Chriskmee @ Chriskmee @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

140

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean, that's one way to look at it. I looked at it as only a couple percent higher death rate than the flu. Either way, a little less than 2x is way better than like 5x worse.

Do you have any studies or research to suggest covid hasn't gotten weaker?

I know I am a bit biased here because I didn't get sick and didn't really try that hard to avoid it either. I only wore a mask when I had to, I went to bars with friends, really didn't take any extra precautions, and I washed my hands normally. If I got covid I didn't notice it.

Personally I would hate if we went into lockdown again, but again, I didn't get sick, the worst I felt was when I got the vaccine.

It doesn't get humid where I am either, I personally never found a mask I was really happy with, then I just got fed up with it and only wore it when I didn't have a choice.

I know I've read reports about the latest variants being much less deadly. I did see one study recently which for patients presenting to hospital covid was a few percentage points more likely to result in death compared to hospitalized flu patients. There were a lot more covid patients though.

Found it:

death rates among people hospitalized for COVID-19 were 17% to 21% in 2020 vs 6% in this study, while death rates for those hospitalized for influenza were 3.8% in 2020 vs 3.7% in this study

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2803749

So there is some data backing up the feelings I've gotten from everything I've been hearing and seeing.

From what I've been able to gather, when gender is anonymous like in online chess men and women seem to compete pretty comparably, but in real life women appear to compete worse against men than other women. Maybe they feel intimidated, idk, but that's what the data seems to show.

You might have a case with physical sports, maybe (IDK anymore; used to think women were not able to be as physical strong as men due to physiology, but even that seems like it is inaccurate with new studies),

I feel like the fact that the top leagues in most sports are open to both genders but it's basically unheard of for females to be even close to be good enough to join, proves there is a massive difference at those levels.

For example women can play in the NBA, some have tried, only one or two got close, but none have played a game.

What research are you referring to that says there is no advantage?

Pretty sure the latest variants of covid are much less deadly than the beginning of the pandemic.

Pretty sure every virus has killed people, from the cold, to flu, and of course covid. It feels like now the death rate for the latest variants of covid are pretty comparable to the flu, the virus has lost a lot of its killing power over time.

Seriously? I found masks uncomfortable and annoying, I would hate the idea of it being the new norm for the rest of our lives.

I live in a climate which gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. I was often getting hot under the mask or fogging up my glasses so bad I couldn't see where I was going.

I would honestly rather just get the latest vaccine and risk getting a little sick by not wearing a mask than going through that whole mask thing again

They do have that right actually, which is why we punish those who take those rights away. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people can't break the laws

You can't sue "the availability of guns", but you can sue YouTube, Reddit, the manufacturer, and whoever else is involved and at least try to get some money out of them.

I've never had an experience like that on private trackers. Of the three I've used recently, one has no ratio tracking and just a "gentlemen's agreement" that you seed back. One tracks ratio but doesn't care about it, they only care that you seed back for X hours during a two week period or something like that, and the last one does track ratio, but you also get points for just seeding content even if nobody downloads from you, and you can use those points to get upload credit. None require a 1:1 ratio on anything.

I've never had problems keeping a good ratio on any of these sites, I just let them seed from my media server until I decide to delete them. I even use a fairly small upload bandwidth since my service provider only gives me like 10Mbps upload.

Based on their rules, they might ban content of that nature being talked about in their own communities. However they have a high bar for defederating from other instances. Even if piracy talk isn't allowed on lemm.ee communities, they won't defederate from communities that do allow it. This means you can still see it when browsing lemm.ee, but it's hosted somewhere else.

What lemmy.world has done is make it so you can't see anything from those piracy instances when browsing from Lemmy.world. lemm.ee will allow you to see almost anything besides truly disturbing and illegal stuff like porn of the underage variety.

I know you are intentionally exaggerating a bit, but they do make pretty small portable chargers. I have an Anker PowerCore 5000, it has 1-2 full charges depending on your phone, and easily fits in a pocket

Speed, quality, safety, and seed status are the main benefits IMO. The downsides are you have to keep a good ratio or at least not hit and run.

Back when I used public sites I remember most torrents being slow, in private sites many people use a seed box so even if there are only a couple seeds it's usually still blazing fast. Since uploaders in private sites have some reputation to upkeep, their releases will usually be quality. I also feel completely safe downloading something with only a couple seeds on private sites, but on public sites I worry if I'm downloading a virus if there are no comments and very few seeds.

The private sites are also usually not big enough for anyone to care about, so the chances of them being taken down or targeted are minimal.

I have also not gotten one ISP warning since moving over to private sites years ago, and that's even with not using a VPN

If there is no male genetic advantage, why do males completely dominate the best of the best sports, and why do you say we should still have women's sports in the elite ranks? Clearly males have a genetic advantage in sports, it's undeniable.

Again, one trans women, who still did pretty well, doesn't prove anything. Look at Avi Silverberg, who came out as trans and dominated women's weightlifting records.

If you want proof of the male genetic advantage, just look at how they dominate all the sports that are open to males and females, which is basically all the professional sports. Even though it's open to both sexes, it's essentially 100% males. You can't deny the male advantage, it's clear as day.

You don't understand what provable means at all. One example of someone who didn't crush the competition isn't proof at all. There was a recent trans woman who crushed women weightlifting records, that is an example of your idea being wrong. That person went from ok but not record breaking man to record breaking woman. Are you going to pretend the male genetic advantage had nothing to do with that?

And let me ask you this, what does a trans woman have to do to be a legitimate trans woman? Does she have to do anything more than say she is a woman? Does she need to take pills to be legitimate? Does she need to shave her beard to be legitimate?

If all she has to do is proclaim she is a woman, you can't seriously think that changes her genetic advantage, right? If a person can compete as a man one day and a woman the next, did they lose their male advantage? Or are you going to claim those aren't real women?

You can't ignore that males have a genetic advantage in sports, I think you were even agreeing with that point earlier. How does going from a man to a trans woman overcome biology? It doesn't. If males have no generic advantage, then why have any women's sports at all?

I mean, people thought Black people had biological differences that would prevent them from competing on an equal footing too. There was literally science about it, in the same way you claim there’s science about trans people. And indeed Black people do dominate certain sports right now. If you want sports to be perfectly fair how can you reconcile that?

Black people dominate some sports IN THE BEST OF THE BEST DIVISIONS. Trans people are welcome to compete in that best of the best division.

Are you claiming there is no legitimate scientific provable advantage than trans women have over natural women in sports? Maybe there isn't anything legitimate for black people, or maybe it's a minor advantage present in some, but you can't deny trans women retain significant advantages given they are biologically male.

Because you’ve a priori agreed Black people competing is worth any amount of “unfairness” that results. The same will be true of trans people in the future.

Trans can compete in the best of the best leagues like everyone else, yes. They shouldn't compete in leagues based around biological disadvantage because they don't have that biological disadvantage.

Sports will get over trans inclusion; trans people are already being included, even in the Olympics, so the process is happening

They are more than welcome to compete in the best of the best sports leagues, nobody is banning them from sports, just ones they don't qualify for.

So… continue being unhappy about it if you like, the world is moving on and so am I.

I'm not unhappy about it really, I'm just fighting for equality is all, trying to keep things fair for everyone. I would be totally for a trans league, since they don't qualify as biological women but probably aren't good enough to compete at the best levels.

Just like how I don't think able bodied people should compete in the special Olympics, I don't think trans women should compete in biological women based sports, because it's just unfair to women.

Let me ask you this, if we are to store trans women in women's sports, should there be any limits? Can a male bodybuilder decide he is actually a women, then the next day go break records? Would you deny her entry, and if so why?

As I said, below the ultra-professional level, yes. Inside the ultra-professional level, gender tests are already not used to differentiate people into competition categories so they've already solved this problem.

Why should we have separate categories at the ultra professional level only? It wasn't until pretty recently that trans women trying to compete in women's sports was even a thing, and I believe they do have some tests in certain competitions that would not allow trans women to compete.

The point is it didn't used to be. This was because people had research at the time showing that Black people had "higher muscle density" and other nonsense pseudoscience that they used to bar them from the "open to everyone categories."

That was also during a time where they were segregated from everything, right? Also, while that reasoning might have been BS, the reasoning for not allowing trans women in women's sports isn't. Biology isn't BS, it's science. Trans women have a biological and scientifically proven physical advantage over women from birth.

Since you are just not understanding this: the same arguments used to prevent Black people from competing (they would dominate certain sports, their inclusion would make white people feel bad, their existence is basically the same as taking performance enhancing substances) are literally the same ones used to prevent trans people from competing.

The reason behind the argument matters a lot. You are comparing racism backed arguments with scientifically backed ones. They aren't the same argument, they are based on very different reasons.

Gender is not "more a state of mind than anything else," any more than sex (or race) is. Trans people are their actual genders, they aren't pretending to be a man or woman for the day, any more than a Black person is pretending to be a white person or vice versa.

What I meant is that gender is all in your head, sex and race are not. We should not define sports by what you say you are in your own head. When it comes to bathroom use, sure, base it on gender, aka what is in your head. When it comes to sports, we should use sex, not gender. I'm not trying to bash trans people here, I think they should be treated as the gender they identify with, and that is what I mean by gender being a state of mind, whereas sex is a biological state.

Unlike gender though, where at some point after birth you can change it, you can't change your race. One of these is physical, the other is mental.

Frankly, as I said at the beginning of this discussion, the entire sports argument is stupid though. The rights of an entire minority (yes, their rights) shouldn't hinge on whether or not they can compete in sporting events, and every time trans liberation is brought up people whine "but what about fairness in sports?"

Right now everyone has the same rights, so you don't lose it gain rights by switching genders. There is no right to compete in sports, so no right is lost by banning trans from women's sports. Maybe you have a different definition of "rights" than the actual definition?

Maybe trans liberation shouldn't be fighting for stuff like inclusion in sports? There is such a thing as taking a movement too far. I'm all for fair treatment, access to healthcare, inclusion in society, etc. But when it comes to thinking trans women are exactly the same in every way to a biological woman, that's just taking it too far and blatantly ignoring science. There are going to be times when we need to separate trans and biological women, and for the sake of fairness and the whole reason women sports what in the first place, trans women shouldn't play in women's sports.

You should find other stuff to care about, because the amount of trans athletes is vanishingly small and the amount of ink spilled on debating their inclusion with sports totally out-of-proportion to the "problem" itself.

Maybe trans people should find other stuff to care about besides inclusion in sports they aren't eligible for. I also don't see anything wrong with stopping a problem now before it becomes a bigger problem. Just look at climate change, how much better would it have been if instead of "it's not an issue yet, no need to care about it" we actually did care about it many years ago? Personally I don't like waiting for problems to become big problems before doing something.