you work there, or what? A couple of my former coworkers worked in the prisons, one was even "friends" with one of the most infamous serial killers.  18:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was incarcerated for over a year while awaiting a court ruling on felony charges. If someone had threatened to kill me it would have been a mercy from the existentially soul crushing boredom that I endured day in and day out. 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that you don't mention more than a year, I'm going to assume either time served or not guilty. Either way, I'm sorry that happened to you.  19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(moved to other section)
 * What the fuck? I was arrested and awaited judgment for Aggravated Assault, not rape. 19:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Shabi was responding in part to me in a different section? 19:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry GC. This was meant for another section Shabi  DOO  19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel you guys should just continue talking about soccer rather than engage with the self-proclaimed history analyzer. 20:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fuck morality for a moment." Wow GrammarCommie, way to go shilling for a white supremacist mass murderer in arguing that the families of his murder victims should pay for the housing and feeding of his worthless hide in prison. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What has reading comprehension done to hurt you this bad? 21:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument presents is probably the one I would use as well if I didn't support capital punishment. But a more important discussion in general needs to be had about the purpose of incarceration. Primarily for me is whether we as a society are imprisoning people for rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Or are we simply denying people freedom as punishment. In the US at least, we are terrible on both fronts, which for me makes the argument in support of capital punishment weaker. Because if we aren't going to make people better nor are we simply denying them freedom temporarily, then instead capital punishment exists because we're not actually interested in justice, only revenge.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally I view incarceration as a necessity to prevent people from harming others but as a way for people to serve time and then try to prevent further harm. I don't like the idea of revenge and punishment should be used as reduction in bad behavior (and if behavior isn't reduced, punishment fails) but we need to figure out the whole mammoth issue of income inequality and our agonizing lack of mental health access and general healthcare. It'll also take an attitude change of being more compassionate to the poor and homeless and we're not even there given how shockingly so many people look down on them and try to ignore if not remove them. The just world hypothesis is so prevalent here and very deep embedded. There's no easy answers but I do think poverty is a key issue we need to address when trying to improve our incarceration processes. 22:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also impossible to separate the racial component literally built into the criminal justice system. It's easy to say 'Don't break the law' when the laws are written by a particular group, with the specific intent to benefit. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Look at the history of felony disenfranchisement. The whites first set up the rule of disenfranchisement and then lowered the bar for what constitutes a felony (for instance they decided that committing "moral turpitude" is considered a felony) so they can try to get less black people to vote. 23:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm against capital punishment on the logistics issue as well as the possibility of putting innocent people on death row. However, when it comes to the truly unrepentant and despicable people, I'm fully in favor of making their lifetime prison sentences as miserable as legally possible. You wanna be a mass murderer? Have fun spending the rest of your life only being able to listen to crappy radio to pass the time, sleep on a concrete slab for rest, and run circles in a bowl-shaped room for exercise. Basically life in a supermax. 23:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a moralist. The reason I oppose capital punishment is because I believe the state shouldn't have the power to determine whether someone lives or dies, that's an unjust hierarchy right there. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  06:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes Moose, you sound like the kind of people who hope that Chauvin gets raped every day while in prison. Have you been reading Leviticus a lot recently? Shabi  DOO  17:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Duce did say "legally", but measures that are legal can be questionable, like solitary confinement. I'm personally more in favor of just making prison living decent and that the time being spent is already the unpleasantness. Prisoners can get books to read, hot food, video games if they must, ability to talk to their loved ones, etc. Just maybe the tight space (but clean and sanitary) you're given isn't ideal and you still need to work to repay victims. 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i like how when the death penalty is not on the cards, you can tell how bad someone crime were when they sentenced to 1000s of year in prison. terry nichols got the equivalent of 9300 year in prison while micheal devlin, a paedophile, got 2020. nichols is clearly 7000 years more evil than devlin. it a little worrying to know that in 6000 years he'd be eligible for parole and could walking in the streets again a free man in the year 8081. mark the date on your diaries so you can remember to protest to appropriate authorities to prevent that terrifying possibility.
 * roy charles waller raped 9 women and only got 897 years which must be an insult to those women. 897 years? thats less than you'd get for parking ticket. who are these sentences for? what the point of them?
 * the best is from thailand though. 141,078 years was handed down. for fraud. they were out in 8. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understand those millenia-long sentences at all. Someone isn't given 5000 years in prisons on the offchance they are a highlander, we give them a 5000 year sentence so that 30 years from now, when a governor is looking to commute the sentences of a few long-forgotten criminals in order to reduce the prison expenses, we have a way of saying "not him, look at someone else".  00:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those superlong sentences serve an important purpose in the US. If a prisoner manages to get time shaved off their sentence for good behavior, with a 300-year sentence they'll still die in prison. Plus, the courts legally have to attach a sentence for each charge the criminal was convicted on so that they can be appealed separately. So if you kill a shitload of people and get a life sentence for each homicide, you're officially sentenced with a shitload of lifetimes in prison. 01:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also definitely don't hope Chauvin or anyone else gets raped in prison. 01:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Freedom University: An interesting unaccredited school
https://freedom-university.org/home

It is interesting as it is both an education institution for undocumented students and a form of protest against the discriminatory practice of denying education to immigrants. This is a tip of the iceberg on discrimination against immigrants. Might make a good RW article. --Tgal (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hesitate labeling this place as an "unaccredited school" even though they label themselves a "university." They appear to be functioning as a prep school to help undocumented immigrants gain access to higher education that they'd otherwise be shut out of because of their status. That is a worthwhile mission. Not sure if this place warrants an article here at this time, though. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, lack of accreditation is not bad per se. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A friend of my wife didn't take the Covid vaccine because she was pregnant... Now she's on the ICU
Her family is attends a Charismatic Christian church (I think her father in law is an important minister, not sure). So, they didn't want to take the vaccine because they thought it could harm the baby. No, I have no idea where they got this idea, probably from some weird blog or Whatsapp video, who knows. A few days before the delivery, they found out she had Covid-19. The doctor advised that the cesarian delivery would be the best in this case, but they still wanted a vaginal delivery. It was, I believe, the second stupid, avoidable mistake. The delivery took whooping 16 hours and probably exhausted even more her already weakened body. We just got the news and she's on the ICU now, though the baby is ok. Point is, they are not boomers nor uneducated idiots. They're under 30m, have decent jobs and studied in good colleges. How come people that do have access to information blunder so much? The cliche answer "they're Christians xD" does not convince me. GeeJayK (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to put this diplomatically, despite my usual gruffness. All right, so thanks to the internet, information is literally a click away, but so is misinformation. The problem becomes trying to figure out where to start. For many, they start with outlets that their family and friends trust, or that align with their views. They then build up a number of (mis)information sources and so fourth and so on. So, with all that in mind, their church or people within their churchh might have subscribed to misinformation regarding covid, resulting in your wife's friend passively or actively absorbing this misinformation, which resulted in skewed decision making and tragedy. It's also possible that there was another source of misinformation you and I aren't aware of, which could be the culprit.  21:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. But what I don't get. It seems to be relatively easy for most of us to discern between what's plain fake news and what's actuall news. I get, if you're uneducated or unexperienced with the Internet you're prone to make more mistakes, but that's not always the case. I wonder what happens to some of these people, why do they actually believe in this sort of bullshit. GeeJayK (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People develop their model of the world by various means. We have seen well educated people, even university professors claim that they don't trust the results of the last US elections. Education does not protect people from their own neuroticism. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And to them it seems easy as well. Let's not forget that the opposing camps, despite the shallowness of their political figures at times, are no less true to their beliefs than we are to ours. 04:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * People fear the unknown. People don't make decisions soley based on reason. Emotions can affect their decision-making.


 * The educational system doesn't spend enough time on critical thinking. Courses like logic and statistics are optional in college. Stunts1995 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Not having to live
To preface this if you are going to comment about this being mental illness or depression then just shut up ahead of time.

I found that the root cause of my problems with life is sort of being trapped in life. A while ago I realized that I didn’t have to live life or do any of the stuff people said that made it worth living. Unfortunately there isn’t such a thing as a painless suicide and trying to ask anyone to off you lands you in a mental ward. Thing is that many of the things people say that make life worth living are boring to me. Because once I saw I didn’t have to do all that it just sort of lost any importance to me. Now I just want this life to end because I have no interest in it at all, but without a way out the most I can settle for is just trying to remain what passes for comfort until death. I’m just tired of people saying it’s worth living (it’s not to me) or that im depressed (which im not, well not about what they would think is the reason anyway). I know talking about it doesn’t bring a solution but I wanted to get my thoughts out there.Machina (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 800-273-8255
 * It's free. They are also really lonely, do them a favor and just say hello, it'll make their day.  20:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I told you to not comment if that’s your post.Machina (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What specifically have you grown weary of? You can move this conversation to my talkpage if you want. 20:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of it. Mostly that if your bored or not interested in it people don’t let you just die. We are so ofput by death that we can’t accept that some people just want to leave.Machina (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you paid attention to me at all? I'm openly cynical and fatalistic. I openly view death as the ideal state of being, that is to say, non-consciousness. I openly express distaste and fatigue at the state of the world. You're telling someone who openly has expressed a desire to die, multiple times, that "people view death as so scary!" Really? 00:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like that on a few days. But I know there's not much to do about it. Plus I wouldn't be able to enjoy such a state so it's not ideal to strive for something you couldn't experience. A lot of it though stems from the upkeep of life and the inevitable downswing that will come and the increased upkeep just to avoid horrible suffering. That said, to reiterate my point arguing for death as some idea state is stupid since you can never compare it with your current one to know if it's better. We just assume it is but what we really mean when we say we want death is relief from suffering in it's forms which we think death provides. But since no one has "come back" from death we can't say much about it.Machina (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I suffer from pretty bad depression myself, and I often feel unmotivated and aimless. But keeping with the spirit of your post, I’ll just tell you to get the fuck over it and suck it up. Hardly anybody else feels a special meaning in life. You’re not any better than the rest of us to need one. 22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll come back to this because I don't think I've expressed how tired I am of these narcissistic bullshit posts. I don't like to talk about it, but I've dealt with suicidal urges for much of my life, and I even got really close to following through with an intentional overdose. You know what I did? I got help. I certainly didn't act like a fucking bitch when people told me I had a problem or advised me to seek help. I'm still having to fight through it.
 * You don't think your life has meaning? Fine. Do something about it and find a meaning for yourself. Find an activity you like, or volunteer somewhere, or join the military. Or you can do nothing but sit around. I won't look down on you for the second option, but if that's what you do, at least don't go around pissing and moaning about hard your life is because you refuse to get off your ass find your own damn meaning. A cosmic force ain't gonna hand you a meaningful life on a platter, and certainly no other person will. You live for yourself or you don't.
 * But I certainly don't appreciate you trivializing mental illness, and I also roll my eyes at the fact that you expect any kind of thoughtful or sympathetic response from me after you saying that you don't give a shit about anything. So you can get help or don't. If you don't, that's fine. But in that case, don't make it other people's problem. 01:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure if someone came here and was seeking advice on the best size of nail to drive through their hand or the best method for mutilating their fingers we wouldn't have an earnest discussion about such technique or the best online shop to buy nails from. Similarly, when a user who is clearly in denial of their mental problems and is too stubborn to keep shopping for the right kind of therapy/mental-health-services until someone can properly assist them keeps bringing up topics related to despair or self-harm are we going to go along and assist this person in their self-destruction. A common trope in mental-illness is an inability to recognise the extent of their mental illness and resistance to getting help (which includes the near unshakeable belief they cannot be helped despite only trying a limited number of solution). Go get help. Shabi  DOO  05:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned in my original lines for people to shut up if they had any remark that immediately went to mental illness as that's not what this is about. You two are completely ignorant as to what is being said there. I swear it's like you guys didn't even bother to read the original post. How is anyone supposed to talk about this if you just default to the cop out of mental illness? Is that the usual response to difficult questions about existence, just assuming something is wrong with the person?Machina (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you dont get to dictate to how we respond to your self delusions AMassiveGay (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The sooner you get help...the sooner you will suffer less. Shabi  DOO  04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that the sooner people actually question the value of life seriously as when we can actually move forward as a species rather than just default to life just being worth it in general with no real answer as to why that is. I can dictate how you respond when I have proof it isn't your usual copout answers.Machina (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As much I want to tell you to seek help, I know you’re not going to listen, so for now instead I will say this: if so many people including myself are able to find meaning in life, and a purpose, and something that they value about it, then with all due respect, what exactly puts you in a position to tell them that they’re wrong? For me, one of the things that gives me meaning and purpose and joy is that I’m now at a stage in my transition and my mental health where I’m finally happy with who I am. I spent years fighting to achieve that, and now that I finally have, it feels truly and incredibly significant. For this reason, my life has meaning. Do you really think that you could take away that meaning through some kind of logical argument? Another thing that gives me meaning is that I’m finally in a good enough position to show my love and gratitude to all the friends who helped me get here. Helping my friends, therefore, gives my life meaning. Even if you could logic this away with bulletproof reasoning, why would you want to? How would it help “advance the human species”? And, for that matter, if nothing really matters, then why would it even matter to you whether the human species advances? After all, wouldn’t that be just as subjective and just as meaningless as the meaning I get from enjoying my life and helping my friends?
 * Now that I’ve indulged you a bit, I feel it would be incredibly irresponsible of me to not bring up mental health stuff. You know why? Because your life has meaning — if not to you, then at least it does to me. Sure, I probably can’t justify that with Facts and Logic or whatever the fuck, but I don’t care. I don’t even know you, but I want you to stay alive. You know why? Because you’re a goddamn human being, and that means something to me. Sure we might all just be tiny specks or whatever, but I don’t give a fuck. I’ve chosen to care about my fellow human beings, and thus I’ve chosen to care about you. And here’s the facts: as much as you may not want to admit it, the simple fact is that from what you describe, you are clearly dealing with some kind of mental health issue. I know this because I’ve been in pretty much the exact place you are. I’ve got myself into seemingly bottomless holes of apathy and nihilism and boredom. I’ve felt like nothing had meaning. I’ve wanted to die. And at the time, I also didn’t want to accept that there was anything wrong. It was comforting to feel like, instead of there being an actual problem with my mental health, that I was just truly more attuned to the Objective Reality of The Universe. It was easier to say “existence is meaningless” than it was to admit that I might just be wrong, and that things actually could get better. It’s not like I don’t see the “logic” and the “truth” in your arguments. It’s not like I’m new to the fact that we’re just a tiny spec that’s insignificant on the grand scale of the wider universe. I’m certainly not new to the idea that there’s nothing out there writing out some sacred purpose for us. I know all of this shit. But you know what? I don’t care. Because I found something that mattered to ME, and that’s all I need. You might think I’m just deluding myself, and sure, maybe I am. But you know what? I don’t give a fuck. The fact it makes me happy is all the justification I need, and no objective facts about the meaning of the universe could even come close to changing that. And let me just be clear on something here: even now, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that you feel like your existence has no meaning. Because, if you’re anything like I was (and it sure sounds like you are), then I can safely say that right now? Your purpose is “being right” about your suffering. After all, if this didn’t mean anything to you, then why would you defend it so adamantly? And if you’re able to find meaning in THIS thing, why not some other thing?
 * One last thing I would like to add is that, just because one therapist told you you’re fine, doesn’t mean you are. I mean, firstly, it is just important to keep in mind that it’s important to be extremely honest with your therapist and that it takes time to build up trust, etc. But assuming you already know and have applied all that, you wanna know a secret? Most therapists fucking suck. I’ve been getting psychological/psychiatric treatment since I was a teenager, I’ve seen six or seven different therapists, and you know when I found my first good one? Four fucking months ago. And yet, four months later, here I am, full of self-worth and meaning to spare. I know that this stuff is more difficult to access in many parts of the world, so I’m not telling you what to do. But I am telling you that you can’t just see one therapist who tells you you’re fine when you’re clearly not, and just assume that nothing else can or should be done. Put some damn effort in.
 * Now, I know none of this is likely to actually make you change your mind just yet. Whenever people told me that I could and should change, I would just plug my fingers in my ears and spin myself a cocoon of denial. “They don’t know my story; they don’t understand the world as much as I do; I’ve already tried that”, whatever the fuck else. But, I’m sorry, the fact is that someone needed to tell you this. Because whether you like it or not, you are a valuable human being, and your existence is both meaningful and good for the world. You deserve to be happy and to find your own purpose in life. And the fact is that, if/when a crisis hits that makes you have to reevaluate the big questions, I want to make sure you have heard that there is a way out, and that you’re at least able to absorb some of this advice when you need it most. Bc if it wasn’t for my friends telling me the same things, I would never have recovered from my last crisis. And I sure as hell wouldn’t be doing as well as I am now. Take care, and remember: your existence is meaningful to at least one person, whether you like it or not.  16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Derp
Derp de derp de derpity derp derp? Shabi DOO  01:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this Morse Code? 01:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is it comes out as E E D....  not much good even for a goat...??  Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a certified Radiohead Moment. 14:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Double derp de derp! Shabi  DOO  02:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and I E .....Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * De de /   de derp de de  derp derp derp  de de de derp de  /   de derp derp de  de de  derp derp de de  derp derp de de de derp  Shabi  DOO  04:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he's broken. 04:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually the last one was morse code! Shabi  DOO  07:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

New PC (and my return to Windows)
I've just gotten a new computer- and am currently typing this using it. It's bigger, faster, and way more advanced than my last one, and at full brightness its display is almost as bright as the Discord Light Theme. And I've also returned to Windows from Linux, so that school will be easier and I will be able to play more games easily without having to enter  and hope upon a star that it works. I look forward to being able to play all those fancy Steam and Xbox games on a better graphics card without having to worry about my PC exploding in an atomic fireball visible from space, as well as the recently-announced Windows 11- but then again, I also do feel bad for my mom, who will now be pestered over the phone once again by her parents for advice on how to use yet another OS. -- Goatspeed. 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "I look forward to being able to play all those fancy Steam and Xbox games on a better graphics card"
 * Uh... thanks to Bitcoin you might be waiting a little while... 18:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That a reference to them monopolizing the higher-end components to mine? Artificius (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or at least driving up the price. My 4 yr old GPU, a RX 580 4GB, sells for $320 used.  That's more than I bought it for!  A decent card, current-gen card is going to cost more than the rest of the parts combined...  20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a minor correction. The price was skyrocketing even before this last Bitcoin rally. Crypto idiots just made everything worse. GeeJayK (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Cryptiots, do you think the initial "t" would be better silent or just confuse the listener? Artificius (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my new Razer pc costs around $2500, whereas my previous 2016 Dell Alienware one cost around $1700 in today's money. And also, how specifically is the ongoing crypto craze inflating the price, anyway? Is it because the increased amount of bitcoin in the world's economy is making the value of one BTC plummet, or because the cryptiots are buying all the gaming PCs? -- Goatspeed. 21:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They use graphics cards to mine their meme coins. GeeJayK (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How very irritating. Sounds like a huge waste of resources that were specifically designed for a recreational activity from which people can often get paid more than surgeons. Quite frankly, until we find out what the hell is going on all the Bitiots need to go, as their absurd crypto mining fad is burning up energy like no tommorow and believe me, it's making life harder for all those beautiful, beautiful patriot gamers. Sad! -- Goatspeed. 21:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll probably get even more pissed when you find out how much GPU mining spoils the graphic cards. GeeJayK (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my sig broken on the SB for anyone else?
On my screen it’s doing some wild shit but only on this page. Is everyone else seeing that? If so does anyone know how to fix? Thanks 02:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me, if your sig is supposed to be multicoloured and have Burmese text in it. Shabi  DOO  02:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me on my Mac, iPhone, and Windoze 10 PC. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me as well. Have you tried looking at it using a different browser? It could be a browser thing. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Go to your sig page? Not sure what you are seeing.  15:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am seeing a variety of things; the link to your talk page shows up in Tibetan sometimes, otherwise in maybe Telugu. I have support for those scripts installed mostly due to personal eccentricity.  Those who do not might see all sorts of things. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's odd. I'm seeing Late Middle Martian hieroglyphs as used in the Southern Highlands during the reign of Zarg the Trouserless.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a series of alternating non-Latin scripts for my talk page link so that’s normal. this shit just keeps happenin 04:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me -- Goatspeed. 21:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there; parkin my ass right on here for a while.
ED doesn't want me editing there pages for a while, and I sure as he'll ain't going to fuckin uncyc, so I'm gonna stay here for a while, he'll upload some pics, maybe help write some more articles I guess. So, what do you guys say?
 * No. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fuck as long as you don't cause trouble. 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, no. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with the information provided elsewhere in the wiki...no! 19:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, given how you seem to think that this is a drama-obsessed wiki like ED and "ironically" use anti-gay slurs as insults like you're some sort of sheltered 12-year-old, I'd say your welcome is lukewarm at best. Benefit of the doubt is usually wasted on self-admitted Uncyclopedian edgelords. -- Goatspeed. 21:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This is why transphobia in sports is bad
None of the women mentioned in the linked tweet were even trans, but because they didn't physiologically adhere to the arbitrarily defined standards of the Olympic committee, they were banned from participating in this year's Olympics. Biological sex is a spook anyhow, real human sexual and physiological variation is too subtle and complex to be defined by two arbitrary categories socially agreed upon. Oh, and they were all African too. How cute. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they all had Swyer syndrome, which has its own rather substantial effects. That is a rather obvious point to leave out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 01:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think their lawyer was much help either.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They're still ciswomen. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  01:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus fucking shitsticks. Most successful athletes have one genetic advantage or other over the average mere mortal anyways. I don't understand having a naturally ridiculously huge and/or strong legs or being born with a freakishly strong willed determination is not an unfair advantage but natural levels of a hormone is. Another fallout per transphobia and sports. If "fairness" was really so essential in sports then countless things that don't even hit sports officials radars wouldn't happen. Shabi  DOO  02:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to think fairness has something to do with this. I believe it's money all the way. I can't claim to know what the IOC had in mind, but they have long been recognized as a greedy money-grubbing bunch. Unfortunately, at this stage, just saying "transphobia!" has limitations, especially where it affects their bottom line.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fairness" is the excuse people and sports officials use to justify excluding people from sports. I would obviously prefer they just say it's because they are uncomfortable with it or because it messes up their long-term plans, image, sponsorship or whatever else. Since they have everything to lose by saying that...they go with...uhhhhh...."fairness". Shabi DOO  02:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ya, throwing out the "This is why transphobia in sports is bad" headline is clickbait. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Swyer syndrome is a bit more than just having different hormone levels. I don't know or frankly care to investigate whether this was the right legal decision, and I think there's a case to be made (even if their lawyer didn't make it) that this decision is unfair, but the specifics of this condition matter. That said, the IOC is corrupt enough that it wouldn't take a whole lot if they wanted to get to that conclusion anyway. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 03:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not go all the way, declare gender to be a social construct and not have any separation of men and women? Have Katie Ledecky compete against Michael Phelps.  Have Flo-Jo race against Usain Bolt.  Have Serena Williams compete against whoever the #1 tennis guy is.  The point of having "men's sports" and "women's sports" is because otherwise, women would be unable to compete at all.  What the IOC wants to define as "woman" is going to upset someone no matter what is decided, and they are within their rights to define "woman" any which way they like.  03:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's transphobia. If you go...yeah she is a woman, I can put an "F" on her license and passport and she can use the woman's washroom and I will address her with female pronouns and treat her in every other way as a woman but...with sports...uhhhhhhhhhhh....she's not a woman...because...uhhhhh...."fairness". It's just an excuse for exclusion. If fairness was meaningful in sports then tons and tons of shit wouldn't happen. Shabi  DOO  03:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Serena Williams example isn't a hypothetical, although Karsten Braasch was ranked 203; while consciously trying to play below his level, he kicked the shit out of both Venus and (admittedly a very young) Serena. So yeah, keeping genders in sports is the only way to have women in them (equestrian and similar notwithstanding). The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 04:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The answer to this dilemma is easy. Clearly, the Olympics people are relying too much on experts. If they took a "best of the public" approach, all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

"The best of the public is better than a group of experts." - Andy Schlafly Roger8 (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Shabi, not sure that argument holds up. The government doesn't force trans women to change their gender on their government documents and whatnot, that is something that government has been lobbied and pressured to do over the course of decades.  Heck, trans men aren't legally required to register for the draft, whereas trans women still have to, to show you what the government really thinks of gender.  Write your congress-critter.
 * Competing in the olympics isn't a right. Do I think people with Dwyer Syndrome should be prevented from competing?  They are "female enough" and I disagree with the IOC's decision, but the IOC has the right to be assholes, just as everyone else has the right to not watch the olympics.  15:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My argument said nothing about the government, whether the IOC are assholes or not. It was that their rationale is an excuse for transphobia. Which it is. Shabi  DOO  16:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, it sounded like you were talking about what the government lets them do. As for people, different argument, but still no.  We don't go "eh, I'll use female pronouns and let them use the ladies room" because we all believe they're female, it's mostly to try and avoid fights and respect and whatnot.  Society is nothing more than a bunch of assholes pretending to be nice so that we don't kill each other.  16:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Some people are under the illusion that if you just add your rational argument to the "market place of ideas" and ask pretty please that people will give up their privilege, bigotry and discrimination. The IOC are still transphobic and as you can see, non-trans people are also suffering because of these policies. Shabi DOO  17:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you are trying to do, and no, that ain't going to work. You also have another flaw; the entire argument against trans women in women's sports is that trans women are the ones with a privilege.
 * It's not really my fight, I don't care too much either way, but I would understand why a cis woman wouldn't want trans women in their league. 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Shabi  DOO  17:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh on what? 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trans women have privilege? That's news to me. What was it exactly I was trying to do? I am pretty confused about that. Shabi  DOO  02:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of athletic ability. That's the entire argument.  Not that "trans women aren't really women, ergo they shouldn't play with women", but rather "trans women retain enough muscle mass and bone density to have a significant advantage over cis women".  There do seem to be quite a few studies suggesting some advantage, though there's a crapton of bullshit all around so it's difficult to say at this point.  Like I said, it's going to be a problem if we let in trans women but tell them to not win because if they do too well they have to go.  03:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

is there not science to answer this? are testosterone levels higher in trans athletes than in cis women? and does enough muscle accumulated before transitioning and hrt retained to be considered an advantage? some say no for testosterone levels, some say yes on musclemsass. i couldnt tell you with any certainty where the science points but unless its unequivically 'no advantage' this isnt a problem with an easy solution. at top levels of sport miniscule advantages are decisive. testosterone levels do matter. its why people take anabolic steroids. when caught they get banned, and if are allowed to return later they are pariahs because even when they have stopped taking them, they would have already gained life long advantages from them. trans athletes, rightly or wrongly will be seen in that same category as drug cheats whose notoriety is stuff of national shame. thats a heavy burden to over come and i dunno if scientific research can be conclusive enough here to help lift it.

one can argue that top sports people are genetic freaks who already have an unfair advantage over other or there are other advantages some have that we are fine with. let every one compete transwomen, cis women, men. that would solve it. no more womens sports though. i can see the injustice of not letting transwomen compete. i can see the injustice of letting them compete 'might' be. i can see the discord is heightened by the fact womens sport are so underfunded, with less sponsorship, less prize money than the mens competitions. more people fighting of over the scraps from the mens table is not welcomed by anyone.

time might ultimately resolve all this. with a few years of transwomen competing with cis women, there may be no advantage to be seen. or it may be so that we couldnt ignore it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it will depend on the sport, but according to the Graniaud, trans women maintain a 12% edge in running tests even after 24 months of hormone suppression. I'd imagine the advantage would be much less in, say, olympic shooting, so would we have trans women allowed in some sports but not others?  On the other side, is it really fair to say "ok, you can compete this year unless you start winning?"  I think that was the issue with Oscar Pistorius, before he would go on to murder his girlfriend.  20:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which hits on the motives of the IOC. Why not get transwomen to compete in greater and greater numbers? The competition would get more intense, and new records would be made in all of the physical competitions. That would motivate new interest in the Games wouldn't it? The transphobia that is involved is not on the part of the IOC as such. They are just trying to make a few billion bucks. It is the general public, they fear, who do not want to watch male-bodied women compete in the games. Close to half of the broadcast programming of Olympic events are women's events. And yes, the public is transphobic.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They could get even more records broken by allowing robots and animals to compete as well. The uncomfortable truth is that women's sports have always been a lower tier than the men's sports, no matter how many commercials air with Mia Hamm singing about how anything I can do she can do better.  We give women their own lesser league so that they can compete, and there is legitimate fear that if nothing is done, in a few years cis women will once again be excluded from global-level sports.  Of course, the people complaining about this tend to be those who didn't seem to care too much about women before, and neither side of the debate has suggested the obvious solution of having a third trans/inter/open category for everyone, because that would go against both sides' unstated goals. 23:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I always thought that was the smartest option. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 00:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Two possible problems I can see with this, for the sake of argument: 1) The leagues in question would be vanishingly small (despite the furor surrounding them, trans people are relatively rare); 2) Exclusion is part of the problem trans people are facing, their goal is largely to be grouped in the gender they identify as. Artificius (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To the second point, exclusion is a problem for disabled people too. The Paralympics works quite well to handle that, it's genuinely enjoyable to watch. If anything, I'd see having my own league as a chance to get higher visibility; I can imagine not everyone would look at it that way, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 18:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with trans folk in the Paralympics. That's a place for the disabled, not the disgendered. For what harm it will do to sports, they should still just be in their own assigned preferred genders, preferably post-op and post HRT for an arbitrary amount of time. The greater issue is humans suffering with messy biology. Artificius (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I’m a trans woman, and due to my HRT I have an absolutely tiny amount of testosterone; much less than the average cis woman. I literally have lost almost all of the muscle mass I had, and it takes a huge amount of effort to get any of it back. My experience may not be universal, but all I’ll say is that I wouldn’t like to compete against any cis woman (or man) as I am now. And I just think it’s all a bit silly. 01:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but does HRT modify the secondary sexual characteristics of hip and shoulder width in any way beyond changes in muscle and fat distribution (because that seems like it could lead to mechanical effects or differences in sports)? I'm not a sports fan and am lucky enough to be comfortable in the skin I'm in so I don't have a horse in this race, it's just a fascinating topic. Like I've heard testosterone supplements can affect bone density, but the overall profile of the bones is unmodified, right? ...Slight segue: in an ideal world, we'd have Fast and the Furious style illegal street racing between "competitors" doped to the gills and cybernetically modified to go as fast or as strong as possible in a given event (I'm picturing a triathlon or an obstacle course so this doesn't result in "people" who're little more than a set of 'roided legs with a gyro nested on top, or Butterbean in UFC for all, or Man vs Car from Rick and Morty). (Artificius (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hips: yes definitely. My hips are muchhhhh wider now, and also have rotated a bit so I’m now a couple cm shorter than I used to be. I’ve basically had constant growing pains in my hips for the past year and I legit have no idea how wide these bitches gonna be when they stop growin. Shoulders, not really, at least not in my case. Idk if it’s the same for everyone, though I have heard that the bone structure of the hips/ribs/chest area doesn’t change much/at all. However, at least in proportion, they do superficially appear to be slightly less broad, bc of the titties and hips. Also, it depends on what age you start — the closer you are to puberty, the quicker and more significant the changes to the bone structure. If I had started HRT a couple years after I did, my hips may not have changed quite as much, but again, it’s different for everybody. Also fwiw, I definitely don’t have higher bone density than an average cis woman. And while in my case that’s mostly bc I’m vitamin D deficient and was underweight for about 4-5 years, that’s still pretty normal. My perspective is that, basically, when it comes to the things that are important to sports, physical sex is mostly just useful as a rough average; and that, if we can accept that some cis women will naturally have different bone structures, hormone levels, etc, I don’t see why it should be different for trans women. For all the things trans women (at least those on hormones) are “better” at, there’s a bunch of things we also aren’t, and as my own slightly decrepit body shows, there are all kinds of naturally occurring outliers. I mean I’d even argue you can’t compete in the olympics at all without being some kind of physical outlier, so why discriminate at all in that regard? Unless someone is deliberately choosing to enhance their performance with relatively dangerous drugs like steroids, it makes no sense to rule people out just for not adequately fitting some “natural” average. 13:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t feel strong one way or the other but the fact that transgender women are women doesn’t null all the differences between the two sexes. Of course, in the end it all boils down to the individual, but we’ve been evolving for billions of years, nature did a good job, so I don’t think sociology is capable of explaining every single one of the differences between men and women. Ironically, I find this idea dangerously similar to what some TERFs think. Is this enough to say that transgender women shouldn’t compete in the female categories? I don’t think so, I believe they should, but I don’t agree with the “biological sex is a spook” statement. GeeJayK (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When did I say anything about sociology or sex being a spook. In case it wasn’t previously clear enough, my argument is something along the lines of “sex differences seem like a somewhat arbitrary physical characteristic to justify excluding people, especially when there are other characteristics with fewer fuzzy ledges and outliers that aren’t used to exclude people”. That said, I’m not exactly sure how even your interpretation of my argument is terf shit? Seeing as they treat physical sex like it’s a strictly deterministic and strictly binary system that is a perfectly good reason to exclude people, and I’m just not seeing how, even if I did say physical sex was fake, that would be even close. Also, while I know it almost certainly wasn’t intended to be hurtful or anything, I’d suggest reconsidering whether it’s really appropriate to compare a trans woman’s arguments to the arguments of people who don’t want trans women to exist, in this instance. Like I don’t mean to be rude or anything, but I feel like that was a little uncalled for and maybe could have been thought out better, for future reference. I’m not saying there’s no hypothetical cases where it would be appropriate (say, a trans woman excluding some other group using TERF Reasoning), or that I feel like you’ve wronged me or whatever. but it is just something I’d suggest treating with a little more concern than you did here. At the very least, it would have helped if you had at least explained your reasoning a bit more, but honestly even then i feel like it would’ve been not ideal. Thanks. 15:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about your post, Asela. Oxy started her post saying that "Biological sex is a spook anyhow". Though I agree that the importance of sex has diminished over time I it's too early to say that it doesn't exist. Regarding TERFs, I've seen them saying that "neither sex nor gender exist, every human is 100% equal". It is what Oxy said? Not at all. But at least some of them seem to believe that "there's no such thing as sex" which is what I believe she said. GeeJayK (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah true whoops sorry. I haven’t really read much of the rest of the thread (and kinda don’t want to), so I didn’t pick up on that and also don’t have much to add (except that I feel like arguing that sex doesn’t exist seems to be pretty contradictory to the rest of their ideology, since they want to very strictly enforce a sex-based binary. And also while I’m still personally uncomfortable with comparing a different trans woman to a TERF, it’s not really my place to get upset about it on Oxy’s behalf). But yeah, just, sorry for the misinterpretation, get a little confused by the semi-anarchic nature of indents on this website occasionally lmao. All good? 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been on the Wiki business for well over 15 years now and you're definitely one of the sweetest persons I've ever met. Your comment made me worry that I could have hurt you in a way I definitely didn’t want too. I have a shit ton of work to do, and yet I was writing a comment to post in your talk page explaining better what I meant. I’m glad you understood better now. Nonetheless the TERF comment was indeed an unfortunate comment and I owe you and Oxy an apology for that. I’m sorry. GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In a different space I ran into a small but vocal minority of folks fanatically defending the position that men's and women's bodies have no difference in ability while losing weight, that it was all just a matter of caloric intake. I never gleaned what their motivation was, but I've seen those differences first-hand: ever watched a bunch of professional military women sweat and work their balls tits off trying to make weight or tape in the month leading up to a PRT (so twice a year) so as not to get kicked out of the service while the slacker dudes go to the gym maybe once or twice a week and are fine? And female height/weight standards are generous, at least on paper. Artificius (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you GeeJayK that is an extremely kind thing to say and I’m glad. Also I absolutely accept your apology, I know it wasn’t meant with any ill will, and I’m sorry for the miscommunication. You didn’t really upset me, but I do appreciate your response regardless. And yeah it’s all good. Thank you for being so kind, I’m kinda awkward at responding to these things but I do appreciate it a lot. 04:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Intersex people
If we're going to bar trans women from competing with cis women, how would you suggest intersex people, such as a woman with androgen insensitivity, and some woman not even realizing they're intersex. 19:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Intersex can't be "faked". One of the issues that doesn't seem to be in the discussion is when people who aren't actually trans that pretend to be trans.  History is full of cases of people becoming eunuchs for power/influence, or who are forced to become eunuchs for the entertainment of others, so it's not some outlandish hypothetical.  Soviet Russia had no qualms about injecting their female athletes with hormones against their will for the 1980 Olympic Games, and while I doubt that Vladimir Putin ever wants to be known as "the really trans-friendly country", I don't put it past China or even Iran (which already forces gay men to change genders under threat of execution).
 * Obviously this is a complete non-issue if trans athletes have no advantage, but we will see... 21:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now there is a dilemma. Strangely enough, perhaps the first intersex female Olympian was named Dillema. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not a Big Olympics Enjoyer, but see, I figure it would just be easier to find nifty ways to dope them to be able to compete better against other cis men, than to give them performance decreasing drugs to compete against cis women. I mean, firstly they seem to already do that a LOT and also get away with it lmao, so i feel like it might be more of a “why fix what isn’t broken” kinda deal. That said, if I’m wrong about this, however, then I feel like the olympics is just a little not worth it. Idk what the fix would be exactly, but honestly if there’s truly no way for ur games to not be gross and transphobic without someone taking advantage of it, then why even have them. “It’s about people Pushing The Limits, and Achieving Their Dreams*” (*unless ur trans in which case fuck you, you can never enjoy this). Like if it does turn out that this is an industry that so heavily incentivises corruption that there is, in fact, have no choice but to tell trans people that they have no right to participate at all, then maybe that industry should go to the dumpster. Seems like a better option to me than finding another excuse for society to shit on trans ppl. I mean, I still dont think that’s the actual situation, but if it is, then well, that sucks. Also, anecdotal I guess, but just wanna say that I’d much rather have competed against cis men when I could produce more than a single drop of testosterone, than I would against cis women now that I basically can’t lmao, bone structure and all. honestly feminising HRT is just the shittest performance enhancing drug I can imagine. Except maybe clonazepam. I’d definitely watch the Clonazepam Olympics. 14:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to this study trans women retain 12% edge in tests two years after transitioning. One idea I can think (though I agree there would still dozens of problems) is to put a limit on how much more a trans woman can have testosterone than cisgender competitors. But I repeat, I can think of ten reasons at least of why this is still a bad idea. One thing should be done for sure, but I don't know what. Maybe the solution is to create two more categories (or even more), maybe they should just compete in the same categories as cis women (that was my vote on the poll), but I don't think there is an easy solution to this problem. GeeJayK (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * my main question is, what % edge do other “natural” variations cause, and why are they less important than being on HRT. Also, considering there are going to be (many) outliers in either direction (from things like being intersex, trans, or just havin the Really Good At Breathin Gene), why does it make sense to treat physical sex as a strictly binary performance category when it’s, like, not? And most importantly, why is nobody in High Places considering the clonazepam olympics idea. why tf would anyone watch a race or whatever if the competitors aren’t even blacked out, completely disinhibited, and unable to take more than three steps without falling over. That’s the real test of Peak Human Performance if you ask me. 15:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Functioning alcoholics would have an advantage there or other such people with high tolerances for mind altering drugs. The British would win hands down in such events. It wouldn't even be a contest. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * pretty sure at least one athletics organisation did deal with intersex athletes. they introduced madximum levels of testosterone requiring medication to reduce it for anyone exceeding that limit. it was not universally accepted as the right decision. dunno if its even in effect or rescinded or what. intersex have less numbers and supporters to speak for them. any furore died pretty quick, and we've forgotten already. i dont think ive imagined it. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/29/what-is-an-intersex-athlete-explaining-the-case-of-caster-semenya here]. it was challenged in court. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/50049449 back again] but concerning trans athetes AMassiveGay (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Trans people and sport
Ik it‘s controversial, but like the PP pointed out, do you think that trans ppl should compete in professional sports. IMO they should be able to compete in men’s events, but not in women. 06:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhh it's "trans people" or "trangender people", they don't normally like being referred to as "transgenders". 07:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. Half the reasons against trans women (because apparently trans men don't exist in whatever universe you live in) competing in women's sports is that it wouldn't be "fair". Professional sports isn't about fairness. There, done. Further most of the people putting forwards these claims never gave a damn about sports before it became a battleground for the "culture war". This entire subject is as fucking limp dicked as the fucking bathroom panic, and just as asinine. 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank u for saying what I would have liked to say if I was capable of being concise and also blunt. 14:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to consider the plethora of rules & penalties relating to foul play, unsporting behaviour, and the fielding of ineligible players, in just about every sporting endeavour imaginable. Some notion of "fairness" is quite fucking clearly inherent in their existence. If you've got a serious point to make here, then this isn't the angle you're looking for. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah HBC, I don't remember seeing anywhere in Grammar Commie's text where he said there is "no" fairness in Sports. Simply that it isn't "about" fairness. Tons of ridiculously unfair bullshit happens in sports all the time that few even bat an eyelid about. GC made a serious point from a good angle. Shabi  DOO  01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * GC would clearly like to claim that questions re. "fairness" matter so little in the context of professional sport that they can be safely disregarded for the purposes of this discussion. I'm inviting him to reflect upon what an exceptionally stupid position that is to take, and I'll extend that invitation to you, too. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It is simply rich that "fairness" is suddenly of prime concern when it comes to a convenient excuse to exclude people. Sports organisations have ignored rampant unfairness, disparity, inequality, corruption and crime for decades and still do to this day at shocking levels. Shabi  DOO  05:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Shabi, rhetorically this is on a par with cRiMiNaL iNjUsTiCe SyStEm, aMiRiTe?!!, and is beneath you, and would make all your old philosophy profs weep for their wasted effort. You're not offering GC any good moves here, so do better or fuck off. Thanks. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's almost as though the justice system doesn't do things like give disproportionately high sentences to black people or that they don't generally ignore white collar crime but become suddenly tough-on-crime when it comes to profiling black people and stopping and frisking them in the street. HBC, your theatrical tactics won't work on me. Iif anyone should fuck off...why don't you do that...for good...and do this website a favour? Shabi  DOO  16:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, no amount of gross injustice suddenly removes the need to consider people's commonly held ideas re. "justice" when discussing the fucking justice system. I would say that something very similar obviously applies to people's ideas of "fairness" and any serious discussion of sport, professional or otherwise, but then I already fucking did several times already. If you really need it spelled out for you, then consider that a football match without norms & rules re. fair & legal play is essentially just a weird, shapeless brawl over a fucking inflatable. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah...of course HBC. Nothing you said is news to anyone here. However, the excuse that racial profiling and stop and frisk disproportionately affecting visible minorities is somehow for "justice" is fucking ludicrous. Justice may be the ultimately value of the system, but it can and frequently is used an excuse for particular policies which are outrageous bullshit and actually work against that value. Does that mean that fairness and justice don't exist at all and aren't goals that organisations strive for to some extent? Of course not. But when an organisation dedicates completely insufficient resources to ensuring the justice that marginalised people deserved...one can be justifiably dubious that the enactment of contentious policies that significantly hurt or exclude said marginalised people is actually done in the name of that "justice" or fairness or whatever. It could actually just be the excuse to justify other goals. Am I 100% certain? No. Am I justified in being extremely sceptical of this considering their track record and the contentious nature of the policy? You'd be a fool if you weren't. Shabi  DOO  04:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Trans people and the nature of professional sports
So, I know everyone here has strong opinions on this topic, as do I. However I want to throw morality out the widow for a moment and argue from a strictly practical standpoint. Professional sports is a multi-million dollar industry. This means it isn't going to prioritize things like fairness or other such noble ideals. it's going to prioritize making sure athletes under each business' banner have a competitive edge, since that's what makes them profitable. In this regard, professional sports is the antithesis of fairness, since it seeks to upset the balance that the idea of fairness seeks to establish. Is it fair that one athlete thinks to eat before a match and another doesn't? Is it fair that one sprinter weighs more and another less? Do those in charge seek to discourage these advantages or to promote them? As I've laid out, they seek to promote them, as that promotes competition.

So, with this in mind, how should we respond to the concerns about women's sports? For starters, we must understand how lopsided and poorly thought out such concerns are. Why aren't there concerns about advantages of cis men over trans men? Surely the same logic must apply to the inverse right? But such concerns are absent.... Why aren't there calls for strict dietary regimes? Surely, if the goal is fairness, we should be concerned about other aspects of athletics, not merely trans women vs cis women. And yet, the concerns, such as they are, are very narrowly focused, to the exclusion of all else, on the idea that trans women might have an edge over cis women. But, if that was the case, why aren't sports teams, which as I previously laid out think in terms of business and advantage, hiring trans athletes en masse? Perhaps the concerns aren't being raised in good faith? Perhaps those with money on the line don't buy into them? Perhaps indeed... 15:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Transgender youth are a very small minority of the U.S. population — 1.8 percent of high school students, according to a 2019 CDC report — and the number of those transgender girls likely to play sports and compete at an elite level is even smaller." - Washington Post, 2021


 * The small amount of trans athletes is the reason why women's sports teams are not hiring trans athletes en messe. Stunts1995 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it? That's straight numbers, not percentages. If trans women, specifically, have such advantages, even one or two on a team would logically be advantageous. But we don't see that. Armchair pundits say this is true, but people with actual skin in the game aren't acting as if it's true. Again, mightn't people with actual incentive to seek out every advantage they can get act on these conclusions if said conclusions were true? 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Only a handful of transgender athletes have achieved high levels of success in sports." - Reuters, 2021 Stunts1995 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And? That doesn't really argue against my position. 16:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Transgender people face social stigma and that cuts down their participation in team sports like soccer and football. It wasn't until very recently that an openly gay athlete appeared in the NFL.


 * Sports psychologists will tell you that a large part of sports is the "mental game". "The World Health Organization (WHO) states that transgender people, and other gender minorities, comprise roughly 0.3–0.5% (25 million) of the global population. The WHO adds that transgender people often experience disproportionately high levels of mental health conditions."


 * In order to attract transgender talent en masse, you have to have large numbers of people and not merely percentages. Regardless, globally the percentage of people who are transgender and have an interest in competing in sports appears to be low. Stunts1995 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You were lamenting about the failing education system earlier. You're a pretty good example. Don't you have better things to do, maybe pansy gardening? 19:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so long ago when this subject came up via a ruling on intersex athletes had to take some to reduce their testosterone levels if it were over a certain level, I remember reading some argument from female athlete, Paula Radcliffe I think but can't be sure, but business giving their sponsorship money intersex athletes was one her 'fears'. Sponsorship money already thin on ground for women's sports, and without it an athlete could not afford to train full time and could not compete at the top level. Whatever advantage intersex people had physically, it would be compounded by financial advantage. I don't know how likely that all is, but it is a fear some had. Id imagine some have the same fear with trans athletes.


 * As for 'fairness' in sports, I think GC is mistaken a little. Fairness is very much promoted by the organisations that run them. Athletic organisations go to great lengths to catch dopers and make it difficult for anyone to consider it. Drug scandals damage their business everytime a gold medal is stripped from the winner of an event just after they step of podium. The world cheered them to victory in the final, tainting the memory of it for everyone watching. Sponsors aren't going to sponsor an event if less and less people are watching because they think they are all on steroids anyways. It's the sports teams that athletes are a part of, that go to great efforts to get round testing regimes, not the organisations running the sport. It's the teams that don't care for fairness, they profit from sporting success.


 * Athletes with the bigger teams in their fields do get an advantage in the financial support they get, the best equipment and the best trainers, and so forth, but with performance enhancing drugs, they do not have an insurmountable advantage that anyone without their backing just have no chance. In some sports it more of an issue, but others? Kenyan goat herders and such like always seem to be winning gold over the talent with access to whatever technology their sponsorship deals can buy.


 * Women's sports exist because, in many events that rely on muscle power, women would be completely absent from those events entirely. No one is worrying about trans men competing with cis men, because they do not have an advantage from what processes they undertake in transitioning. Whatever the science says about trans women, there is a fear from many that they will have an advantage. It doesn't matter if trans women at present are a miniscule fraction of the cis women population, if there were an advantage, at the top level of women's sports, cis women would be crowded out. I don't have an opinion on that, I don't know the science well enough to have an opinion. But as fairness in how the ruling organisations see it, levels of testosterone or whatever they deem relevant will like be given a maximum level acceptable.meaning trans women will be required lower their testerone if it exceeds this, or not compete at all. This is what some athletic organisations have done with intersex athletes. The effectivenes of measures like that, whatever you think of them, will determine whether or not trans women hoover up all the sponsorship money. There isn't enough trans women in sport right now for sponsors to prioritise then over cis women or for any advantage to become apparent. If trans women are prevented now from competing or only after hormone levels within a range, businesses won't ever prioritise them ove cis women. Only time will tell how this plays out in the end, but equality won't be the decider here, it's less than conclusive science and the response the respective sports take in interpreting that science.


 * And what would become of women's sports if trans women did turn out to dominate them? That could have more disastrous effect on their sports than the optics of any injustice to transwomen they might do. This wasn't an issue a year or two ago, I'm not sure anyone has a handle on what is the best on all involved. If there is no advantage for tran women, hopefully we look back and wonder what the fuss was all about. |AMassiveGay (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking some more on it there is a disadvantage for trans women that huge enough to keep trans women from competing in numbers that reflect the number of trans to cis women. The top levels of sport are filled with people who took up the sport in schools, and trained and trained and trained till they reach the peak of their profession. They don't have a long shelf life, some sports more or less than others. Trans women are going to to have to transition during all this, that's going to disrupt their training regime isn't it? If it does, they would need to be super dedicated to catch up maybe a year's worth training that cis athletes would not have to worry about. That would be pretty huge hurdle to over come if that's the case. But someone more in the know would have to tell you how transitioning effects energy levels and trading intensity and the like. I dunno, I'm just spit balling. I can't imagine it would make things easier. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not all trans people do the entire transition. IIRC, the standard procedure is to spend a year living as the desired gender, then hormone replacement therapy if deemed appropriate, and then the surgeries if deemed appropriate. The surgeries themselves take 6 weeks to recover from, and while 6 weeks off of training a year prior to an event is a slight disadvantage, certainly enough to matter in something as competitive as the Olympics, athletes have surgeries all the time and still compete. It seems that in many events this disadvantage is nothing compared to the effects of male puberty. Remember that even as you lose muscle mass, you never lose the fibers themselves. As a weightlifter, if I were to quit weightlifting long enough to where a lift falls from, e.g., 350 lbs to 250 lbs, I'd get it back to up 350 far faster than someone is currently lifting 250 lbs. If I were to transition to female, I'd still have far more fibers and more strength than if I had been born female, even though I personally am not stronger than female Olympic athletes of my weight class right now. 15:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Looked it up.  I actually could get a state record on some of my lifts, for my age and weight class.  Wow.  I should probably do that sometime...
 * Further addendum. I could get the open record in literally half the states.  I really should do that sometime...  16:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Amassivegay, doping screening is ridiculously inadequate in sports. If fairness was a prime consideration then they would multiple their anti-doping budget ten fold, they would ban more substances and they would put much more work into fighting detection avoiding (something that still happens at ridiculously high levels with all sorts of schemes to avoid dectection). That is just one example of inadequate "fairness". Most fairness is at a cosmetic levels, the most visual aspects of games such as the use of extreme technology to measure whether an athlete beat another by split seconds. Behind that is an obscene amount of bias in judges which comes out in judging scandals every olympics (especially when the media get involved). Fairness is not just in the actual race or match. Insanely disproportionate salaries are completely unjustified where you have millionaires competing with people who are struggling to get by. Organisations do little to stop racial harassment at matches which significantly affect the performance of marginalised players. Only the most outrageous moments see fines or fans being banned. Things are slightly improving but if fairness was of such pressing concern then a zero tolerance policy would not just be on paper but also enforced to ensure fairness protected marginalised groups rather than being an excuse to exclude them. Umpires wouldn't allow the audiences to applaud double faults or taunt players. There would be more referees/umpires on the pitches and technology would be used more frequently to make decisions. Tennis players wouldn't be excluded from playing a game if they chose not to participate in ritualistic journalist pecking which negatively affects their performances. Football stadiums would have a strict 50/50 supporter fan base division to ensure a fair level of support for teams. Races wouldn't be single events but the best of several races over several days to ensure the best player is actually chosen and not just the one who performed best that one time. Round robins would be more common than knockout stages. Last minute penalties and tie breakers wouldn't be used to determine winners of matches that take longer than usual. It wouldn't be the case that 99% of the glory goes to the winner and everyone else could fuck off. Players with less genetic advantage would be given a head start. More subsidies would be given to countries with less money to help train their athletes. Sponsorship would be highly regulated to keep if from giving unfair advantages. Corruption (which is rampant) would be reigned in. I could keep going. Sports is riddled with unfairness that permeates every level of it, in the rules, rituals, social-aspect and administration of it. That doesn't mean there aren't measures to ensure some level of visible fairness. But it is not a priority for sports organisations (but is and historically has been when it comes to excluding people). Shabi  DOO  17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Players with less genetic advantage would be given a head start"
 * The entire point of competing, or what's supposed to be the point for the athletes, is to test and push the very physical limit of humans. From that perspective, using drugs to bypass the human limit partially defeats the purpose of the competition, as would cybernetically enhanced humans defeat the purpose, or genetically engineered athletes defeat the purpose.
 * There actually is a crapton of screening for performance enhancing drugs and so forth, it's just that there's so much more pressure to evade those tests through fraud or abuse than the sport could ever hope to screen for. Kind of like recreational drugs, come to think of it.
 * The Tennis example is probably where you and I agree that players should never be forced to do those interviews.
 * Harassment and racism and so forth really does need to be taken out of the sport, the athletes are representing their countries and those government should absolutely not want to present the image to the world that they are a bunch of assholes. As for the fans, not really sure what can be done about them being assholes.
 * As for athletic funding, that's on the various states to support their athletes. In many ways, the Olympics showcases to each other state what they are capable of producing, that's why from the State's point of view the Olympics is so important to them and they often assist their athletes in cheating.  Yes I agree that it isn't exactly "fair" that a poor athlete who couldn't even afford shoes growing up has to compete with the kids who've had coaches and pools and so forth, but it makes for a great story when the winner of a bobsled race is from Jamaica.  17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of those are "that's just the way it is" explanations. There are already measures in place to fine football teams that do little about racist taunts or suspend players who say bigoted shit. This is a band-aid solution to a serious issue. Fine the shit out of teams until they ban problem fans. If you don't really care about an issue you won't do what is necessary to deal with it. They don't care enough about racism (which extremely unfairly hurts the performance of marginalised players). There are no out of the closet players in Europe's top tier leagues. If fairness was an issue then this would be dealt with (and you can find issues with racial treatment in every sport). Instead of using the principle of fairness as a way to ensure inclusivity and avoiding racism and discrimination unduly and unfairly affecting players (at a meaningful level), we have "fairness" being used as an excuse to exclude. This is one example. Shabi  DOO  19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ECyou are talking like there is one overarching body that controls all sports and is all powerful to enforce its will. its not though is it. it does of different sports managed by different governing bodies world wide overseeing national bodies which are distinct organisations in the own right, working within different legal systems, differing implementations of various rules and standards which may or not conflict with the laqws of the countries they reside. doping agencies are continually have to catch up to new ways to catch drug cheats who are aided and abetted in many cases not just their respective teams should that apply, but their national bodies and even their governments. they are in the process of formalising doping across the governing bodies of many sports and globally, but it takes time to do so. whether you think they do enough or should be better funded is neither here nor there. its is an issue that is being dealt with how inefficiently that maybe and has been improving since first began tackling doping.


 * abusive fans are again, a recognised problem that is being dealt with haphazardly in different countries with different standards of acceptable behaviour policed according the whims of their national bodies and the laws of those countries. there is little that can enforced from within those countries and is only in international competition when it occurs can it be condemned with any force. even then various teams and national bodies have enough clout to not simply role over. but what short comings this all has it is still being addressed.


 * the 6 digit pay packets of some sportsmen vs part timers who have work a shift in factory to get by, is a bigger issue some sports than it is others and is effected by what is legal in various locales with local governing bodies, different in mens and in womens sports, team events and ones with individual competitors. thats not something that can be dealt by a click of the fingers, if you can afford to pay those salaries then you have enough financial clout to resist anything to curb that excess. invest more in grass roots. same with poorer countries - more investment needed. in all cases its not simply ignored nor is the answer as simple as throw more cash it. it is still being dealt with in its own imperfect way.


 * little else here has fuck all to do with fairness. you lose a race and not get another go is unfair how? penalty shoot outs and tie breakers are unfair how? compared to what other methods to end a deadlock that needs resolving? giving some advantage to let someone with a genetic disadvantage some how able to compete with those who dont is fair how? if i have short stubbly legs would i get a head start in the 100ms? refereeing judging errors are 6 of one half a dozen of the other. the national organisation, government, home press and fans all weighing at the olympics is the the IOCs fault how? and they rules and standards in place to ensure fair refereeing as much as possible mistakes can still be made. to say its rife is nonsense. there hundred of sports at the olympics, there is alot to organise and to get ready for a couple weeks every four years in different countries each time. there is stuff going to go wrong.


 * ultimately though it is all bollocks. the point is fairness is not just a sudden concern its an ongoing one globally across multiple sports. as things come up they get dealt with best they can with the varying levels of pushback from different national organisations, national governments and the corruption that follows the money sports generate and festers where the various organisations levels of independence let it hide.


 * transwomen in sport is not that these organisations just this now suddenly deciding fairness is important, it is that its only just now that it is becoming an issue, or coming to a head. you may consider the fears that some clearly and vocally have about all this as unfounded. they might be. but then again they might not be. you cant hand waive those concerns away because you think the governing organisation never cared about fairness before or they'd wave a magic wand and fix all problems that they actually do have positions on already. they dont have a position on transwomen yet. they going to have to soon and likely be just as haphazardly implemented over different bodies and nations as everything else with sport.


 * so the question remains. what does the science say? what does that mean for womens sports, in the entirety and specific disciplines? what does it mean for transwomen? who loses with each possible answer? will time show the correct option was taken? can it be corrected? not addressing it wont do anyone favours, even its just to tell cis women to suck it up. right now every victory trans women may have in future competitions is because they have an unfair advantage or if they are somehow forced to reduce or inhibit their performance somehow then every victory over transwomen by ciswomen is they hobbled the transwomen. this doesnt seem like its going away soon, and acrimony is only going to grow.


 * through injustice of an official ruling or backlash from a fresh segment of the public, transwomen are getting shat on one way or another here AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're just explaining away these issues (not that differently from corrupt user) and you are also misconstruing my argument. To say that they are "dealing with bigotry" in football is like saying a surgeon is dealing with a gash by putting a band-aid on it. That is not dealing with a problem. Give me a break. A few teams here and there have gotten rid of the most visible trouble makers and a few federations have given out a few measly fines. That is public relations not dealing with something. Anyways. I have not dismissed other issues (please tell me where I have), I have simply said that using the excuse of "fairness" is pretty fucking rich from sports organisations that make little effort to deal with fairness in other aspects of the sports. If the answer is: because we prefer to choose the interests of the non-trans women majority (and all of the financial, cultural and public issues that come with it) against those of the trans-women minority (which is probably the honest response) plus backlash from fans/supporters then at least they would be being honest and you could go somewhere from there. However the "fairness" explanation is ridiculous hypocritical bullshit. I never said it isn't a complex and difficult issues, I said the "fairness" excuse is bullshit (which it is).  Shabi  DOO  20:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But the mere fact that you think "genetically disadvantaged people being allowed to start a race earlier" is what "fair" means shows that you yourself don't really understand "fair". Fair isn't finishing the race at the same time, but that everyone gets to start the race and has to follow the same rules.
 * Is it perfect? Of course not.  Some people will have access to better food, better healthcare, or heck, a society that won't murder them for being an athletic female.  Heck, that's part of why the Olympics matters to poorer countries, as they get to prove to the world that yes, they too can produce the best in the world.  Heck, one could argue that having a poor healthcare and welfare system (*cough*US*cough*) reduces the number of medals won by a country, which is a very brutal form of natural justice.  The Olympics do try to even the playing field a bit, the entire reason the Olympics have standards on the equipment allowed is so that rich countries can't simply buy their gold medals even if having more money always helps.  21:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ECthats bullshit i havent explained any issue away. you are saying its hypocritical to for sporting organisations to frame their approach around an idea of fairness because of the little effort made around fairness in other other areas. i say thats bullshit because you hand waive away efforts by differing organisations to tackle different problems in different sports that are much more complex than you give any credit for and dismissing effort for each of these disparate issues with the difficulty involved in doing so 'as little effort' along with list of just pure nonsense to pad it out all. i merely state they different organisations, different sports, with different issues an facing different challenges, and 'little effort' is neither a fair nor accurate description nor one that was meant to be as it was just to underline the claim of considering this current issue with any notion of fairness as hypocritical, because otherwise that would mean there was anything to consider at all fair or otherwise. it is not hypocritical because an idea of fairness is an on going theme of much of the work they do and have done, even if it is to slow for your liking or needs to tempered with other concerns.


 * it also irrelevant if it is hypocritical or not, because a decision is going to be made at some point. they cant simply brush it off. it will be framed around fairness because how can they not? they need to make a decision that looks to be as fair as they can because someone is going to be shafted by it one way or another.


 * whats more this isnt going to be the same divisive issue over all sports. it shouldnt be for football. thats a team sport where skill and team mates would make any possible advantage minimal. its athletics where pure strength is the sole decider of who wins out against individual competitors where even the slightest advantage is decisive. with none of the support of football team can give its players, even in lower leagues, sponsorship is everything. its means training everyday with the best kit and best facilities. without it means working part time and financial hardship to achieve all you can while your biological ticks down to where the next generation force you out the game. this is where any impact is going be felt, and womens sports is aleady only getting the scraps from sponsorship of the mens events. cis women are no doubt concerned from an effectively unknown unquantity of transwomen becoming visible, about what that means for their competitiveness and the already dicey situation of sponsor ship for all but the very top athletes. they'll not let go if they their very livelihood is under threat.


 * it cant be ignored because there is to much rancour, and every transwoman winner had an unfair advantage, every cis women winner did so because transwomen were made to handicap themselves in someway, more transwomen discouraged from sports and those that are not, not easily accepted as fellow women athletes but pointedly as trans and viewed with suspicion akin to drug cheats even if those fears get effectively dispelled. it will persist for a long time. sport has a wider reach than any terf on twitter could to manage. positive trans role models in sport could do wanders for public perception. festering acrimony not so much. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

AMassiveGay says: "even if it is to slow for your liking or needs to tempered with other concerns". To say in many cases that it is going "slow" is the understatement of the century. Decades of wilful inaction is the proper way to describe it. While most of the rest of the world have taken meaningful action in regards to homophobia (be it wildly different results ranging from pitiful to the surprising) they have done virtually nothing beyond the cosmetic in a world of absolute rampant homophobia with not a single professional tier player (out of thousands) out out of the closet in 2021. In this case EVERYTHING is "tempered with other concerns" as opposed to any fairness towards the players in question. How else can they frame transathletes? By the "other concerns" than go beyond tempering their decisions but dictating them, such as the overriding interests of non-transathletes, transphobia, ignorance, economic concerns and fear. All unpalatable stuff. "Fairness" is the remaining palatable excuse. Shabi DOO  04:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you made long laundry of issues, half of which where utter fucking dross like penalty shoot outs and tie breaks with fuck all to do with 'fairness', made a huge sweeping claim of 'made little effort' in these issues that cover different sports and different organisations without reference to any of them, without any reference to works being done or challenges involved in making head way in vastly different issues, effecting some sports and organisations more than others backed only by an incessant 'i said so'. all this to claim any suggestion of fairness is hypocrisy on the part of this amalgam of different organisations and sports. is an assertion that is as pointless as it is wrong, and narrowing down the field of issues to a specific one and applying a general point i made concerning the totality of issues made in your original claim is disingenuous bullshit.


 * and i repeat - whether hypocrisy or not its irrelevant bullshit. decisions will be made regardless, have been made already in one case, for better or for worse, and any decisions will on their own merits as none your laundry list of vague overgeneralisations have anything to do with it. what is relevant was the actual concerns about transwomen that cis women have, why they are concerns and what might the response be and consequences, and if they are complete bullshit how to allay those fears and dispell all the acrimony this all generates(thing which i have set out as i see them and not in anyway a validation of them, just thy need addressing) none of which you've bothered to address beyond shrieking hypocrisy, unhelpfully and poorly supported. you might had done better if you had not made such a broad sweeping claim that was ridiculous in its overreach and just stuck with single specific tangentially related issue, but it still would have been irrelevant. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cis women are a very influential group in society whose power is growing as their education and income levels increase. And they far outnumber transexuals. The transexuals are outgunned in this battle and the cis women will prevail. Populus (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amuse me how easy it is to spot your socks, Ken. It was obvious with yout first post and this one made it even clear. Seriously, you should put more effort if you want to go unnoticed. GeeJayK (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever noticed how much more popular Mother's Day is than Father's Day? The cis women are so much more popular than the transexuals which is yet another reason why they will win this battle. Populus (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly idk I feel like the olympics is just so fucked and corrupt in terms of, literally everything, and it feels like they need to just fuckin start from scratch honestly. Is that an option here? Like it seems like one of those things that reform is so grindingly difficult that maybe we should start from scratch. Also, ken, not to be rude or anything but go fuck yourself. I’m gonna keep existing and being trans and proud of it, and no “battle” you try to throw at me will ever stop me. 05:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)