Define your goalposts, what exactly is “winning against the best in competition”?
Chris Mosier seems like someone who consistently does win in those competitions.
If he doesn’t count then who, specifically, does “the other way around”?
alteration that isn’t and can’t be available for everyone
That’s unfortunately how genetics works.
What is then the legal limit for doping of a trans male?
I thought being assigned female at birth made someone inherently and irreversibly weaker and so they would be non-competitive in men’s sports /s.
Seriously though that’s a largely solved problem. While specifics will vary depending on the specific org this set of guidelines outlined by the World Anti-Doping Agency is a decent enough framework and directly answers that.
It’s like saying your rights are being trampled on if Walmart bans you from their store. You still have access to food.
With the existence of food desserts and Walmart’s decades long crusade of monopolization this is less true than you think.
Sure, you can still go buy food, but in many parts of rural US it’s now an hour+ trip each way to the gas station and costs 3x as much as you can afford. Meaning in reality you don’t.
She was born as a woman and she considers herself a woman
You are conflating sex and gender, she has 5α-reductase deficiency which exclusively effects individuals with an XY karyotype.
Either all women1, including Semenya, fall under that umbrella or none of them do. Pick one.
If your concern is about “unfair advantages gained via doping” then the majority of trans women competing are being much more fair because they are undergoing HRT to bring the “doping” back to within the typical woman baseline.
Unless your moral outrage is because you’re drawing a distinction between naturally occuring and artificial doping?
^1 I should have to fucking say this, but based on the fact we’re having this conversation: this inherently includes trans women.^
If the doctors had designated her sex “correctly” when she was born would you hold the same opinion?
Why is her situation any different than someone who medically matches her hormonal levels, irregardless of assigned sex at birth?
It gets much, much more skewed after puberty.
Because the primary causitive variable here isn’t the person’s sex chromosomes but their relative hormone levels. It’s highly correlated to the sex chromosomes that one is born with, which is what your data shows, but it isn’t the cause.
Not sure what one can do, but if you need a good distracting hobby I’ve heard FPV drone racing is quite a bit of fun.
where did you get 1.98?
Public database of rich people spending money on disinformation tactics: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview
That’s the exact opposite of the Democrat’s political ideology.
Where do you get that idea?
They did though, through the creation and expansion of the secure communities program.. It was attempted to be walked back via the PEP after Obama earned the “deporter in chief” moniker, but yes the DNC did, has and will continue to do so.
Their style is usually more “don’t make a scene” then “suns out, guns out” but the end result is ultimately the same.
How did you quantity that 10x times?
My best naïve estimate puts Democrats at 1.44-1.98x as corrupt.
the Democrats had military storming our streets and black bagging US residents en masse
The Posse Comitatus Act is what generally prevents military from “black bagging US residents” and leaves that job to police.
Texas was the first state to allow for the national guard to assist in immigration efforts back in 2021. Democrats did nothing to stop, delay or prevent the expansion of those powers which were further pushed and nationalized in 2025.
The other loophole is invoking the insurrection act. While Biden did not involve it it was repeatedly threatened during the Gaza war protests, however the protests never got too riotous for the Dems to risk damaging their image and the local police were perfectly capable of documenting and black bagging people for it.
The cases of Kahlil and Mahdawi where Trump attended to deport individuals participating in those protests was made possible by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That specific bill was introduced by the Democrats, passed the Democratic majority House and Senate, Vetoed by Democratic president Truman before being overridden by the house/Senate.
You are correct that they are “not the same”, but stating that the shield of your enemy is your friend, just because it isn’t a sword is fucking insane.
Personally been a fan of shoggoth with a smiley face mask
Don’t underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history
That’s a better definition!
But also don’t exaggerate a "regime"1 to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.
Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling “details” and “minutia” are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.
Am I supposed to give a monolithic answer now for speaking broadly?
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
Which while it’s good in theory it appears the phrase “accidentally bootlicking” allows for others, including a certain ‘argumentative gremlin’, to perceive that as meaning “so long as it doesn’t contradict my existing worldview”.
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there’s anything of actual substance here.
So what’s your definition?
Probably shouldn’t have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That’s my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
It depends entirely on how you define “accidentally bootlicking” because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
The issue as you see it:
clings on to a pseudo-scientific economic ideology
The prescription you suggest:
pseudo-scientific economic ideology
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it’s very easy to switch to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mode.
Additionally it’s harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
I’d love to talk to someone in the middle of the computer science and developmental psychology Venn diagram.
Not that person, but an Interesting lecture on that topic
So your goalpost is a world record? No trans, non-binary, etc. individual I can find has set a world record in any sport.
If we lower the goalpost to ‘any trans, non-binary, etc. individual winning gold in the Olympics’ again nobody meets that criteria1. Dropping it to simply medaling? Again nothing.
^1 Quinn the soccer player arguably does meet this criteria, but it’s a team sport. Using that as your sole evidence of ‘loads of examples of the opposite’ seems extremely cherry picked doesn’t it?^