sudneo @ sudneo @lemm.ee

🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

569

Joined

1 yr. ago

I give up. You have tons of data available that you can still compare from Olympic games that just happened. I specifically didn't mention "every sport ever invented", but I mentioned "most sports" and you quote something that is supposed to prove...what? Lol

Nevermind. Continue living in a fantasy world in which Phelps swims slower than Ledecky (at 15, but who cares?!), because denying reality is a great way to approach problems.

You see how when you demand orange not exist, and that’s apparently “good enough” for you, that it doesn’t represent reality?

I am saying that it's better to have 10 corner cases that can be dealt with than 2000 corner cases.

It’s often the way sports are designed that keep women out intentionally

I am really curious how you would design running in a way that having stronger muscle doesn't help, or combat sports in a way that power doesn't help etc. Also, women have their own category with almost in all cases same rules. How does this keep women out?

hmm don’t be so confident about that.

Go check all time-trial based sports, let me know if any women would have won anything.

This doesn't answer the question.

You said "it has everything to do with race", how?

You can replace it with any "asian martial artist in movies", it is probably a better comparison to "Native Americans in spaghetti western". I would say both are not really a statement on asian/native american people in general, and it's a clear cultural reference. Definitely different from a Yellow Face

Thanks, I don't have the time to read it all.

I checked the abstract and I read:

This tutorial reviews the built-in systems that undermine life opportunities and outcomes by racial category, with a focus on challenges to Black Americans.

(and more). The focus seems to be very strongly on American culture, and on institutional racism against black people in America.

Then I read:

Unconscious inferences, empirically established from perceptions onward, demonstrate non-Black Americans’ inbuilt associations: pairing Black Americans with negative valences, criminal stereotypes, and low status, including animal rather than human. Implicit racial biases (improving only slightly over time) imbed within non-Black individuals’ systems of racialized beliefs, judgments, and affect that predict racialized behavior.

Considering that in this case there is no association of any characteristic with the race, it doesn't concern American culture nor black people, I am struggling to adapt this point of view to the case being discussed.

but instead the sport should adapt and sort athletes by T levels if it truly matters

I may even agree with you here, but I think this is going to be a nightmare. Continuous testing, plus, while sex is a proxy for many attributes at once, testosterone is only one. Then you need many more parameters to compare and create categories, on a global scale. This assuming we actually understand such parameters well enough.

Men shouldn’t be getting hurt by other men with higher testosterone, either.

I guess the difference between low testosterone men (assuming there are many in high competition levels) and high ones is smaller than high testosterone women and low testosterone men. So yes, I agree, but this is hardly a problem in practice.

If women can get their hips over stuff, they are good, but for men it’s often their shoulders. If women run the course a little differently, they can often do really well.

I really don't see how you could do this in most sports and make it fair and interesting. Sure, you jumped 20cm lower, here is your gold medal because there is an estimated disadvantage for you of 25cm. Yes, you arrived 45s after, here is your gold medal. It seems like a terrible idea and even harder to implement in sports with points (football, tennis, volleyball etc.). Considering the relative low amount of "corner cases", keeping sex as a category seems more reasonable imho, although with its limits. I am interested in what women athletes think.

That’s not because they are “worse” athletes, they are just athletes different than men.

There is nothing moral behind "worse". There are differences that simply provide advantages to men and make them faster/stronger/taller which is an advantage in many sports.

Me: the boundary for yellow and red is arbitrary and visible light exists on a continuum anyway!

Actually me:

This is not binary, it’s a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.

I fully recognize that this is arbitrary, I fully recognize that any "limit" is somewhat arbitrary. The only difference is that I acknowledge that sex is a "good enough" proxy for now.

I still don't understand how would you avoid that women will never see a medal again in any combat sport, athletics, swimming, tennis and many other sports if you stop using sex as a category. What categories would you use, and are they pragmatic enough that they can be implemented easily?

“Indians” don’t merely exist as a cultural concept in spaghetti westerns

But this is a referenced to those, specifically. You can't make a reference and at the same time capture the plurality, can you?

even if they did, fantastic racism is still racism.

You can argue that western movies are racist, but using them as reference now that they are established culture is different.

Not only not meant to be used as an authority, but also unlikely to settle any dispute you might have about the word.

Sure, but you will have noticed that I first provided my own view and you provided yours - which I disagree with - so if we want to have a conversation, we need to have some fixed points, otherwise it's impossible to understand each other if words mean different things to the both of us. I didn't use the dictionary definition to build my argument, I have simply shown how the definition I use is consistent in some aspects (the intent, for example) with a formal definition.

At the same time, I asked explicitly to provide your own, and instead you spent all the time to quote a fairly irrelevant (in this context) passage, without ultimately showing why I should accept your definition that to me seems completely arbitrary, way too vague and generic.

So let's just sit in this pit of ambiguity, in which anything can be anything, if you are creative enough.

a local revealed it was from a grocery store rag, not a legit news paper

Not really, it is a legit newspaper. A shitty one, but still a newspaper.

if an American news paper used Chinese stereotypes or Yellow Face in an article about Japanese politicians

This is more like making an image of some politician who "joins the fight" with Bruce Lee pose, or suit, or something.

Testosterone isn’t an advantage for every sport,

Is it for boxing?

because it comes with a cost including lower lifespan

How is this relevant when you look at advantages in a single competition? This is not a "is it good in life"-situation.

Height isn’t that important for swimming or even running

hence it doesn't have a separate category? BTW, swimmers are taller than average, because being tall is generally ad advantage. It's one of many factors, but it's there.

The way many sports are designed gives testosterone dominant people an advantage. That’s patriarchy for ya.

This seems...unlikely. I would say that combat sports have not been "designed" with this in mind, and many other sports are done in the only way they could: swim as fast as you can, run as fast as you can, jump as high/far/etc. as you can.

Lactic acid is not related to gender, that’s my point.

Then you should understand my answer: it doesn't break the boundary of established categories.

But you clearly believe in gender determinism and think sex chromosomes make up a huge part of genetic makeup when it is quite tiny.

Are you a medium? Do you read my mind on arbitrary topics? Can you give me 6 numbers for next lottery?

Jokes aside, I didn't talk about chromosomes, I didn't talk about testosterone (only once you brought it up), I specifically referred to functional difference, whatever the origin, and also mentioned that the reality is not so easy (not binary).

My criticism is that categories based on gender are unscientific.

Perfect, this is a completely separate discussion, one I might agree with even. I wouldn't know how to make it better, it's not my area of expertise. What I know is that in many sports women holding record would barely qualify if they were to compete against males, and I think that would not be fun nor fair for anybody. I also think that in combat sports that would be potentially dangerous. Happy to see alternatives in the future.

Which hypocrisy...? The whole point of your argument is already addressed. You can't prove anybody didn't commit actions. mah...

Can you elaborate how?

I provided at the very least an interpretation that is coherent, conscious of the cultural context and that makes sense considering the content of the text/article for what the image is used for.

I think I am stopping one step before you. Which is understanding whether something is racist or not. Using purely your cultural understanding to define it is going to lead to misunderstandings. In this case, understanding the context and the real intent of the picture makes it pretty clear that race has nothing to do with it. If you choose not to understand the context and just mark as racist anything that if done in another context would be racist, be my guest, I will just disagree.

In which way this image rolls up every Native American into one group, considering that is a cultural reference to some specific movie genre (so it has to do with the group represented in those movies)?

Can you also point me to how you distilled this definition of racism? I just looked up https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

And I see:

• a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
• the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
• a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

To me in the definition above seems clear that there is some ideological scaffolding of racial superiority behind racism, or a precise goal of discriminate or oppress based on such ideology.

Could you maybe elaborate how this image is racist? Would have been as racist if they used a western hat instead?

EDIT: Ironically, the top level comment in this thread mentions "Europeans", compressing many different people and cultures into one single viewpoint. Is that racist?

I would say that racism is not something that exists in a vacuum and instead has intent, has an ideology behind and in many cases has also a goal. So yeah, I disagree with you fundamentally.

I think the point was that humans come from Africa (as in, as a species).

OK, but there is a context that can be analyzed 10 seconds before jumping to conclusions. To be clear, this newspaper is still shit, but the reason people are getting upset are superficial and based on a wrong interpretation.

So the process for me is: oh this image looks racist/culturally insensitive -> let me understand how is it possible that such thing has been used -> the image is supposed to have something to do with westerns, which are a cultural feature of the people who used the image -> my cultural interpretation that made it racist or cultural insensitive does not specifically apply.

So questions are definitely welcome, and I think people are right to question, but people (for example in this thread) didn't look for questions, arrived already with conclusions, assuming that their cultural lens was the only appropriate one to look at this fact, without even understanding the context (not even the cultural one, just what is written on the page).

You are arguing a point I specifically didn't make. So I don't know what to answer you, since none of it has to do with my actual opinion.

So why men and women should compete separately? If you think they don't, then fine. If you think the do, then the reason pretty much is "because men have physical advantages and make the competition unfair or even impossible for women". What gives this advantage is the kind of stuff that I am talking about.

Is lactic acid production a property that is advantageous to men (I don't think it is, just making an example)? Then if you have the lactic acid production of men, you effectively have some of the advantages that men have over women, hence competing against women creates question. This is not binary, it's a scale, and at some point there is a limit that is fixed in the rules.

I will answer your question once again: because there are categories based on gender, there are not based on lactic acid production. Testosterone is one of the advantages that men have over women, and in fact there is a limit.

You specifically ignored my argument, which can be summed up like this: categories for sport are fairly arbitrary, but it's what is currently used. If you have properties of a stronger category, it is unfair for those of the category you compete in. Yes, there are other N genetic advantages within that category, but since they are not parameters that are used to slice competition, they are not addressed. I didn't make the rules and frankly I don't care. If in the future we are going to have height and feet size categories for swimming, with lactic acid production, and tens more, I honestly would have no problem. Today genders are used in most of the sports because it's a simple and effective proxy to a bunch of advantages.

Are you in bad faith?

Would you compare the performance of any swimmer in the Olympics with that of a teenager who didn't even finish to develop his body, let alone developer experience and was not specialized in the same type of competition?

Are you really trying to base your argument on a pure rethoric base with such a shitty comparison? I am sure that when I was 20 I was beating Bolt, when he was 5 years old. This conclusively prove I run faster than Bolt.