A girls' basketball team forfeited the championship to a team that allowed a male (trans-identified) play on the team, for the safety of the real girls. Refusing to play is the only way forward.

submitted by iamonlyoneman from archive.is

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

If girls refuse to play against boys, and especially if the adults whose job it is to keep the girls safe refuse to allow girls to play against boys, that's the grassroots way to make the insanity stop.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

that's the grassroots way to make the insanity stop.

They're not going to change Vermont law that way.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

If the girls all refused to play, there would be a boys league and an AGP boys league, and vermont would be a laughingstock and lefties HATE to be mocked so it would still work.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

If the girls all refused to play

Yeah, but who's going to sign up for that much fear and hatred except Christians?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It worked for the cyclists in UK

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It worked for the cyclists in UK

1) Nope. The girls didn't all refuse to play. The UCI rules that a cyclist who is still registered as a male cyclist cannot compete as a woman.

2) There's very different issues at the professional level compared to the high school level.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They didn't even have to refuse to play. They threatened it and the rule changed, which is "worked"

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What did the rule change to?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/sport/british-cycling-trans-scli-spt-intl/index.html

The new rule was "no dudes"

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Was that the wording?

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Why do you blame everything on Christians? Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and pagans are just as likely to be hateful and whatnot. Why single out Christianity, other than simply because it's an American tradition and you hate America?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Why do you blame everything on Christians?

This bigotry was specifically from a christian school, raising their "sincerely held belief"

Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and pagans are just as likely to be hateful and whatnot.

A call bullshit on Atheists. They are unlikely to be hateful. Jews are an unusual case: I would guess they'd be less hateful and also less religious in the US. Israel itself seems to collect the more religious and therefore more hateful. Muslims, you're dead right: They're very similar to Christians. (And most of the doctrine is the same.) I don't know a lot of pagans.

Why single out Christianity, other than simply because it's an American tradition and you hate America?

Freedom from religion is an American tradition: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", remember?

It's been feeding a christian theocracy movement only since the late 40s. Putting "In God we trust" on the money in 1955, was the beginning of the descent away from freedom. Christian nationalists storming the capital to disrupt the transfer of power to the democratically elected president is the middle.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Why are atheists unlikely to be hateful? They believe all morality is relative. They can hate whoever and whatever they want, commit any horrors they want, and have no guilt. Their only motive not to would be to benefit from others. North Korea is atheist and tortures dissidents. They don't believe morality is real; so because they want to torture and have the means to do so without consequences, therefore it is right in their eyes. For an atheist, the only source of morality is nature, whose fundamental principle is "might makes right". That's terrible ethics.

If you don't believe me, Adolf Hitler, the devil for leftists, abhorred Christianity because of its ethics. He thought it weak and fit only for slaves. He disliked it precisely because it was not hateful. It was Christianity he didn't like, and not all Abrahamic religions, seeing as he was fine with Islam. I think he even planned to genocide Christians if he could make them a minority.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Why are atheists unlikely to be hateful?

They don't have a prescribed ethics based on hate.

They believe all morality is relative.

Not necessarily. But in any case our ethics is considered rather than prescribed. So it tends to avoid the hate based ethics you get from biblical literalists.

They can hate whoever and whatever they want, commit any horrors they want, and have no guilt.

Everyone who is neurologically normal has the natural ethics of guilt and empathy.

God botherers externalise the guilt as much as they can with the belief that god can forgive them. And that their transgressions are due to temptation from a third party. And Christians tend to resist empathising with the outgroup, and show more parochial behaviour, whereas atheists empathise more inclusively. For instance: Religion, parochialism and intuitive cooperation

Their only motive not to would be to benefit from others.

No. We have empathy, and desire the most people to be most happy.

They don't believe morality is real

Bullshit. The vast field of ethics is dominated by atheist thought. Prescribed ethics of religion doesn't admit much discussion or development. And, as time has passed, we can see how unethical the standards are.

so because they want to torture and have the means to do so without consequences

Bullshit. If you want to torture, you're sick, and probably have some significant psychological or neurological disorder.

and have the means to do so without consequences

If you're only not torturing people because you fear hell, you're an evil cunt. I do it because I don't want to torture people. Moreover, I don't want you to torture people, because I value their happiness, and I empathise with them.

For an atheist, the only source of morality is nature, whose fundamental principle is "might makes right".

No. We think about it.

If you don't believe me, Adolf Hitler, the devil for leftists, abhorred Christianity because of its ethics.

Adolf Hitler was Christian, certainly early on. He opposed atheism both publicly and privately. His concept of god diverged from the church as time went by, but he abhorred atheism much more than christianity.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don't know if Hitler was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't fond of Christianity. He may have been a Christian at one time, but he also had a positive opinion of Jews at one time. He was very clear that he detested Christian ethics. He apparently believed religion (excluding Judaism and Christianity obviously) was very valuable to society; but he seems to have viewed it in a utilitarian sense rather than actually believing it himself.

Anyway, all the descriptions you gave of Christians sound exactly like the Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way (though the Romans had plenty of blood on their hands too). And you're using that to define Christianity. This doesn't make any sense.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I don't know if Hitler was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't fond of Christianity.

He started as a christian, and appealed to Christianity to achieve power. He was certainly less fond of atheism than he was of Christianity.

He was very clear that he detested Christian ethics. He apparently believed religion (excluding Judaism and Christianity obviously) was very valuable to society; but he seems to have viewed it in a utilitarian sense rather than actually believing it himself.

He was a lot like Trump, in these respects, wasn't he?

Anyway, all the descriptions you gave of Christians sound exactly like the Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way

Very little is known about Jesus's life. Most scholars believe that he existed, but the evidence of that is equivocal. "[T]he Pharisees, who were Jesus's most vicious enemies and played a major role in having him executed in the most gruesome way" is highly speculative.

And you're using that to define Christianity.

Nope. Just people who consider themselves to be Christian is my definition of Christians.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

For an atheist worldview, read the Ring of Gyges. The "good" person becomes incredibly villainous once given the ability to get away with it. So not only does power corrupt, but many were only faking being good while they needed to, but once they're in power they can take the mask off. Those we think are the best people may not really be, but rather merely the best actors. Because with natural selection as law, where might makes right because might wins the game of life, why shouldn't you be evil if you have the might? But if the world is below greater things, it is no longer that simple.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

For an atheist worldview, read the Ring of Gyges.

I have an atheist worldview. I don't need to read fiction to grasp it.

But you should know that the ancient greeks had many gods. They were not atheist.

Because with natural selection as law, where might makes right because might wins the game of life, why shouldn't you be evil if you have the might?

At the lowest level, because you have guilt and empathy.

But most people also think about ethics, and try to help others where we can. Atheists are better at this than Christians, because we think better, so we can act better. We're not told "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him", and so think "well I'd better hit the shit out of my kids, because god said so". We look at the psychology and have learned that corporal punishment is linked to anxiety, depression, substance abuse and antisocial behaviours in adulthood. So we are able to decide not to do it. Because our ethics are considered, not prescribed.

We're not fucking idiots, enabling us to not be fucking evil. Christians don't have the same basis. They must believe what they're told no matter how evil or patently stupid it is.