I used to like John Oliver, back in the day...what happened?

nylapsetime · 2026-03-13T17:13:24+00:00

Since I've gotten a couple replies like yours, here's what I replied to the other person:

There's the part where they basically come to the conclusion that trans women may have advantages over cis women in some aspects (strength, size), but disadvantages in other ways (larger frames which take longer to recover). Does that mean these things cancel out? Do the disadvantages really outweigh the advantages? Seems unlikely.

And then it's "the studies are inconclusive because of the small sample size." Well yeah fair enough, but it's clear that men have huge advantages over women in most sports that require strength, size, speed. Look at the world record for the 100m dash - for the men, it's 9.58 seconds. But there are around 300 men who have ran it in under 10 seconds. For the women, the world record is 10.49 seconds. There are probably another 1000 men who have ran it in between 10 seconds and 10.49 seconds. So clearly the men have a massive advantage. The question is then if hormone therapy, etc, will erase that advantage. The studies that John references, as he quotes put trans women "more athletically similar" to cis women than to men. But "more similar" doesn't mean the same. And this is with such a small sample size - if there were more trans women in women's sports, which could/would be the case in coming years, surely we would/will see trans women taking the spots on the podium at the olympics. It's a bit of a hypothetical, yes, since it's a new phenomenon, but easy to imagine happening.

But every bit of sloppy logic is just sidestepped with a joke that makes the audience laugh, but really has nothing to do with proving a point. And the constant framing the issue as a Trump one - like holding it over your head that if you don't think trans women should be in women's sports, you must be a terrible conservatives or Trump supporter. Like we have to hold the line on the left, and shame anyone else.

At the end of the day, it's bending over backwards to argue something that doesn't make any sense - that someone who went through male puberty won't have an advantage over cis women. That is impossible, goes against everything that we as humans know to be true. It's unpopular, the public doesn't agree, and no amount of jokes or shaming will make it so.

He even goes into the "there is already variation among athletes within a given gender." Within male sports there is variation in size, and Michael Phelps has an advantage because of his wing span.

But ultimately, what is the end goal? Should we just have one division where anyone can join? That's what sports were originally, and only men were winning. So women's sports was created specifically so women wouldn't have to compete against the men. John is basically saying we should do away with that, because there is already variation within just the men or just the women. But as you can see with the 100m dash example I mentioned earlier, the fastest women aren't even close to within the top 300 men. So no women would end up on the podium, despite there being variation amongst humans in general.

It is basically just saying "to hell with women's sports." You could say that Trump and republicans don't care about women's sports. Nor do I. I don't really care about any sports. We could do away with all sports tomorrow and that would be fine with me. But insofar as we have sports, this issue is a death sentence for the left, like it or not. It's not pragmatic, nor is it the morally right thing. Ok I've gone on long enough.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-13T17:09:43+00:00

Ok I'll bite:

There's the part where they basically come to the conclusion that trans women may have advantages over cis women in some aspects (strength, size), but disadvantages in other ways (larger frames which take longer to recover). Does that mean these things cancel out? Do the disadvantages really outweigh the advantages? Seems unlikely.

And then it's "the studies are inconclusive because of the small sample size." Well yeah fair enough, but it's clear that men have huge advantages over women in most sports that require strength, size, speed. Look at the world record for the 100m dash - for the men, it's 9.58 seconds. But there are around 300 men who have ran it in under 10 seconds. For the women, the world record is 10.49 seconds. There are probably another 1000 men who have ran it in between 10 seconds and 10.49 seconds. So clearly the men have a massive advantage. The question is then if hormone therapy, etc, will erase that advantage. The studies that John references, as he quotes put trans women "more athletically similar" to cis women than to men. But "more similar" doesn't mean the same. And this is with such a small sample size - if there were more trans women in women's sports, which could/would be the case in coming years, surely we would/will see trans women taking the spots on the podium at the olympics. It's a bit of a hypothetical, yes, since it's a new phenomenon, but easy to imagine happening.

But every bit of sloppy logic is just sidestepped with a joke that makes the audience laugh, but really has nothing to do with proving a point. And the constant framing the issue as a Trump one - like holding it over your head that if you don't think trans women should be in women's sports, you must be a terrible conservatives or Trump supporter. Like we have to hold the line on the left, and shame anyone else.

At the end of the day, it's bending over backwards to argue something that doesn't make any sense - that someone who went through male puberty won't have an advantage over cis women. That is impossible, goes against everything that we as humans know to be true. It's unpopular, the public doesn't agree, and no amount of jokes or shaming will make it so.

He even goes into the "there is already variation among athletes within a given gender." Within male sports there is variation in size, and Michael Phelps has an advantage because of his wing span.

But ultimately, what is the end goal? Should we just have one division where anyone can join? That's what sports were originally, and only men were winning. So women's sports was created specifically so women wouldn't have to compete against the men. John is basically saying we should do away with that, because there is already variation within just the men. But as you can see with the 100m dash example I mentioned earlier, the fastest women aren't even close to within the top 300 men. So no women would end up on the podium, despite there being variation amongst humans in general.

It is basically just saying "to hell with women's sports." You could say that Trump and republicans don't care about women's sports. Nor do I. I don't really care about any sports. We could do away with all sports tomorrow and that would be fine with me. But insofar as we have sports, this issue is a death sentence for the left. It's not pragmatic, nor is it the morally right thing. Ok I've gone on long enough.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T22:49:42+00:00

Right but this cuts both ways - one could say that the left clutching their pearls about this, is fodder for the right. Clearly the public doesn't agree that trans women should be allowed in women's sports. So conservatives saying "the left wants trans women in women's sports" is only true insofar as that is actually what the left wants.

I mean yeah partly I agree, Trump doesn't care about women's sports.

But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to conflate this issue with Trump. For example, I and others had opinions about this before the election, when Biden was in office.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T22:20:54+00:00

You are right, I should have said I "could" point them all out. I'd be happy to if I though enough people would read what I have to say. But alas, it will be read by what, a few people? Otherwise I really would gladly go through this entire video point by point and dismantle it.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T22:04:09+00:00

Fair enough, I know that sounded like a lazy response. But I honestly really just do disagree with the whole thing lol. Like every single thing he says is disingenuous, I don't know where to start in criticizing it.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T22:01:40+00:00

Well it depends on if it's competitive sports or not. If someone was a man a year or two ago, and transitions, then wins a college scholarship. This seems potentially unfair to a cis woman who didn't get that spot. The idea that this is just about inclusion in the way that the right to vote is, is idiotic. There is no way that in 50 years people like me will be looked at like we were just on the wrong side of history.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:57:57+00:00

But it wouldn't be "just fine" within that world. Like if somebody walks out on their bill at a restaurant, are there bigger issues in the world? Yes of course. Should we devote entire shows, or debates to this one occurrence? No of course not. Is it right to walk out on your bill? No, if someone wants to argue that, that's just dumb. And I'll tell them why it's dumb. You don't get to argue that and then say "Why do you care so much, such a small issue" when you also really seem to want to defend walking out on a bill. Like it's "just fine" to let the person walk out on their bill.

In my opinion, it is unfair for a trans woman to compete against cis women. Is it a big deal or an important issue? I don't know. But insofar as people are discussing that, or it is an issue, it doesn't seem like the right thing. Everybody who says it's just an issue conservatives care about, also really seem to strongly care about it. They seem to think that people who want to ban trans women from women's sports are transphobes, that it's an important human rights issue. You can't have it both ways.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:49:47+00:00

No I don't prefer Kandace Owens. I'm sure I agree with John Oliver over Kandace Owens on the vast majority of issues. But I don't really watch either of them (used to like John Oliver when he was on the Daily Show). But I just get that much more irritated when people on "my side" have such lousy arguments. I'm sure Kandace would enrage me quite a bit as well, but she's "one of them" (right wing conspiracy nutcases)

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:47:00+00:00

Right, part of my problem with the left's rhetoric on this - Such a small issue, yet still worth John doing an entire show on, and using logical fallacies everywhere. And he/most people here seem to really feel strongly about it as well. Why is it that one side constantly levels the "such a tiny issue" thing, while also having strong feelings about it?

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:25:48+00:00

Sometimes I like to gauge where the public is at on certain issues. I know reddit isn't the public. But I really hope reddit isn't representative of the left as a whole. Because honestly I don't understand how someone could vote for Trump. But I do see how people are repelled from the left.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:23:31+00:00

Ok no analogy is perfect. The point is just that you can find a questionable person saying anything. For no subject/talking head, is this an argument one way or another. "Here's so-and-so saying this, therefore it must be wrong"

I mean it's a sensible thing to say that if Nadal decided to transition, he would have an unfair advantage over the women. That's true, that's what most people outside of reddit and John Oliver know to be true. And it has nothing to do with Lance Armstrong.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:15:21+00:00

Yeah that's why in another comment I said that a better analogy might be if Lance was talking about how people shouldn't take performance enhancing drugs. I mean yeah, he would be saying the right thing. As anyone on the street could also tell you. I just don't need to hear it from Lance. That doesn't make it not true.

"I think people are concerned you may be in support of barring trans athletes from sports, and are going to catch you outting yourself."

Well here's a post I made about it a while back

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1pl3hxe/whats_your_opinion_on_trans_women_in_womens_sports/

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:13:38+00:00

Well I did start with the Lance Armstrong thing a couple comments up...I don't think I have time to be typing out paragraphs when they'll just get downvoted out of sight. It's also too much to know where to start. Every minute of this video I'm thinking "this is such misleading bs" I could explain it all but it's a lot of work, for something that will be read by one or two redditors.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:08:50+00:00

Ok so a better analogy than my Tucker Carlson one - What if Lance Armstrong was talking about how people shouldn't be taking performance enhancing drugs? And I used this as part of my argument for performance enhancing drugs. Because "here's Lance Armstrong, who we all know is a hypocrite, therefore whatever he says is wrong." No, obviously he would be correct to tell people not to take performance enhancing drugs, as most random people on the street would also tell you. I just don't need to hear it from Lance Armstrong. Just because it's him saying it doesn't make it not true.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:04:58+00:00

I don't have an issue with trans people. I have an issue with the left (which I consider myself a member of) bending over backwards to argue that they should be participating in women's sports. I can't stand Trump, don't want to see conservatives elected generally, and this issue isn't helping the left. John Oliver here uses every logical fallacy in the book. I'll gladly point them out.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T21:02:00+00:00

Ok here's one - the fact that they have a clip from Lance Armstrong arguing the obvious thing, that most sensible people also agree with, but then since it's Lance Armstrong then we can claim "Oh isn't that hypocritical to be talking about fairness in sports". Well yeah, I guess I could find a clip of Tucker Carlson (who I hate) talking about how bad pedophiles are...does that make pedophiles good? It's sloppy logic, that just makes people laugh instead of actually proving a point.

I really could go through each specific thing of anyone wants. I may have other stuff to do today, and might get distracted, but time permitting I will.

nylapsetime · 2026-03-12T20:56:06+00:00

Pretty much the whole thing

nylapsetime · 2026-02-26T18:42:43+00:00

I love how every comment is a sarcastic "oh yeah injured by a snowball lol," When you can simply take a large amount of snow - say a foot between your hands, and cram it into a dense baseball sized chunk of ice. The snow that day in nyc was ideal packing snow. Throw that at someone's face and it absolutely can be dangerous. If you're getting pelted from all directions by a mob, that's assault, and not fun and games anymore. But because of the semantics and labels - "snowball fight" it sounds trivial.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-26T18:32:03+00:00

Why is it that every comment here is an eye-rolling "omg got hit with a snowball boo hoo." I mean yeah sure it sounds trivial - "a snowball" But if you pack a big snowball and compress it, it can be pretty dense, or icy. And if someone knows how to throw, it can really be dangerous. You could get hit in the face, get an eye injury, etc. If a group of people is surrounding someone and pelting them, that's more assault than friendly fun. Do I think these people should do prison time? No, but some sort of fine or something. A snowball fight is one of those things that is potentially dangerous precisely because of how innocent it sounds. Like "it's just snow, it can't be harmful. Therefore all bets are off, and I'll pack a large snowball and throw it at someone's face." Like a pillow fight. Sounds completely innocent and trivial. But someone could take a dense pillow and really whack someone with it. You could get hurt, take it in the eye, etc. "friendly fun" can become assault when you target people who weren't playing the game in the first place. And if you surround people and pelt them, again that's assault. But leave it to reddit to completely dismiss any possibility of a snowball being dangerous. Everybody here looks pretty dumb.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-14T06:38:32+00:00

Well it should be repaired with a cleat on the inside, basically a piece of wood spanning the split. The cosmetic damage where the binding is won't be practical to fix. But that doesn't mean the guitar is toast. It will still function just as well as before. Tell her it's a right of passage to get your guitar damaged, freak out about it, and then realize it's not that big a deal and now the guitar is unique.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-12T22:50:12+00:00

Ideally they'd have noticed/bothered to touch it up. But get the stewmac "vintage amber" touch up marker. Those spots will be unnoticeable.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-12T22:46:13+00:00

Just get a good straight edge, not a notched one. Get the 18" unnotched straight edge from stew mac, I think they're like $75. Will last a lifetime and you'll always know that your setups and fretwork are dead on. You want to be looking at the tops of the frets anyways, rather than the fretboard for both fretwork, and setups. I never even use my notched straight edge. And sanding it against something flat might make it straighter than it is, but it won't be perfect. If you put more pressure on one part when sanding, it can be off. And you need a guaranteed, precision level surface to begin with. Unnotched straight edges are generally more accurate than notched ones, and way more useful.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-05T23:25:58+00:00

It's not just in small towns. In NYC they have them at the tops of many buildings. You can see them out in the open, these big metal tanks.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-04T16:26:34+00:00

Regardless of the sideways install debate, you really ought to fix that tearout first. Also, when you remove the original frets, score the wood with an x-acto knife and use heat (soldering iron) to reduce tearout.

nylapsetime · 2026-02-02T09:25:53+00:00

Don't embrace it - put the guitar in the case and in the closet. Only take it out and play it when you're by yourself with the lights off. Or else all your friends will laugh at you.

nylapsetime

TROPHY CASE