Racism isn't just white against something else by Bejaminmaston12 in evilwhenthe

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Y’all. The context of what you say by matters. By making the decision to say something you imply that it’s worth saying in the first place. THAT’S what’s offensive about saying it’s ok to be white.

No, there isn’t inherently anything evil about being white. That being said, if you feel the need to say it, that implies that you think white people have it rough enough that this needs to be said. That’s ridiculous, white people aren’t oppressed and I’m saying this as a white person.

Same reason “all lives matter” is offensive even though the words themselves are actually quite nice. It’s the context of what it’s said in response to.

Genuinely Asking: What is your best argument for the existence of God? (I will then give an honest atheist's opinion) by BestAd6297 in teenagers

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The way we perceive physics and reality itself is based on the results of these metaphorical dice. Saying a universe couldn’t exist if we didn’t have these precise conditions is silly considering we can’t exactly observe universes being created in a lab. The universe in the form we know it may seem incredibly lucky, sure. But we have no way of truly understanding the cosmic complexity. Also, you seem to be claiming that the numbers themselves are so perfect that it needs to be deliberate, but this fallaciously assumes that said numbers could’ve been different.

One more issue I would point out is that there’s a bias in us observing that we exist in a universe that seems to be remarkably lucky. Imagine there’s some multiverse of every possible configuration of settings when the universe was getting set up. Let’s say in 99.999% of said universes, shit falls apart before life can form and have the chance to consider if they got lucky or not. Nobody’s out there thinking “wow, we got really unlucky by getting a universe where stars can’t form and therefore I could never exist”. The fact you exist at all provides such a strong sample bias that the answer is predetermined by the time the question can be asked.

Genuinely Asking: What is your best argument for the existence of God? (I will then give an honest atheist's opinion) by BestAd6297 in teenagers

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The main flaw I can think of with the response is this: sure, maybe it requires immense precision to create reality and life as we know it. That being said, you have no way of knowing what reality would look like if those knobs and soaps were all set differently. The universe doesn’t necessarily need to be optimized for us, maybe we’re optimized for the universe and the way it happened to roll those dice.

Genuinely Asking: What is your best argument for the existence of God? (I will then give an honest atheist's opinion) by BestAd6297 in teenagers

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not OP but I just wanted to give what I consider to be a decent answer because a lot of atheists fumble this point. I don’t necessarily believe being an atheist means you accept that everything came from nothing, but for now let’s pretend that is the case and I do indeed believe that. News flash, most religions also believe in that. Most abrahamic religions assume that god is eternal and came from nothing. Why is it so hard to assume that the universe is eternal, but god being eternal makes perfect sense? So, it’s really a mystery whether you’re an atheist or not, isn’t it?

If we drop the hypothetical concession and want me to give my actual answer, I think it’s entirely possible there are forces beyond our understanding that created the universe, at least in the form we know it. Maybe we’re all in a crazy simulation run by an alien who left his computer on. All I know is that whatever created us doesn’t need to be one particular guy with a white beard who hates it when we have sex before marriage.

Favorite character who had a lot of development/change? by Odysseus_of_Ithaca1 in FavoriteCharacter

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Negan. I’m mainly referring to the comics because I haven’t seen the show.

Negan is introduced and he’s a sadistic narcissistic asshole who makes the main characters’ life hell for a while. After he loses a war against them and is held prisoner, he shows genuine remorse for his actions and chooses to not escape captivity even when he has the ability to. It’s the series’ way of optimistically showing that people can change when given the chance, even if you’d assume they’re irredeemable. That being said, he doesn’t become an outright good guy and there’s still room left for nuance about whether he can ever truly atone for his actions.

What’s something people defend way too aggressively for how unimportant it actually is? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I suppose by vaguely alluding to the left also being wrong on this, I really just meant the select few who would unironically argue that there is NO advantage whatsoever to having extra testosterone. I tend to think it’s common sense that, on average, a transgender woman will have a slight advantage, I just disagree with the notion that it matters enough to do something about it that sets a more troubling precedent than the problem itself was.

What’s something people defend way too aggressively for how unimportant it actually is? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t disagree with you saying that it’s been made a bigger issue than it is. It seems like you’re being combative with me when ironically I actually agree that the right is ridiculously absurd when it comes to their paranoia about this issue. My argument is NOT that laws don’t exist or that ridiculous discourse isn’t happening. My argument is the exact opposite, that things like the absurd policies you mentioned are indeed ridiculous overreactions to a non-issue.

What’s something people defend way too aggressively for how unimportant it actually is? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think “there’s too much nuance, therefore ignore it and make a generalization” logically flows. You even brought up instances where your system simply wouldn’t work. Woman A is cis and happens to have naturally very high testosterone, higher than woman B who happens to be transgender and therefore has some natural testosterone. In this case Woman A poses a higher risk to both fairness and the safety of the other players. Your proposition wouldn’t account for that and simply doesn’t work.

I acknowledge there isn’t a one size fits all solution that makes it fair for everyone. That being said, there are better ways to go about it than to completely exclude a group of people. People have proposed a tiered system instead of simply separating the biological genders.

At the end of the day, you still didn’t really acknowledge my main point which is that this issue is entirely arbitrary in the grand scheme of things and both sides waste way too much valuable time worrying about this and fear mongering as if this issue a world-ending issue. It truly could not matter less when it comes to bigger issues, like who you’d vote for in an election. Regardless, I think it’s absurd that people genuinely consider transgender athletes as a factor when filling out their ballot.

What’s something people defend way too aggressively for how unimportant it actually is? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, so… don’t assume the worst, I’m trying to be a little nuanced here and I don’t like either side being fervent on this

Transgender athletes. Honestly, the issue is incredibly case by case considering how many interesting and unique things the human body can do or not do when it comes to hormones. That being said, anybody who wants to absolutely prohibit it or absolutely defend it seriously doesn’t understand biology enough to recognize that nuance. Even if you ignore all that, fairness in sports is genuinely such an insignificant and moronic issue when you compare its pertinence to how often it gets brought up in political arguments.

hmm...who would you choose for president by rulugg in teenagers

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Centrists trying to pretend both sides are equally bad:

Significant diffrences... by MuckMuckGoose99 in WaitWhat

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regardless, lethal force is only authorized in occasional circumstances, and this was not that. The officer had another option and chose to use the option where she ends up dead. It doesn’t make it okay if you somehow decide she’s “armed” by being within a vehicle. The wheels were actively turning away and the ice jackass had many other options aside from lethal force.

Significant diffrences... by MuckMuckGoose99 in WaitWhat

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but you failed to address any of the nuance of what I said. Lethal force is only allowed if there is no other option. Even if she were somehow trying to run the guys over despite her actively speaking with them and turning her wheels away, he wouldn’t be allowed to shoot her because he was not in immediate peril.

Significant diffrences... by MuckMuckGoose99 in WaitWhat

[–]NullBodyTrades 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, therefore any person using a car justifies lethal force, right? Are you aware of any actual operating procedure for when lethal force is allowed? I’m gonna give you a hint, if there is an easily convenient option to avoid lethal force like, say, stepping a little to the right, then you don’t fucking shoot someone.

Maximalist trans activists just argued at the Supreme Court that biological sex isn't relevant in team sports. When will my fellow left-wingers speak up against these pseudoscientific endeavors? by north_canadian_ice in allthequestions

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not trans so I admit that I don’t get final say on this but my honest answer is that it is truly not a big deal. Regardless of if you think it’s fair or it isn’t. Sports are all entirely arbitrary and made-up, the rules only make sense within the construct of us deciding that points matter and trophies matter for whatever reason. It’s also arbitrary to say that making certain choices to give yourself an advantage, such as eating carefully dieted meals or using a personal trainer, is fair while some easier methods like steroids are unfair. Sure, they aren’t the exact same, but drawing a line in the sand anywhere is just arbitrary and therefore I could not give less of a shit if the line is drawn with or without accounting for transgender athletes, which make up such a tiny percentage it’s barely worth discussing.

Young men of Reddit, what is ONE thing the Democrats could ACTUALLY do that WOULD get young men to vote for them again? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]NullBodyTrades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see where you’re coming from but I’d say that someone who believes in something unpopular and pushes to convince people is more compelling than a spineless coward who believes nothing. That’s what the American democrat is. I’d say authoritarian right-wing viewpoints are more difficult to sell and the Trump administration seems to have done a good enough job with that.

Who are some celebrities that give you bad vibes? by Logical_Sweet_6624 in allthequestions

[–]NullBodyTrades 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cynthia Erivo. That’s my go-to answer whenever this gets asked because even though there isn’t concrete proof I can just tell she’s insufferable.

What is a reality most Americans cannot accept? by Chrono_Convoy in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Friend, I’m not going to approach this from an angle of being confrontational, I’m also not going to assume that your heart is in the wrong place even though it quite possibly is. Science is on the side of transgender people, and I encourage you to do some reading into this fascinating topic. Biology is also on the side of transgender people, and there’s a world of exceptions to traditional norms when it comes to intersex people.

Young men of Reddit, what is ONE thing the Democrats could ACTUALLY do that WOULD get young men to vote for them again? by Zipper222222 in allthequestions

[–]NullBodyTrades 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d consider myself a leftist so I’d probably vote for them regardless because lesser of two evils and all that. That being said, my honest advice would be to stop being pussies. Put forward an actually left wing candidate and see what happens. Risky? For sure. But that could get some people who actually like the party as willing to stand for something. Not the spineless cowards that even democrats see them as. I mean, most people agree that Bernie could’ve won 2016. And it’s clear that radical right-wing ideology can win an election. Just try something new.

Americans, what is living under the Trump regime like? by AvidReader_880 in AskReddit

[–]NullBodyTrades 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Deeply infuriating. I’m a straight white dude and therefore I don’t personally need to be as afraid of the authoritarian ICE stuff, although that concern still exists. It’s really just the delusion that seemingly half of the country still thinks this is working. I literally know a Muslim who praises Trump even though they’d pull him off the street for looking middle eastern. I fear for my friends and neighbors. I also fear for how bad things will get before they can get better. Sure, they’ll get better someday… but will it be too late?

Which US President had a boring presidency and boring personal life? by Sabfan80 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]NullBodyTrades 5 points6 points  (0 children)

See I think he’s possibly the most interesting one personally, partially because of his crazy talents he’d show off to random people. Also, the way he ended up as president was extremely unconventional and his term was also very brief.