Throwaway05
6hr ago
What is your evidence for this claim?
What's your evidence you can't do this? You can determine if someone likes bananas, is a neurotic person, has had an episode of diverticulitis from just talking to them.
You can even do very hard things like determine if someone in jail is pretending to be crazy or not.
Why would this specific thing be any different?
Throwaway05
9hr ago
I mean it's not rocket surgery, assuming no need for secondary gain you just ask some pretty basic questions and you can figure out which of the phenotypes are here (assuming secondary gain it's harder but we do have inventories for that).
Coming up with and validating a structured interview or formal scale request genuine research and investigation, even if a few guys in a room can quickly spitball something that likely does the job that ain't the same thing a formal gold standard form of testing.
As for if it actually exists, I mean you have people who are attracted to feet, children, being murdered and eaten. Getting the gender/sex wires crossed seem to be a much simpler thing.
Throwaway05
13hr ago
The answer also isn't no.
Does an objective way exist? Almost certainly.
Do we know what it is? No. Politics impairs true scientific verification.
Is that too strict a bar? Likely.
Could myself and a bunch of other non-woke educated professionals hash out something that is "good enough" in a day? Likely.
Scientific rigor encapsulates a wild and wide range of certainties.
Throwaway05
1d ago
I think the science would have to advance beyond the politics for the answer here to be yes.
Throwaway05
1d ago
In my clinical experience (which is admittedly anecdote, research on anything related to this topic is poor) I've encountered people who seem to be trans because of mental illness, people who have predisposition to mental illness and are trans and mentally ill, and people with no mental illness whatsoever but are trans.
Just like depression is a word for a variety of phenomena that include "I live in a war zone" and "my brain is clearly malfunctioning in an obvious way that generates depressive thought content" and a million things in between, "trans" refers to a variety of complex social, psychological, and biological phenomena.
Throwaway05
1d ago
From a clinical perspective - my licensing bodies and professional and social milieu have very strongly embraced the idea that trans identification needs to be accepted without clarification or question, even when it is deeply questionable (for example patients in the forensic setting clearly seeking special privileges).
I don't have any interest in harming my license are ability to teach by deviating from this in the slightest so I will not.
That said.
You can investigate the various "trans" phenomena, explicate on the types, do research on outcomes and care needs, test questionnaires and scales that help you identify what's going on for an individual person...all the usual things.
We know what to look into but nobody really does it because countries are either "burn the trans" or "transition children immediately" with no effort at moderation.
This has improved a tiny bit in the US in recent years, however.
Psychiatry in particular has a pretty good history of breaking apart various phenomena into healthy, range of normal human experience, and mental illness (this side of the conversation is missed by normies for the most part).
Throwaway05
1d ago
A real trans person is pretty much what you expect, they do exist and are rare. The clearest examples I can find are people who have absolutely zero social deficits or mental health issues they just seem to have identification with the opposite sex. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a weird misfiring of biology could create this (rarely) and that in a permissive social environment these people would be allowed to exist.
Slicing these people off from "fake" trans people should be reasonably easy but in the modern environment where you aren't allowed to asks questions it is impossible. A fact of life in medicine is that we treat people who are almost certain not trans (especially a category I didn't mention above - malingering types) as trans because it's not acceptable to ask questions.
Hopefully things will settle down and we'll be allowed to get more focused care each segment.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Which of us is correct about Russia, Iran, and the U.S. is a different issue from the fact that you seem pretty heated by relatively mild discussion on the internet.
You can disagree with someone including about important things like religion and politics without thinking they are subhuman or wish you harm. This kind of black and white thinking always leads to bad things.
Throwaway05
1d ago
"Trans" is a word used by woke LGBTWhatever people to capture a large number of wildly different phenomena.
Some of these you may believe in or not believe in, some of these you may have sympathy for:
-Old school cross-dressers.
-Drag.
-People using their appearance for social and financial opportunity (ex: some of the Thai Ladyboys).
-Blanchard Typology Types.
-True "Trans."
-BPD or serious mental illness with identity disturbance.
-Autistic and socially adrift people who latch onto trans identification.
Some of these are social contagion, some of these are "traditionally treatable" (ex: pure mental illness types), some of these are reasonably healthy or unburdensome (fetish types and people looking to make money).
But modern culture homogenizes them and thinks they all need to be treated the same. That's tremendously unhelpful. A true trans person who does great and is very happy after top/bottom surgery does not need the same type of support and engagement from society as someone who just needs some Haldol or protection from being trafficked. Distraught young men need counseling but a different type of counseling, not to be piped straight into LGBT.
So the steel man is something like: "fuck these idiots, real trans people exist but are rare and other conversations obscure what these people are like and what they need."
Throwaway05
2d ago
As long as my truck has a machine gun on top I see this as an absolute win. Although I imagine I would shortly thereafter be arrested after an incident on the interstate.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Yeah it doesn't work for America but by golly does it work well for England. I wish more Europeans got to experience and enjoy both models but in most countries Football has nearly all the mind share (which admittedly is a large part of how the whole thing works).
Throwaway05
2d ago
As always Technicals remain the most superior war fighting weapon.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Great game!
If you are struggling it's easy to make the game easier by gear hunting, the difficulty is very front loaded - once you have more options it's easy to break the game if you want to (without touching modifiers).
Throwaway05
2d ago
I mean the amount of love that I see in Europeans for a local football team that sucks and always sucked is far higher than what Jets fans can put out.
Throwaway05
2d ago
the ones that aren't at the top of the money league, it's not really about the trophy,
As an American fan of the sport who is homeless and doesn't have this investment that's always fascinating to me. I follow the sports teams of my birth city through thick and thin, but I'm not happy if it is a down year (or cough cough decades). Soccer fans seem totally down win or lose. Getting the title isn't the thing. That's nice.
Throwaway05
2d ago
I expect that gamers will say it's overrated and be firmly overridden by the actual masses of players. Rockstar doesn't seem to have lost a step, have an absurd amount of money to work with and aren't afraid to take their time.
The normies who play few games except Madden and CoD are going to go wild.
Look into the amount of money GTA online has made, it's absurd and that's for an experience that doesn't seem interesting at all.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Let's break this into three segments:
Factual correctness: important, but also not important. You can be right while being wrong because: discussion value-add and moral worries matter.
Darwin's greatest sin in my mind was never saying anything interesting, I would just assume his posts would be filled with maximally infuriating and inconsistent arguments as soldiers woke nonsense. Discussion rarely led anywhere useful. I didn't have to read his posts, I would read the responses and sometimes see something interesting but he himself was seldom useful.
I remember you being a high quality poster with a perspective and information that was useful for me to hear and I enjoyed hearing from. Of late I have not felt that. Many of us have been around long enough that we've become caricature of ourselves in some ways (I am certainly guilty of this). Yes some of this is that an anti-Western perspective does not flatter my biases. But that's not all that's going on here, I think most people would say that they feel what you write has changed and not for the better and that they have to pick harder to get to the meat. Only you can tell me why the change.
However both of those matter a little bit less than the moral worries. The way you are writing is worrying, it makes me worry about how you are doing, where this dehumanization is coming from, and so on. It's not always easy to spot internally that something has changed but a lot of people here who have seen much of your writing are like "okay what's going on here."
This community has been together for too long for me to enjoy flame-outs at this point, especially when I am worried that some topic (Charlie Kirk, Geopolitical Bullshit, The Joos/anti-joos) is having an active impact on someone IRL - both for real and in the mind alone.
Please take care of yourself.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Structurally the sport trends towards variability - most performance in a match doesn't show on the score line and the whole sport is hard to moneyball. You win by being dominant in performance and grinding away the whole game (in the way you see in true mismatches), you get lucky (and lucky holding it), or you pick at the margins by being slightly better.
The league table in the premier league is longitudinal and you really need longitudinal performance to tell what the best teams are, any given game is not helpful for the reasons above.
Except the Champion's League has regular final games as does the World Cup (as opposed to basketball style series) and it's usually a usual team who wins?
What gives?
Well superstar players don't matter as much. Individual player skill doesn't matter as much as chemistry and vibes. And context. Messi is in a retirement league, but he's killing it right now (but for how long?). Teams make runs see Leicester. Teams outperform by non-selfish play and playing in internal leagues with a lot of familiarity with each other (see: Iran). This makes it confusing.
Soccer is hard from an analytics perspective because of these harder to track metrics.
You can easily paint some of the discrepancy you are noticing as something like "okay this team doesn't really play together normally and later in the World Cup that absent chemistry is built by being together for a month." Or because the group stage (as opposed to knock out) rewards more conservative play, or because you can't tie in knock out and greater skill and more star players usually shows in extra time or penalties.
The lack of surprise and upset in the latter parts of the knockout doesn't nullify the fact that Spain was 2 or 3 in the rankings and drew with a team outside the top 50. If you tried that in American Football people might actually die. Basketball? Baseball? Total blow outs it's just not possible.
Soccer involves intangibles (moral, chemistry, "creativity") and skill as much as physical gifts. Large swathes of the big three American sports have been drilled down into pure athleticism, Aaron Donald's moves aren't nearly as important as the fact that he's a total freak. Obviously Messi has terrific intangibles and technical skills but physically he's much closer to a normal human being - absurd body control, spatial awareness, and reaction time is easier to overcome than me trying to block Donald at the line.
Circling back to American pro sports the ethos is really one of profit sharing through parity for the most part. The NFL really actually has parity - any given Sunday plays out. This is financially enforced. Bad ownership is legit what holds teams back not coaching, location, or the team itself. The MLB and NBA aren't as good but still do much better. This is by deliberate design and the structure has good parts and bad parts (for instance relegation doesn't make sense).
I don't know how much you know about the way salary caps work in the various sports but if you aren't familiar that's a big missing piece.
Anyway sorry I think this turned into a bunch of disconnected thoughts that had a minimal through-line.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Soccer is predictable - most leagues have zero parity and zero financial parity (and I think this alone answers most of your question) and the same teams finish at the top every time. The predictable super teams make it to things like the Champion's League every time.
Yet.
Soccer is unpredictable - a lower ranked team can often draw (see this in the World Cup all the time) and sometimes even win. In some ways it is the most parity of ANY sport a lower ranked team, or a team from a lower ranked league can actually win.
If you ask gridiron football players they will tell you that an NFL team will beat the college football team 1000 times out of a 1000. A shit soccer team can catch someone sleeping, score a goal, and then hang on through teamwork and familiarity.
So in some ways I reject the premise - I think soccer outperforms most sports in variability, but the structural pressure of the game towards variation (driven as you note by its low scoring nature) is balanced by the complete lack of financial parity and the things that are downstream of that. Bayern is just that much bigger than everyone else in terms of talent acquisition, resources and so on. That counterbalances a lot of structural stuff.
Throwaway05
3d ago
What's that young sonny? I don't have my hearing aid on, would you like a Werther's?
Throwaway05
3d ago
Well done!
Throwaway05
4d ago
Most positions! For the love of god no wide receivers though.
Throwaway05
4d ago
It's certainly possible my community was particularly aggressive, that it was an American thing, or that that time is now over - but for a good decade or so if you were in a gay space you'd get groped, or get comments that were rather unacceptable or forward. Some of this is the lack of time wasting in the gay community but even gay men will complain about this - someone who wants a more heterosexual romance can often find it hard or impossible to find and just end up barraged with dick picks, promiscuity, and harassment.
The community is degenerate, and to some extent that is okay - but it's a problem when it impedes on people outside the community (it does) and has reached the point where some people in the community are mad about degeneracy (see: growing number of gay Republicans).
With respect to the STIs - yes many straights are just jealous and straights would have similar behaviors if allowed (and celebrities do do that) but celebrities are small in number and the rest can't so gay people are currently causing a public health crisis (and did in the past when parts of the community declined to acknowledge the existence of AIDs).
It's selfish and anti-social behavior that does in fact hurt others and while I don't think it should be banned it does annoy me that we don't have the social technology to make things better. Likewise I don't agree that we should just let them die from venereal disease but it should be doable to understand why some people feel that way.
Most STIs are much, much more of a choice than the average lifestyle disease. Avoiding addiction and overeating is hard. Putting a goddamn condom on is easy.
Throwaway05
4d ago
Thank you for indulging my curiosity!
I will have you know that only applies to 50% of the Jets fans I know. That's right 1 out of 2.
I consider it a personal accomplishment knowing that many.
More options
Context Copy link