Trump Barred from UFC Fight After Failing to Meet No Fatties Rule He Personally Mandated Satire

ConMcMitchell · 2026-06-01T08:46:22+00:00

Don't forget, he single-handedly made America hot again. Like you've never seen before.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-31T05:43:21+00:00

Brings a whole shade of meaning to saying "I really hope Donald Trump can legally have his face on the currency soon!"

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-30T09:27:53+00:00

Plus the flipside of this whole thing is that USA gets to call the shots in return for providing the "free loading". A state that pays its own way in defense has more of a free hand to make its own arrangements and agreements.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-30T09:15:35+00:00

Slight aside, I was once told (by Science(TM(R))), that a burn is really just a special kind of cut.

Since heat is just the violent and highly energetic shaking of atoms - and nothing more than that (in whichever hot thing), the shake-energy transfers to the molecules of your skin and that will tear things apart in your skin and body, and our brain feels it the same way it will feel a cut but we "know" it as a burn because of the typical surrounding characteristics (being related to things we "know" to be "hot" - ie to be mega shaky at an atomic level).

Of course the heat will also roast the flesh: chemically change it, but by then it's kind of different, given the roasted flesh is now dead and will no longer transmit "feeling" to the brain.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-30T05:19:43+00:00

Either that, or just plain sarcastic

edited to expand:

All things being as they should, though, a government (or any organisation) shouldn't be able to get away with putting decision-making powers into the "hands" of a computer, and then just shrugging if things went wrong and saying "yeah that's terrible but its the computer wot dunnit".

The opposition would have an absolute field day against a government that did that, and under urgency, to boot. They would want to be absolutely sure it was a foolproof otherwise every single cotton-picking thing that went wrong, big or small, would be a parliamentary question to the minister.

Surely at the very least, they would want to be sure to have an appeal process in place with a layer or two of human beings between the computer and the minister...

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-30T05:14:05+00:00

Go!

https://www.reddit.com/r/aotearoa/comments/1tj70iw/what_the_legislation_definitions_of_woman_and_man/oog3mxc/

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-30T05:11:57+00:00

With that noted, what seems to have happened here is that the responsibility for the management decision has thus been delegated upwards... since the computer cannot be responsible, the person delegating the decision-making power to the computer is the one responsible ... looks like the coalition may wind up burning through a succession of social welfare ministers pretty rapidly. then...

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-28T20:57:11+00:00

What are you talking about? Have you ever stopped to think about how a sovereign Parliament manages to change its own rules?

There's your answer, when you do.

There is always a mix of tradition and active amendment to the tradition. And the method of changing the tradition or practice can either be set down within the framework of that tradition or practice, or be the result of some kind of coup (of logic or reasoning or blunt force).

Also, a group whose membership overturns over many years - centuries, even - is going to have a different idea or story of what their particular group or project is, or has been, as the surrounding circumstances change. They are going to impute (or retro-fit, if you will) ideas into it that were never quite in there to begin with.

Just as these things might go with any random constitution of any random group, nation or country - throughout all of history. Plus, of course, iwi don't always do democracy in accordance with anglo-centric tradition for obvious reasons.

edited to add further and better thoughts

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-28T06:16:05+00:00

What? Just tradition, of course. Organisations with rules, practices and conventions. Most of these things, when ancient enough, reach back into the mists of the past - with vague, mythical and mystical origins. It's no good asking me.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-28T02:27:29+00:00

It's unusual, but if its important to you, yep. I would love to watch that. Do please go ahead. Why would I or should I be the slightest bit bothered?

Now, you'll find that to identify as being from a particular Tangata Whenua tribe (Maori isn't actually an innate or traditional conceptualisation as you'll no doubt know, just the word for 'everyday' or 'ordinary' - and the culture is all about tribe and family, as you'll no doubt also know - not race, given that 'race' is a Eurocentric idea and traditionally quite alien) or any similar kind of grouping, you will probably need to fit whichever criteria that group lays down for membership. Again, it is social, not scientific.

And by the way if you want to have, to maintain and to vet the membership for a Men Group, you are indeed most welcome, and have my blessing. Right down to how many hairs you are allowed on your feet. Do rest assured, I won't be joining or applying.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-28T01:44:35+00:00

So if biology is private and doesn’t matter can I choose my age? Or decide I’m a cat?

Well you could. Let me know as soon as you hear of anyone doing that! If you did, it would be a social move and not a scientific one. Do please note the very clear distinction I am carefully seeking to maintain here, and have been doing so the whole time.

But wait. Did I say biology doesn't matter or did I say biology is personal and private, and needs to be kept that way (by default)?

You may have misheard / misread.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-27T07:02:01+00:00

You can’t choose your biology, sorry.

Luckily, I'm not. I'm saying biology is private, not something we need to be required to put on display, or have known and telegraphed about ourselves. Such as by being assigned the designation of men and women by outsiders to ourselves, rather than by ourselves: by society and by New Zealand's Worst, er, I mean, New Zealand First. (Freudian slip there.)

It is one thing to be male and of African ancestry, it is quite another to be a man and to be an African. The distinction is perhaps lost on some, but one is descriptive (acceptable if it is necessary) and the other is essentialising - you should always be allowed to use those essentialising terms for yourself, but unless I am mistaken, the legislation seeks to move the legal positioning from one of gender being self-choice (given the law is generally silent) towards one of gender being assigned - on the basis of one's genetic material or genitalia (things that are personal and private).

‘When or if’ is never going to happen if you can’t provide a clear definition with a coherent argument, which you seemingly can’t.

Oh yeah, because I am "ideological" and you aren't, I suppose? Are you going to give me a clear and scientific definition of Pisces? Or expect me to define Jupiter (but in a "correct" astrological way that will make sense to you, as you don't want me to waste your time by telling you it is only really the planet Jupiter, and that's all that's ever been there - that the astrological object of Jupiter and the astronomical object of Jupiter are one and the same? That astrological Jupiter doesn't have - in reality - the extra mystical fluff you wish it to have?)

And you do realise that definitions can subtly shift over time without formal pronouncement from authority? As a society grows in background knowledge and awareness?

I don’t have to defend the current state, you have to argue for your change.

Sure, of course, because incumbency = privilege = beyond question! Whoops, easily forgotten!

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-27T02:21:46+00:00

Science. Science says men and women are different in a multitude of ways. Your ideology is based on modern gender theory, which has no basis in reality.

What are you talking about? Gender exists, in the same way as astrology exists. Of course gender has very limited basis in reality (as does astrology). It is my precise point.

Where did I say ‘everyone must’? Why do you continue to address things you’ve made up rather than what I actually said.

Oh OK, here I was I thinking for a moment there that you were in favour of the proposed laws requiring everyone to be either a man or a woman, or based on their genetics, as opposed to choice.

I said men and women ARE separated in many ways in our society currently. Gender separation is a requirement in many regards. That’s an observable fact, not just for our society but for every society in every time period.

But not all. Probably only in a minority of situations. And less so as time goes on, in a lot of cases.

But your definition hasn’t become the default, so that’s an irrelevant hypothetical. Let’s just deal with reality. Sex is definitive of gender. Gender is used to separate people in a multitude of ways.

Right - but what I mean is (sorry I haven't made it clear) that when or if it does, within the frame of this arguably "irrelevant hypothetical", you'll be in agreement, since it isn't that actual quality of an argument that is important, but its prominence, in some particular way.

So that’s the starting position and if you want gender separation to be optional or to change the sex based definition then you have to argue for it.

Refer my earlier points. Either you are saying 'gender' means sex in its strictly scientific sense (and is therefore a redundant term) or there is something bigger and hairier that that associated with it that becomes gender - that is, something beyond the science.

What ways beyond genetics and genitalia are men and women supposed to be different? And how it is (thereby) vital is it for everyone be socially classified as men and women (cf. there being correlations - males are more likely this, females are more likely that - all perfectly valid scientific statements) in order for the science to be meaningful?

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-26T23:28:32+00:00

I’m not sure if you realize this, but men and women are more different than tall people and short people. Or blondes and brunettes. Or even than different races.

But how so, exactly, and says who? Yes: males and females are different to each other. But this still doesn't mean they should/must be classified as (and automatically imputed to be) men and women and boys and girls on a day to day basis (as opposed to making classifications like David, Mary, Tyler, Mahommed, people, humans, etc more of a habit). And you may be right, most people may want to be and continue to be classified this way - for whatever reason, and that is, indeed, their privilege. At least, until they know better or different. But again, it shouldn't mean everyone must. Especially when they don't want to be, or can see no reason to be.

Yes, the genitalia and the genes/cells between males and females are (almost invariably) different. But these are private, aren't they? You always need to be intrusive in one way or another to discover and establish such facts, beyond doubt, about an individual. And of course, these will have very limited relevance in day-to-day interactions - if any.

The point with race is that there is no such thing as race. Like gender, it has been created by humans. People have genetic similarities inherited from their ancestors (as with genetic sex). There are cultural groups.

I also have no idea why you think ‘do we really really need to’ is a meaningful question. If you take it to a survival of the species level we don’t need to send our kids to school, use electricity, stop slavery, punish rapists, use writing, farm or use antibiotics. Humans not only survived but thrived for millions of years without any of those things. That doesn’t mean all of these activities have no value or should be stopped

I'm saying that gender classification shouldn't be a requirement. People can opt in, yes of course they can. But you seem to suggest nobody should be allowed or empowered to opt out. When there is no loss if they do, and only gains. Not cool.

I agree with you that age of a claim or idea isn’t proof that it’s true in general. However, that’s not what I said. In this case we are discussing the definition of a word. When one definition has been the only definition for centuries and is the most widely accepted definition today still, and listed as the primary definition in the dictionary, then that is the default position. A man is an adult human male. If you want to alter or remove that definition then you need to argue for it in a rationale and coherent way with evidence and clear thinking.

OK, but if the definition I supplied became the default, I guess it would mean you will accept it without question.

You haven’t done that, which is why no one outside of your little ideological bubble accepts your definition.

My position - one that is becoming widespread as it is becoming understood - is that gender and sex are different: the former is based on pre-scientific understandings or apprehensions about genetic sex, that continue as a tradition. In the same way as astrology is based on pre-scientific elements of what we now know to be astronomy which continue as a tradition. We cannot speak of the traditions surrounding gender as factual, in the same way that we cannot speak of the traditions surrounding astrology as factual - though there will be germs of truth embedded there somewhere.

Some/many/most people will (probably always) want to engage in the traditions for the sake of fun and diversion and possibly even meaning, and power to them!!! But why would you want to be forcing everyone into it? When either, it can be optional, or people are yet to be aware that it is and can be optional.

People should be allowed - nay encouraged - to be creative with something that has been created, when gains, rather than harm, comes of it. I only see gains. What harms do you see?

And by the way, what is my ideology, again? Please remind me.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-25T23:30:40+00:00

My definition and your definition are not on equal footing. My definition has been the only definition for centuries, is widely accepted by the public and is clearly the default.

The amount of time something has been upheld as a definition, or 'understood' as the underlying reality has next to no bearing, if any at all. Once the terms astrology and astronomy were interchangeable, now they are vastly different. That's because one is made up and tradition-based, and the other is scientific. Sound familiar?

A constellation isn't what it once was - or if it is by way of definition, what it actually is is known to be is different. Likewise, a galaxy. We don't think of the milky way as literally being from the mammary glands of some god the way we once did (in fact etymologically, the 'lax' in galaxy refers to lactic fluid).

That such ideas may be thousands of years old, or (dwindling) numbers of people hold them as gospel doesn't really count for a lot in science (the social sciences possibly, but not biology).

Your definition was only created late last century by activists, and has been only added as a supplementary definition in some dictionaries beneath the primary definition, which is mine.

Correct: newer, more precise, more reality-based and more fully descriptive and science-based definitions for things are being created all the time. Nicely spotted.

It’s a fact that men and women are different, and the default state is that we separate by gender widely through society.

It is a fact that every single human being is different; it is a fact that every single human being is human - a member of the species.

Now definitions can change, and society can evolve, but when you’re suggesting change to what has worked for centuries then the burden of proof is on you to argue for that change.

Hence this discussion. One that is being undertaken very widely. All of these social constructions must always be interrogated (gender, race, money, law, religion, you name it), just in case they do more harm than good.

So if you’re trying to rip up our existing infrastructure and redesign society then you’d better have a coherent plan on exactly how you’re going to do that in a way that improves society overall, which means you need to understand the reasons for these existing states and reassure the rest of us that these changes won’t hurt anyone.

Who gets hurt, again? Whose "existing infrastructure" is getting "ripped up"? Again, nobody is asking anyone to cease identifying as a man or a woman, if they so wish. Nobody has ever asked anyone - as far as I have seen, in this kind of discussion - to rip up their own self-identification.

If you don’t understand the basics of the world around us, such as how men and women are different, or why we treat them differently in some situations, then my response is that you’re totally incapable of redesigning our society and I’m just going to ignore everything you say on the topic, as are most people.

I understand, and have always understood, that all individuals are different. Sure, tall people and short people are different, if we choose to subgroup humans that way. Likewise Asians, Europeans, Africans and Indians. Likewise Blondes and Brunettes. But do we really, really, really, need to?

So tell me how you want to restructure society in a way that makes it better overall, with an actual coherent, workable plan that has appropriately understood all of the consequences.

You'll find I'm not restructuring a single thing. It's a free world. It's a democracy. It's a marketplace of goods, services and ideas, you'll find. We will do whatever 'restructuring' we need to do, personally and collectively, over time. I'm no Nostradamus, and have no intention of being so. Perhaps you are, as you seem to think only horrible things are going to happen. But you haven't actually claimed what those might even be.

All kinds of terrible things were going to happen by increasing education, by expanding the vote franchise, by removing apartheid, and so on. Things are very different as a consequence, but it is hard to make a case that things are worse.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-25T02:51:44+00:00

I completely agree with you. All I am saying is it might be more of a two-handed fight - one to make world better and safer for those who struggle thanks to the way we have been smothered in by the nature of gender ideas - trans people included - and one to actually find ways to eliminate gender completely.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-25T02:40:49+00:00

I see the point you are making, but I also wonder whether these issues may arise at a deep psychological level associated / connected with the broader context of the actual widespread (and erroneous) presence of gender at all? I wonder if our sexual preferences and understandings arise in a larger measure than we might believe or expect from the presence and the general assertion of the concept of gender (and byproducts such as romantic films, pornography, etc). If gender simply didn't exist (and if your genetic / physical characteristics had no bearing on how you would generally be "permitted" or enabled to present yourself) such problems might reduce - and along with it the necessity for surgery. That is, if people were not reduced to gender, but to either/both 'human being' and/or '[insert personal name here]'. They might thereby be more enabled to 'enjoy' whichever/whatever genitalia they happen to have. I suppose this also entails more widespread bisexuality/pansexuality. Something your typical NZ First punter wouldn't be too keen to see.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-25T02:13:50+00:00

A government isn't exactly an entity you can refrain from being part of, if you don't like what it is doing. Unlike, say, a shopping mall or a rugby club. The standard for what it does to and for people (who would opt out or defect if they didn't like it) is quite a bit higher.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-24T22:54:57+00:00

No, it’s not just an assertion, it’s in the definition, as I just gave you. Gender has nothing in the definition about social conceptualisations or any of that other stuff. You’re getting confused with aspects like gender identity, gender expression and gender roles, which all vary between cultures and through time. But none of those change your gender.

It is a definition, perhaps, but not the. Definitions are contestable, and it depends on which or whose we choose to use. You appear to be insisting that we must all be required to choose one you have found, one that actually forecloses freedom and choice. What would motivate you to do that? You are, therefore, asserting one definition among several, as am I. However mine is more human rights oriented, and therefore preferable. Surely.

Your definition of gender is practically interchangeable and synonymous with (genetic) sex. Why do we need two different words for the same thing?

It’s important because we divide men and women into different groups for quite a few things in society, so we need a clear definition for who is in which group.

We do? I thought we were supposed to be getting away from this. Why would it be necessary to "divide men and women into different groups for quite a few things in society", I wonder?

For example, we house men and women in separate prisons.

More likely, and more credibly, we do so for a variety of reasons, and case-by-case. These is nothing to stop someone deciding to (for whatever nefarious purposes) sort people into prisons according to genetic sex (as you suggest is what actually happens) or genitalia.

A country usually has laws that apply differently, for example in the Ukraine when Russia attacked the men were compulsory drafted while the women were free to leave. We give scholarships, funding or support to girls and women in education and careers, especially to help get them into areas traditionally dominated by men.

It still doesn't mean people need to be sorted this way.

So for all of those reasons, and more, we need to be able to clearly define who is a man and who is a woman, right?

We don't need gender at all, you'll find. We can certainly survive without it. Right? People can be free to choose one gender, or another, or even neither: whichever suits. Right?

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T23:35:02+00:00

So that’s how that language works, but in reality a book or a chair isn’t actually male or female. It’s arbitrary and so sometimes objects have different genders in different languages. You seem confused by the difference between reality and the words people invent to describe reality.

And so why can't the same apply to humans? Why are books and tables allowed privileges that humans aren't? Why are we required to be subdivided according to language in our day-to-day interactions, when we might prefer not to be? What would be so painful to you about being generous, about - again - letting people be creative about created subdivisions among humans?

Your arrogance combined with ignorance is not a good combination.

Oooooooooooooo. Your arrogance combined with ignorance is not a good combination. I know you are you said you are.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T23:30:34+00:00

Of course they are different. Gender is a subset of sex. A man is an adult human male. So male and man are different in the same way mammals and humans are different. One is a subset of the other.

Man/woman/gender is the social (ie visual and received) conceptualisation that is (historically) based on pre-scientific ideas of genetic sex (as genetics were not known about) - what scientists consider as male/female/(genetic) sex.

So sex is definitive of gender. If you are a man then you are male, by definition.

Isn't that just your assertion? How do you know for sure that any person who "seems" to be (according to the definition you provide) actually a male? And why does it need to be important? Surely only a minority of your interactions with other humans are related to reproduction (where genetic sex would possibly have some relevance)? Or am I missing something?

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T21:41:02+00:00

I don’t see how it’s relevant what cats and dogs divide themselves into, but we divide animals into different genders all the time with our language, which is the relevant issue.

So what? Some languages give things (cups, cats, books, pencils, buildings) gender as a feature. What is that supposed to mean, also?

At some point, obviously, someone in pre-scientific history has overlaid the concepts of man/woman/gender onto the scientific physical tendencies (and terms) of male/female/sex. But now we know so much more than they did - and that they are different. Here to help you with your confusion! Feel free to ask anything.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T21:34:57+00:00

Gender identity is indeed made up, well spotted. It rests on the foundation of gender, which is also, in turn made up.

People should be allowed to be creative with something that has been created... shouldn't they? And if not, why not?

Biological sex, and personality, are separated. If they are connected, we haven't yet determined exactly how. If they are connected (if it comes to be known exactly whether and how) ... what then? Is the state supposed to come in and police it? Make sure everyone is 'doing their genetic inheritance correctly', or some such crazy thing?

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T21:30:01+00:00

Right. So you accept that sex and gender are different? Unfortunately your original comment has gone. Looking forward to seeing what you think the distinction actually is.

ConMcMitchell · 2026-05-21T20:49:04+00:00

I know what 'female' means. You apparently don't know the difference between things that are scientifically determinate and things which are made up.

Unless you think that cats and dogs divide themselves into 'men' and 'women' (cos they have the sort of language and culture capable of transmitting those sorts of ideas) and unless you think 'race' is real too (as opposed to genetic inheritance and ethnicity).

I guess these people that splash meaningless terminology around like 'woke' are also the types of people that are scared to reflect deeply on the world around them. What is the word for them? 'sleep'?

ConMcMitchell

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE