ObjectivityIncarnate

I’ve been using Firefox for over a decade, and Windows has never complained about it. What are you talking about?

were those numbers perhaps cherry-picked to make the situation look more dramatic than it actually is?

If anyone can go from 554th to 5th in any sport/event just by competing among the other sex, nothing else changing, then that obviously indicates something. You can’t handwave that away.

Her personal 100m freestyle time dropping less than a quarter of a second post-transition is honestly a bigger indicator that transition is not making a substantial difference, because that angle completely removes the ‘chance’ element in your opponents being different people.

My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence that trans women have an advantage.

Going from 554th place pre-transition to 5th place post-transition doesn’t line up with that claim.

The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Lia Thomas] soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story

In the 100 freestyle, Thomas’ best time prior to her transition was 47.15. At the NCAA Championships, she posted a prelims time in the event of 47.37. That time reflects minimal mitigation of her male-puberty advantage.

During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.

It may not be an issue to you, but it’s an issue to every woman whose ranking is lower as a result. I imagine it especially hurts if you’re pushed out of first place in that way.

It’s now trivial, in 2025, to depict the world as a 3D shape, this is coming a few decades after it matters, imo.

Speaking of “paycheck to paycheck”:

I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they’re struggling to make ends meet, but not those living “paycheck to paycheck” who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the “living paycheck to paycheck” category are actually the latter. But it’s easy to assume the former meaning (it’s more intuitive, after all), so those two ‘subsets’ are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so “living paycheck to paycheck” is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.

The fact is, on average, Americans have more of an overspending problem, than an underearning one. Did you know that 48% of consumers earning over $100,000 a year, and over a third earning over $200,000 are “living paycheck to paycheck”? Meanwhile, 25% of those earning less than $50k aren’t living paycheck to paycheck (a demo I was part of until I eclipsed $50k a few years ago)—maybe it’s time to more closely examine what those people are doing, and follow their example.

It’s absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.

“stop taxing” doesn’t mean stop taxing

calling a lie a lie is ad hominem

Fuck all the way off, pathetic liar.

Fuck off, liar. This is what I identified as a straw man:

it’s such a serious threat to the country’s financial stability that we should chicken out and stop taxing the rich.

Now quote me “spew[ing] exactly that talking point” that we should stop taxing the rich. You won’t, because you can’t, because I didn’t.

Shameless, pathetic liar.

it’s such a serious threat to the country’s financial stability that we should chicken out and stop taxing the rich.

No one’s saying this, this is a straw man.

It’s just a simple fact that there is a ‘sweet spot’ when it comes to maximizing tax revenue. It’s the same as if you’re selling a product for $10, then 100 people buy it, and you assume that you’ll double your $1000 profit if you sell it for $20 instead, but then the number of buyers went down to 10, and now your bottom line is $800 less, instead.

“Just tax them more” is not the simple/obvious solution it appears to be on the surface. Also, people don’t just not react when stuff like this changes, to protect themselves; just compare tax revenue presently to what it was when it capped out at (iirc) 91%.

And even IF ‘turning that dial’ simply increased tax revenue, it needs to be combined with that revenue being spent productively, for it to make any difference at all. Hell, I think the US already brings in more than enough tax revenue to do everything we want it to do, if it was doing it as efficiently as it could be.

Someone needs to read up on “capital flight”, this is a known phenomenon we’re talking about, not speculation.

Is appearance really the first thing it occurs to you to comment on?

Well, the purchase is probably already made by the time this is seen, and for those who see it, they probably just ignore it similarly to EULA popups when installing programs.

Because “gonna” is centuries old, while “finna” only started getting popular around 2010.

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, ‘younger’ slang is always going to be less ‘familiar’/‘normal’-sounding.

Probably because you’re making references to a ~30 year old episode of a cartoon, as if it’s your own joke.

Yes. Those people consider things like this part of the “cost of living”, not the luxury that it is.

On average, people have more of an issue overspending than they do underearning. That’s why even among people making six figures, 1 in 4 of them live “paycheck to paycheck”, which people assume to mean ‘barely make enough to make ends meet’, but what more commonly means ‘deliberately chooses not to save/spends every dollar earned’.

What the fuck and die

He was tried and found guilty of raping a woman.

That’s not true. He’s never been convicted of a sex crime. “Found liable” in a civil court and “found guilty” in a criminal court are VASTLY different, and require VASTLY different standards of evidence.

It’s important to be accurate.

That’s because you’re a textbook example of the infantile minds infecting areas where actual discourse has a chance to happen.

(emphasis added)

Men aren’t allowed to discuss their feelings because men have created a society that looks at them as losers for doing so.

The implication here, that societal norms are created and maintained by only men, and therefore any aspects of it that affect men negatively deserve to be blamed on them, is one of the most pervasive anti-male sentiments that people try to fly under the radar with. Women have at least as much (arguably more) influence on societal norms and conventions, as men do.

This entire comment is teeming with this undertone; that is, until the end, when they come out and just say ‘all the bad stuff is men’s fault’ at the end, lol.

Everyone loves building strawmen. If you think only “they” do it, it’s because you’re unquestioningly accepting the ones that confirm your biases.