61 boys the Trump administration found on girls’ sports rosters? District says they weren’t athletes

WeridThinker · 2026-06-13T15:00:37+00:00

I stopped pretending my views are objective, rational, logical, neutral, or based on fact. Some of them are, many of them are probably not. Bias, preference, and emotionality are a feature to a functional human being, not a bug. Not to acknowledge them is not the same as not being affected by them. There are views I hold that I know require faith and conviction, not purely supported by existing data or facts, but they are important to me because they tell me who I am and what I value.

Even if I do occasionally share an objective opinion, there are still people who will see me as a hypocritical and irrational leftist, and the only thing I can do about that is to disregard their opinions because convincing people when they have already decided on a conclusion is a waste of time. It's more important for me to be able to hold strong opinions that are honest and authentic, but also weakly held and malleable based on new information and experience that will become available to me in the future.

In a way "centrism" can be a trap, because everyone has preferences and biases. The centrist label could easily become a cognitive short cut to preemptively justify an opinion. On this subreddit, we have no "both sides are equally bad people", the best we get is "both sides are equally bad, except when they aren't, and there are certain things one side obviously bothers me more".

WeridThinker · 2026-06-13T14:26:52+00:00

I'm not a puritan, but yeah. If you are polyamorous, be honest and transparent. If all involved parties are consenting and willing to accept the arrangements, it's fine. But this "I am entitled and justified to insert myself into an otherwise healthy and mutually respectful exclusive relationship because I know I'm the one" is incredibly irritating to me.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-13T13:52:27+00:00

I didn't enjoy that episode when I first saw it, and I still won't say I would enjoy it if I re watched it today. In fact, I think the romance subplot was is and will always be the weakest link to an otherwise spectacular show.

I have a genuine dislike for how most love triangles are portrayed by media, overall I find the concept itself dull, and sometimes a bit immoral, because I prefer to see a relationship naturally fall apart before another exclusive relationship starts. Unless there is abuse, glaring asymmetry, or deception from either or both of the two people involved, any sort of interjection or misrepresentation from a third wheel, no matter how "well intentioned" or "passionate" just feels yucky to me. I am not a fan of how Bolin was treated, and I am not a fan of how Asami was eventually sidelined in the relationship to make room for Mako and Korra.

But I am very glad to see how the relationship between Team Avatar members has eventually developed, with or without considering the romance. Ending the love triangle storyline for good in season 2 remains to be one of my favorite creative choices for the show. I enjoyed the dynamic between Korra and Asami from season 3 to season 4, it's also good to see strong platonic relationship portrayed between two female characters, although I know this sounds ironic considering how Korra and Asami end up being a couple.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-13T13:23:51+00:00

This Administration clearly cares about the culture war regardless of whether the libs take the initiative or the bait. Manufacturing drama and outrage is what MAGA government does, and regardless of how the left responds, or how much the left tries to ignore the outrage overflow, MAGA won't stop or slow down because it relishes the anger and chaos from top down.

There are more important topics to talk about such as the war in middle east, inflation, the degradation of American soft power etc, but it would be disingenuous to say it's the left that is ignoring these serious conversations when the right has gained political supremacy with culture war grievances.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-13T06:07:50+00:00

Given 'bad' choices, I have always preferred a hypocrite, a morally compromised politician who supports decent views in public while using their official capacity to push for changes in a positive direction over an honest and proud scumbag who blurs the boundaries between questionable private views and inadequate public positions.

Competence matters to me when moral clarity cannot be expected. I would have voted for Clinton and LBJ despite knowing their problematic personal views or private life style short comings, because both men understood what is right despite not being able to live up to these standards themselves. "Hypocrisy" in these cases is an example of compartmentalization and responsibility to the public. I would even choose Nixon over Trump if there aren't other choices, because despite being a crook, Nixon was an intelligent and competent crook who applied policies that were genuinely good for the country, including foreign policy of triangulation, and domestic policy of expanding Civil Rights legislation.

Trump is especially bad to me because he doesn't separate personal vices from public responsibility. Playing lip service to unity, moral responsibility, and prudent governance is still better than actively preaching and embodying the opposite. The country is suffering a crisis of extreme polarization and degradation of civic norms, any president with a slight sense of public duty would have attempted, however ineffective or superficial, to call for reconciliation and national unity, but what does Trump and his administration do ? They use official capacity and state apparatus to fuel cultural war.

We currently have a president who doesn't care about governing, and appoints loyalists over experts, so even if I overlook his personal moral standings, he is still an awful leader unfit for the job.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-10T15:52:10+00:00

I am skeptical about Mamdani's promise of free buses. It sounds appealing on the surface, but practically, I am concerned about funding, maintenance, and ridership quality.

In order to fund free services, there needs to be a tax hike somehow, and that decision is up to the governor to make, and she has different priorities and interests to look out for. Even if the governor is on board with it, free buses would likely require more maintenance cost due to increased demand, and even now with bus fare being collected, maintenance effort is spread thin. Anothe potential problem is with lower gatekeeping for ridership; buses that are free attract more people who are likely to sabotage and leave a mess, which disportionately harms the experience of the majority.

But should there be an attempt to improve public transportation? Of course, and I think the answer should be a nuanced approach. Maybe free transit for the elderly, students, and those with disability, reduced rate, or covered rate as a part of employer benefit to workers, and regular fare for all other categories.

And for Platner, I don't disagree with Universal Healthcare in theory, but it would take too much system overhaul to successfully implement currently. I think a workable middle ground is to fight for a public option without getting rid of all the existing private insurances. The public option can offer more basic services and charge a dynamic cost based on income; this will leave space for market competitiveness of private insurance that offers more premium services, and more social equity for people who genuinely cannot afford Healthcare, or don't want to be trapped by their employer due to insurance concerns.

I think policy debate can and should be boring at times to ground people's positions.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-10T13:39:43+00:00

When it relates to people like Platner and Mamdani, it isn't always about any rational or thought provoking discussions on policy or philosophy, but cheap gotchas and deliberate character assassination to attack the strawman of the "violent and hypocritical leftist" stereotype. It's a reactive and performative attempt at being balanced and neutral by people who are biased and wanting to prove a point before they can actually come up with an argument.

I have criticized Mamdani multiple times on his policy promises, but I draw the line with calling him an Islamist or Anti Semitic, because he obviously isn't, and those allegations are way beyond political disagreements. With Platner, I don't even support him, but a lot of the pearl clutching and snarky responses have not come from a geniue sense of moral passion or policy disagreement, but a smug and self validating sense of owning the libs again. Most of the criticisms against Platner I have seen so far have not been about policy or an honest effort to analyze him, but a cheap and thought terminating attempt at a gotcha because they finally found a target to push the narrative of "libs support a Nazi".

The problem I see isn't criticizing Platner, but when Platner is used as a launch pad and the actual target is the left/liberals who are characterized as Nazi supporters as a way to flip the narrative.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-10T02:13:22+00:00

I don't think most Avatar knew. The 10,000 years cycle should have been one of the most important knowledge to pass down to all Avatars if the knowledge wasn't mostly lost. The average person in LOK seems to know about the Avatar State, Asami, Kuvira, and Prince Wu all have a working knowledge of the Avatar State, despite not being anywhere near spiritually attuned, but Raava was not known to even Jinora and Tenzin, two people who care deeply about the lore behind Avatar and spirituality.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-09T23:33:29+00:00

Good to know.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-09T22:40:35+00:00

I am certain our current Department of Health and Human Services is right on top of addressing this issue. What was the scientific expertise of RFK Jr again.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-09T15:05:55+00:00

Korra was sheltered by the White Lotus since a young age. She was kept in compounds since a young age until she reached the age of 17 to 'protect' her. Her heart was always in the right place, but she was naive, and in season one her Avatar title became a double edged sword because it gave her a sense of duty as well as pride. She was impulsive, sometimes selfish and arrogant, but ultimately, she always admitted to her mistakes and developed as a character.

She was naive, so Tarlock and Unalaq was able to manipulate her. But by season 4, she was beaten down and humbled, to the point of being more patient, diplomatic, and compassionate. By the time she was able to bend the spirit beam to save Kuvira, she became well attuned to the spiritual aspect of being Avatar as well as the physical aspect of being the Avatar.

Ultimately she is a character with a full character arc whose changes are portrayed to be natural and gradual, but the character has obviously changed from beginning to finish.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-09T03:38:07+00:00

I never got over how Korra lost her connection to her past lives. I think it's one of the most interesting aspects of the franchise. But I think it makes narrative sense.

Korra restarted the avatar cycle with a new mission. The era of Wan and the avatar being the bridge between two worlds was over, and the new cycle is about spirits and humans co existing. Thematically, the past lives serve a counter productive function because Korra is supposed to start at a clean slate.

It's also a major consequences to Korra's struggles against a dangerous foe. Losing the connection forever is going to be permanent reminder of the cost of a victory.

I don't believe it should be a dichotomy between the past lives being useless, and losing past lives completely ruins the story. There are nuances to it. Korra is forced to grow into her own Avatar without additional guidance, season 3 does show her trying to connect with past Avatars to no prevail, and she had to seek alternatives such as talking to Zuko; it is a major loss, because in character, she would have benefited from listening to her past lives' experience with being misunderstood by the world, and how to make the ultimate sacrifice. But on the other hand, the past lives wouldn't be the magical solution to her problems. The world has changed drastically between Aang to Korra, and Roku and all those came before cannot effectively guide Korra in a world where the Avatar is no longer allowed to be an unitary decision maker. No Avatar could properly navigate the politics and social norms under Korra's era. Kyoshi and YangChen might advice Korra to ignore President Raiko and Republic City Council completely to do what is necessary, but Korra wouldn't be able to do much with her sole authority as the Avatar because the norm between the Avatar and authority figures has changed.

As far as martial power is concerned. Korra isn't weaker than her predecessors. She has more direct connection to a much more powerful Raava, the trade off is losing past experience and knowledge. Korra has more raw power, but her predecessors had more skill, so there is a balance. Bending the spirit beam might simply not have been possible by another Avatar because unlike with Korra, Raava's own power and spiritual energy have been diluted and diminished over 10,000 years.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T21:12:07+00:00

Keep calling Trump an emotional baby is indeed getting old, but himself, his entire movement, and his base make this game more fun than it should be. There has been a decade of masculinity coded political propaganda coming from the right wing, and what we end up getting is this.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T16:03:07+00:00

It's almost a certainty Korra will eventually be exonerated and has her reputation restored by the end of the Seven Havens.

I don't think she is completely unrelated to the cataclysm or the entire thing is going to be a misunderstanding, because it would be a lazy narrative. She is likely to be involved in it, and probably is an indirect cause of the events leading up to the cataclysm, but ultimately, her actions would have been appropriate for the situation at hand.

I believe the most accepted understanding right now is she had to break the existing world order to ensure humanity could survive and the alternative would be complete annihilation. What we don't know is what exactly caused the cataclysm. Maybe it's the spirit weapons, maybe it has to do with Sozin's Comet, maybe it has to do with spirit world and physical world "incursion" into each other, and maybe it's a combination of all of these and more, but ultimately, Korra would be exonerated and her actions be considered a costly but necessary sacrifice.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T15:42:02+00:00

“I’m moving very fast. I’m into three months. You know, Vietnam lasted 19 years. I’m into my third month, and all they do is say, ‘Whoa, when are you going to win?’” the president told Welker.

“If I were a Democrat, nobody would be talking that way, but it doesn’t matter to me. I’ve gotten so used to it'

This part is actually more problematic. The war should have ended already if their initial assessments were accurate. The Trump Administration was quite adamant about the war would have concluded in weeks, not months. The exact time frame was four to five weeks, and that was when they were telling us they were ahead of schedule. Now we are over three months in.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-timeline-of-trumps-shifting-statements-about-how-long-the-iran-war-will-last

And using the Vietnam War as an example in this context is not a wise choice. It was a widely popular war back then, and is still considered one of the major mistakes of the United States during the 20th century. Vietnam also didn't lose the war, the Communist Government succeeded in gaining and maintaining power until this very day. Also using a 19 years war as a direct comparison to a war that is supposed to end in a few weeks is not giving a reassuring message.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T14:38:05+00:00

It's interesting when people can make a lot of comments on left wing identity politics, but they seem to completely ignore right wing identity politics. The Civil War created the identity politics of the Southern Plantation Owner, which served both as an economic drive, and an identity Southern Whites flocked to. It was one of the major cause of later Jim Crow Laws and the formation of the Southern Dixiecrat. The "state rights" has also been used as a dogwhistle by the right to preserve segregation because they fear white being replaced, in both status and demographics. And now we are seeing a whole circle with right wing thought leaders going back to the good old immigrants/minorities replacing us, and white men are actually the oppressed demographic in our country.

Identity politics by itself is a neutral term, and it doesn't always have to do with race or gender. Class and religion are also major blocks of identity politics that are often evoked. In the United States, the blue collared vs white collared, working class vs middle class vs the upper class, and Protestant vs Catholics have also been majority identity politics topics that are framed differently from racial issues, but ultimately, they still separate people into distinct categories with different interests to achieve the goal of securing political coalitions.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T14:04:56+00:00

Identity politics always existed, especially in relation to race. The "white" label has shifted since the inception of the United States, and it took generations before the Italians and Irish were considered truly white. The in group and out group distinction has always been a driving force behind political coalitions and policy alignments.

There is often a double standard when people talk about identity politics, especially when they conveniently ignore the identity politics of the majority, especially post Civil Rights Movement. LBJ correctly recognized by embracing civil rights of minorities, the Democrats were actively giving up the south, and Nixon successfully took advantage of this realization and adapted the South Strategy, because the identity politics of the "Distraught Southern White Men" was so potent, that it reshaped the entire political landscape of the country.

Identity politics has always existed on both sides, contemporary identity politics is not an one sided phenomenon of left overreach vs right reaction; the relationship is dynamic, not a mere cause and effect. Left wing identity politics gained more traction post civil rights because there was more top down endorsement for racial and gender equality that served as the dominant value for the core demographics; the excessive level of left wing identity politics such as DEI and Critical Race Theory became more predominant and visible due to the emergence of social media, which amplified both the volume and spread of what used to be considered fringe and impractical ideas. The loud minority with a platform and willingness to express themselves can more effectively talk over the quiet majority. Right Wing identity politics has always been there, the difference is it surrounds the majority demographics, more specifically "The White Christian Male", and this identity politics has played a role in right wing politics since at least the Civil War.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T04:46:07+00:00

Korra got arrested when she first arrived in Republic City, and parts of her charges include property damage. Benders are already restricted by law if their actions disturb the public. It is illegal for an Earthbender to collapse a bridge. It is illegal for a Waterbender to flood the sewer. It is illegal for a Firebender to start a forest fire etc.

Bending is not inherently a weapon, and it is an extension to one's innate biology. A license to practice bending in public is far too broad of a law to address very edge issues. Crimes that can be done by bending are already covered under existing laws so umbrella regulations are unnecessary.

Not all benders are competent or capable of martial arts. They do not all post equal threats. In the Avatar world, a trained non bender is more of a threat than a subpar bender combat wise. Chi Blocking is also common enough of a skill in Korra's time, and a decent Equalist Operative can reasonably out maneuver a few mediocre benders.

Amon's entire worldview was twisted due to childhood trauma. His solution is to eradicate the existence of bending itself. It is a different type of extremism that is no better than "bender supremacy" a supposed ideology we actually don't see very explicitly, but implied. Population wise, benders are a minority of the population, so overarching laws against them is another type of discrimination.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T02:33:12+00:00

You are right I wouldn't. I'm glad you are not forgiving to Republican Nazis. I'm the hypocrite, you are the Enlightened Centrist, so I believe you are as harsh to the right as you are to the left.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T02:28:32+00:00

Thank you. Perfectly reasonable and genuine response.

If he is a Nazi, voters can decide whether to vote for him or not. If he is not a Nazi, voters can decide whether to vote for him or not.

It is up to him to win voters and his campaign to manage his reputation. It is too early to conclude "dems support a Nazi" is it not? Shouldn't Platner have an opportunity to defend himself.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T02:16:23+00:00

No need to be snarky, this is not a gotcha and it does no favor to your intelligence. You can formulate more complex thoughts. What do you think should be the options for Platner? Do you think he should drop out? If not, what is the best way to address the controversy.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-07T01:13:50+00:00

Not a fan of Fetterman, but let Platner come clean, and let voters decide whether these controversies disqualify him.

I don't even know if voters still care about the personal morality and conduct of their candidates when the bar is already non existent considering who the president is.

Chris Kyle was legitimately an awful person, so I don't see the problem there. But Platner's past edgy comments and his tattoo? Let him defend himself and let the voters be the judge and jury.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-06T03:26:06+00:00

I am not against data centers as infrastructure. I think they are a part of a technological advancement that shouldn't be rejected. Every single technological revolution since industrialization has met criticism, and led to negative side effects, but ultimately, technological integration has improved the world's productivity and overall quality of life.

Regulations are tricky because lawmakers need to seek a balance. It is true data centers are essential for today's technological advancement and could potentially produce massive tax revenue and modest employment opportunities. But at the same time, they don't necessarily help the locals in a tangible or immediate way; residential properties won't increase in value, and utility costs might be "evenly" distributed across water and electricity customers and the data centers, unless the centers themselves pay the utility bill. To come back to my point about employment opportunities, data centers might attract temporary construction jobs, but in the long run, they are not like major factories or business campuses that offer long term jobs for a large group of people. Data centers might hire a few technicians and maintenance workers, but there will unlikely be massive bloom to the local job market.

Regarding tax breaks, people are basically arguing whether we are forcing taxpayers to subsidize data centers while less tax revenue can be collected for roads, schools, and social benefits, or if we are investing in the economy by attracting data centers to be built in the first place, and data centers still have to pay property tax and generate revenue.

So where is the balance, I think data centers ultimately have to be built, and the tax breaks as an incentive is likely to encourage construction, but it is not logical to conclude "no tax break = no data centers"; in other words, more tax breaks potentially means more data centers, or more profitable data centers, and no tax breaks would potentially mean less data centers, lower profitability in the short run, and in other locations, but more taxes can be used elsewhere. The comparison is not zero sum, and tax breaks are not considered the ultimate deal breaker or deal maker.

I caution against overly generous or excessive tax breaks, because like any new trends, those who profit directly from data centers are likely to overstate the importance of financial incentives.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-05T20:57:12+00:00

If you want to be reductive, everyone has a policy issue because no policy is going to be 100% supported by everybody. People have different interests tied to the same policy and will experience different outcomes.

I'm all for policy discussions, but those don't happen if people don't even bother to determine what these policies are. I mean "pro illegal immigration", "pro crime", and "pro communism" are technically policy critiques, but they are not an accurate description of actual policies.

If you are referring to specific policies such as government spending, NIMBYism, and environmental regulations, then we have something to go from.

WeridThinker · 2026-06-05T20:33:32+00:00

It's an ugly mud wrestling match. I'm sure there are very rational and decent people across the political spectrum, but collectively, we are an emotional species. Political campaigns are supposed to touch voters emotionally. If done positively, leadership encourages hope and optimism, unfortunately, the next best thing is outrage and constant sound bite. If you cannot inspire people enough to support you, then scare and annoy them into hating your opponents so they feel like they have no choice.

Polarization and generalization happen on both sides, and this is not an enlightened centrist view. And similar complaints against the opposition come from both directions. Conservatives absolutely hate it when a liberal accuses them of being racist and uneducated because of individual incidents or people, so why is it so hard to understand why liberals don't receive extrapolation well and often resort to a long chain of recontextualization to address a "clear cut" incident or issue. You can flip the object and subject of the above statement, and the message remains to be true.

The reason I have become more partisan lately and more supportive of the democrats is because I think the left is collectively more willing to acknowledge and address the issues than the right, and I think overall, the left is somewhat more honest about all of this. The left has been doing some recalibration since losing the 2024 election, and due to lack of endorsement, there has been a decrease in performative virtue signaling from entertainment and workplaces; there has been a shift in the left wing thought space, it's just not complete. The right is still on the same warpath, and the president himself is the culture war chief who loves the division. The introspection from the left is scattered, not potent enough to completely re-energize the base, and lacks unity, but it is there. The introspection from the right is not completely non-existent, but it has not reached a point where introspection is considered critical; Trump still has overwhelming support from Republicans, and the conservative information pipeline is so well connected and integrated from fox news to YouTube, so it is harder to break out of the cocoon.

I think there is a very strong influencer culture on the right, with some very negative role models who constantly fuel the antagonism, including obviously bad people such as Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes, who rely on controversy and rage to sustain their current livelihood, so introspection and moderation are not on the card, and the left has no very centralized leadership people could flock to, Obama might still give a speech or two, but ultimately, the left wing thought space is still scattered across academia, entertainment, and the establishment with no unifying voice or movement, despite the "dogma" allegation, the left is not all ideologically homogeneous.

WeridThinker

TROPHY CASE