shitpost (rule)
But whose to say that the real problem is the prune juice?
Silly Klingon, that stuff constipates Klingons! You can't just eat human food and hope it works the same on your alien body!
Except that the sports overseeing body tested it and found out that Becky Lee Birtwhistle Hodges, the athlete in question, IS actually able to cast twice as far as most women.
You're asking me to read the article, but nothing in the article stipulates as much, except an anecdote from the team coach, which doesn't say Becky can cast 150 meters, but says "Men can."
This is the statement from the body overseeing this sport:
Other articles about the same thing repeatedly say: "The Angling Trust has denied claims that transgender women have a physical advantage in fishing."
So if the Angling Trust is defending her, and they aren't changing the rules unless told to by a larger sports body, who is this sports body that "proved" this, then?
Jamie Cook, chief executive of the Angling Trust, said: 'As the national governing body for angling, the question we are required to address by Sport England is whether the sport of angling is gender impacted to an extent where fairness overrides inclusion or safety.
'The view of the Angling Trust board is that as a non-contact sport, the safety concern is not deemed significant within the sport of angling.'
There are literally zero articles that support the idea that a sports overseeing body tested it and found out. I think you're fucking misreading this shit, man. But I suppose that's what you got for taking anything printed in The Daily Fail seriously.
You really, really wouldn't want to smoke a pure indica, imo. I've smoked an actual indica and it was mostly stem and tasted like dirt. It has not had the selective breeding that has produced big, oily buds that people love to smoke.
It's honestly a lot like corn before it was selectively bred by humans for thousands of years versus modern corn. Imagine that the modern corn is a modern weed bud, and compare that to what nature gave us...
Here's a good scientific study on it:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133292
From the Abstract:
Using 14,031 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 81 marijuana and 43 hemp samples, we show that marijuana and hemp are significantly differentiated at a genome-wide level, demonstrating that the distinction between these populations is not limited to genes underlying THC production. We find a moderate correlation between the genetic structure of marijuana strains and their reported C. sativa and C. indica ancestry and show that marijuana strain names often do not reflect a meaningful genetic identity. We also provide evidence that hemp is genetically more similar to C. indica type marijuana than to C. sativa strains.
That last bit from the abstract is the money quote on Indica. Real Indicas are closer to hemp, and hemp hasn't been selectively bred for flavor and getting high. So a "real" Indica is going to be a lot like smoking.... hemp.
Anyway, long story short is that individual strains and the chemical combinations therein have more influence over the high you get than the idea that they're "sativa" or "indica."
Here's an article with a short interview with Sean Myles, who was involved in and credited with this study.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/indica-sativa-difference-cannabis-weed-science.html
The article is mostly commenting on a fucking shitty anti-trans Daily Mail article, so make of that what you will, people.
66-year-old team captain Heather told the Daily Mail that the team has already been “humiliated” with Hodges in their team. She claimed that the 2018 world championships “wasn’t a nice situation, mainly because all the other countries wouldn’t speak to us.”
‘The managers wouldn’t speak to our manager. They were all against us. When we went up to collect our medal, nobody clapped and people walked out,” Heather said, adding, “Although Becky Lee would be an asset to my team, it’s unfair on everyone else. And if you win in a situation like that, you can’t enjoy the victory, because it feels like you’ve cheated.”
Sounds like she's more upset that bigots decided to be bigoted, and that to her, the real problem is she doesn't get to be praised by bigots anymore.
“Many of the Angling Trust board members don’t fish and don’t know the sport. A man can cast 150 yards, but I can only cast about 70 yards. Some of the girls can only cast 50 yards. Body strength plays a major part and it gives Becky Lee a lot more water that she can fish in.”
Trans women, of course, are not men and are often receiving gender-affirming health care that lowers their testosterone levels.
Their anecdotes don't mean shit against the voluminous scientific evidence that trans women simply do not have enough of an advantage to justify discrimination.
The only person in the article claiming that there is unfair advantage is the 66-year-old coach who is upset that players from other countries don't celebrate them anymore, and instead of chalking that up to them being bigoted jerks, she chalks it up to "we need to kick out the trans person because bigots aren't nice to us anymore." I'm just gonna go out on a fucking limb and assume her age has something to do with being a totally out of touch fucking nitwit, and why she would defend the bigots instead of telling them to pound fucking sand.
Also, let's not forget that this interview was with The Daily Mail a well known conservative shitrag that pushes conservative politics. This 66 year old fucking fossil chose this as the place to give her concerns. She chose a conservative propaganda shitrag, that's on her and speaks loudly to her shitty politics.
That's where this interview was originally from. It's a fucking propaganda shitrag.
You think you're clever, but you're not. I'm not sure someone whose education seems to be focused on an era where psychology didn't exist as a discipline should be expounding on it, either.
So, the people invoking monster names knew what psychological warfare was because they understood psychology? I call bollocks on that.
But keep telling yourself you're right and just misunderstood. I'm sure that will mean fuck-all when you're dead and nobody remembers you existed, just like me.
None of those prove that a psychologist using well documented evidence on human psychology is the same as fucking nitwits naming monsters after people they didn't like. I literally referenced the era of modern propaganda techniques, which coincides with a growth of the understanding of psychology in promoting propaganda. I didn't say "propaganda never existed at all prior to the revolutions."
But keep ignoring specific words I use to try to convince yourself you're right. Seriously, comparing psychologists to people who named monsters after disliked people. Fucking laugh riot.
And here I am all by myself wishing for Flash Gordon memes.
Needs more Brian Blessed from Flash Gordon.
Might be fun to rig the power button so if someone presses it, that song from the Transformers animated movie starts playing...
As someone who is allergic to doxycyclene: Fuck me, I guess?
Although it isn't like I have a sex life anyway.
Assuming they have advantages in fishing of all things is extra absurd.
I didn't know trans people were so much better at eating cold cheeseburgers from the cooler and falling asleep for three hours while waiting for a bite on the line. /s
You could always just go as "End User" which is just a name tag and introduce yourself by quoting Taylor Swift (like the average end user):
"It's me. Hi, I'm the problem, it's me."
Sly reference to PEBCAK.
Except one of them has a history of the science of psychology behind it, as well as the many certifications and education you need to be a psychologist, and the other was a propagandist with no deep scientific education behind them, no showing why the techniques they were using were effective (because they often weren't). One of them has evidence and science behind them and the other does not. They are not the same things.
Literally different things.
EDIT: Also it is worth noting that modern propaganda began after revolutions against monarchies. The French state post-revolution was a hotbed of propaganda.
So, even by your argument, its clear that modern propaganda methods took root after the age of revolutions and at the beginning of the age of Nations.
One can only hope we leave a lesson to be learned to some other future civilization, although that's highly doubtful.
weren’t called psychologists and they were much less effective.
So literally not the same thing, then?
People are always like "Why is there no revolution!?"
Because most aren't willing to risk their lives and their comfort to make the world better for everyone. "What do I get out of it?" they will ask.
Part of the issue is past revolutions didn't have a ruling class that literally employed the best psychologists that money can buy to spew propaganda that has been scientifically proven to confuse citizens and change minds.
The idea that it will get easier to fight back against your oppressors as they grow their pile of tools and weapons with which to control society is a joke.
The longer is waited, the harder ripping off the fucking band-aid will be.
Wait too long and there won't be a band-aid to rip off as mass extinction comes for us all.
I mean, McDonald's manages to pay employees in Europe a living wage, and it didn't make the food completely unaffordable.
On the other hand, in the states, for a small meal just to yourself it's more than $10, closer to $15 a lot of the time.
So the prices are going up here and they're still not paying people worth a damn. I wonder what the disconnect here could be?
From what I understand, their sales are down, and so they've jacked up prices to fix the gap.
Dealing with a criminal ex-president who is running for reelection has never happened before to the country, so there’s not an operating procedure to follow.
Bush didn't run for re-election? Reagan didn't run for re-election? The only criminal President you can say didn't run for re-election was fucking Nixon.
Literally the point of this post is that we have, time and time again, chosen not to prosecute them, despite plenty of evidence.
Reagan making deals with terrorists in the Iran-Contra affair. Bush signing off on torture, which is a war crime. (We literally prosecuted low level soldiers for torture, but claimed it was just "bad apples" and not a painfully obvious systemic problem. Torture facilities don't spring up from nothingness without anybody in the chain of command making a choice to torture people. The orders come down from somewhere and when you're supposed to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, sorry, it kind of falls on you.)
It's been a problem because we keep kicking the fucking can down the road to ignore the question of "can we prosecute a former President."
When you shit so hard you almost go Super Saiyan.