faceh
10mo ago
It's pretty obvious that a highly trained woman would mug that guy no problem.
Yeah, but he's also 77, and not 70. This is what I'm saying its almost impossible to find the perfectly analogous situation.
I wouldn't cede that 'most' 70 year olds are "extremely fragile." I feel like people tend to collapse most ages over 65 into "old as fuck" but I think there's ample evidence that real mental and physical frailty can be delayed into the later years.
Outside of a specific medical issue , that is.
Hah, I forgot one of the more famous incidents of a senior citizen involved in a beatdown: Epic Beard Guy, who was 67 during that incident (as far as I can tell) and left his male opponent with a broken nose.
Even if he's not a representative sample its more towards that point that they're not necessarily fragile at that age.
faceh
10mo ago
Well let me ask the specific possibility, if the 70-year-old eschews striking and just attempts to grab the opponent, what are the chances they are able to lock down the fight and just throw the female to the ground and hit her there? No elegant takedown, just grabbing on and throwing her down.
I'd speculate that a 175 pound geezer could sit on Amy Broudhurst's chest and obviate most of her cardio advantage right there.
faceh
10mo ago
How many street fights involve seventy year old men
Virtually zero! But not quite zero.
So my priors are not well informed on this but I still have priors.
So the speculation is fun! I have to consider a number of disparate data points and project outcomes into a realm of uncertainty and argue my case based on inductive logic and reasoning from whatever similar situations exist.
Yes, that's why its fun to consider, since we really have almost no real-world examples to prove up one side or the other definitively.
On the other hand, I watch a lot of videos of street fights, and virtually none of them depict a female KO-ing a man in any context.
Here's a Mixed MMA fight from about two months ago between TWO females and one large dude:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lQllTuPzOXU?si=H90MBAshtGUD2IL4
The women were allowed headgear and he wasn't. Notice him turning all his attention to one and not even reacting as the other woman hits him from behind at about the 2:00 mark. Skill is not really the determinant factor here.
I cannot overstate how huge the physical advantage is for the male, even if that guy gets gassed its still not safe for a female to approach lest he grab her and just SIT on her.
faceh
10mo ago
Yes indeed, I granted in the hypothetical:
Cardio will 100% be a factor here, but also, old man strength is REAL
I don't know how much the cardio will help if she actually gets caught by the opponent. She can certainly try to outrun him the whole time.
But again, 70 isn't inherently an age of fragility and decrepitude. It would be for many, I grant. But part of the reason I zeroed in on THAT age is its just high enough that we might question the outcome. I do reassert that I would bet on the 70-year-old, but I could lose money on it.
faceh
10mo ago
Yep. Have to assume that both sides are allowed to use whatever tactics and techniques they like or else the victor probably wins on a technicality.
Ironically the main thing that a trained female has going for her is less fear of being punched in the face, whereas an untrained guy might flinch and cower when he gets struck.
But the other thing an untrained male might do is flail and swing wildly, and the female CANNOT afford to take an errant hit by pure luck.
faceh
10mo ago
And if a 190 pound male manages to lie on top of a 190 female, she's going to have a hard, nearly impossible time getting unpinned regardless of how he looks.
faceh
10mo ago
Yeah I just fundamentally don't believe that wanton sexism is the explanation for segregating out womens divisions.
It seems unlikely that one lady winning one medal in one year is enough of an impetus to create new divisions by itself.
Blatant corruption is always on the table.
Props to you for making that point against someone who seemingly was hellbent on ignoring it.
We could enumerate all the reasons why weight classes are necessary and good but I like to just post this video of Connor McGregor fighting the Mountain. Even under playful conditions I think its clear why this is not a 'fair' fight, and its not because Connor is/was a top 1% MMA fighter.
I wish I could believe that they'd never try to remove weight classes but yeah, if they don't care about the advantages gender confers, that might very well be on the agenda.
faceh
10mo ago
Granted I have some bias on this issue because I train with guys approaching 70, so the availability heuristic has me thinking of the most robust members of that age cohort.
But it is hard to understate just how advantaged, pound for pound, a male is over any given female. I stipulate same weight class and the average male weight for an over-60 is about 190 pounds. I want you to try and imagine what a 190 pound woman looks like. Especially if we assume she's NOT freakishly tall (another factor impacted by testosterone).
In my mind, the theoretical fight really comes down to whether the woman can avoid the guy long enough until he's mostly gassed, and then execute a successful submission. Similarly, if the guy manages to grab hold of her and keep her from getting away, dropping her with a strike to the head or slamming her hard to the ground are likely finishes. I'll stipulate that a lightly trained male is almost certainly not choking out a heavily trained female.
Just yesterday I was reading twitter conversations spurred on by the Olympic shooting event memes and getting people confidently stating that the reason these sports (and similar competitions) were segregated was men were scared of losing to women and women were sick of being harassed by men. Community notes swoops in to point out that the decision to segregate happened in 1991 and the female winning was 1992, so something else was probably afoot.
THIS one had 24k likes. And sure maybe there's some element of that but you can directly point out that in most cases women are very much allowed to compete against men if they want. But they choose not to and usually they don't place well when they do.
Like sure, on some culture war issues a difference of opinion can be sustained because the facts on the ground are ambiguous. But thousands of people sustaining a false outlook on the world that could be refuted by simply looking at the reliable records is some serious epistemic collapse.
I wonder if there are 'strength truthers' out there who believe that female powerlifters could absolutely catch men's records if they started training as intensely as possible as early as possible and weren't being harassed out of the gym by the 'bro culture' or whatever. Actually, now that I've said it, I'm now certain there's people out there who believe that.
faceh
10mo ago
I have utter respect for BJJ as a discipline, and its one of the few areas where a female with technique can win under the rules of the sport against a male, since many submissions use leverage rather than strength. And you can get choked out at any size.
Under the rules of BJJ.
I'm not certain a female fighter can get a male to go to the ground, where the techniques work best, if he doesn't want to go down there. She certainly risks catching a devastating strike or getting body slammed in the process.
Seems to me like an attempt to paper over a major hole in their ideological worldview.
I've spoken on the topic before, martial arts, combat sports, and such similar endeavors based on physical prowess in an actual fight for 'survival' against another human remain mostly untouched by the forces of 'woke' and are still a place where masculinity is allowed to exist without suborning itself to female-centric norms of behavior or lefty egalitarianism.
Its a cultural arena where any and all illusions about socially constructed gender norms smack into a wall of sheer pragmatism. Quoth myself: "end of the day, there is simply no amount of social maneuvering that will make up for the strength differential between men and women, and you can't 'fake' martial arts skills without willing participants, which makes entryism nigh-impossible."
A biological male who goes through male puberty has an insurmountable advantage over any person whatsoever who hasn't gone through male puberty. Unironically, If I were forced to bet on a no-holds barred brawl between a barely-trained 70 year old male and a heavily trained mid-twenties female in the same weight class, I am picking gramps for the win. Cardio will 100% be a factor here, but also, old man strength is REAL. (Oh I'm prepared to lose my money, but absent actual medical problems a 70 year old is not as fragile as you think.) I wonder why such a matchup hasn't been done before. Hmmmm.
But biology also has a tendency to be messy and perhaps defies categorization on the margins, so we can have women who produce a lot of testosterone and maybe some weird genetic quirks that trigger the same disgust reaction as a male whalloping on a female even though, technically, if we squint, its still women fighting women. But closer to the center of the respective bell curves for men and women there are no surprises to be found.
The lefties who want to claim the only reason anyone objects to Imane Khelif being in the women's division is wanton transphobia are depending on some very, very rare and unique circumstances to justify the situation that has come about. If we apply the left's logic, literally any person who was "assigned male at birth" who transitions at any age should be eligible to compete in the women's division. That's how they treat every other sport. So if we see some jacked, bearded wrestler sweep a women's karate tournament what exactly are we supposed say that ISN'T transphobic?
But the reason I reject the idea that it is 'fine' to let a trans woman compete in a fighting sport against cis women is mostly what I alluded to up above. Biology is messy but also merciless. Just as one might be repulsed by the image of a muscular male cracking a young lady's skull, the image of a strapping young buck trading blows with a senior citizen thrice his age also tends to also generate pity for the older guy and disdain for the younger who is showing blatant disrespect for his elder and risks hurting, maybe killing someone who is much less able to recover from the damage.
BUT WAIT, age is just a social construct. A 'spectrum,' one might even say! There is no exact set of physical traits that makes someone "sixty years old" other than the date on which they exited their mothers womb! How can you assert that a 25-year-old is going to have inherent advantages in a fight over a 65-year-old? Why should these arbitrary categories justify rules that seek to protect the latter from the former? Somebody can identify as a different age than the one presented by their body, that much is true!
Well, because our current scientific understanding of how aging works... and common sense from what we can observe with our own eyes, tells us that even if we can't precisely predict how 10, 20, 30 years of time passing will impact a human body, we can be certain that the general trend will be that person will become slower, weaker, more prone to injury, and thus overall at much greater risk than the equivalent person who is 20 years younger.
So uh, when our current scientific understanding of how sexual development works... and common sense from what we can observe with our own eyes, tell us that even if we can't precisely predict how 300 ng/dL of added testosterone will impact a human body, we are still going to be certain that the person without that testosterone will be slower, weaker, more prone to injury, and overall at much greater risk than the 'equivalent' person who has 200 times their testosterone levels.
Yes, there's a plethora of other factors and the causal arrow can point in multiple directions, remember I'm granting that biology is messy.
Leaving aside whether women should be competing in combat sports at all, if they're going to have their own league or division, the rules should be focused on mitigating the risks to the competitors (and maximizing 'fairness,' I guess) and thus shouldn't be thwarted by the aforementioned weird edge cases, and definitely not thwarted by someone who can convince the organizers that they REALLY REALLY believe they're a female.
And I would say precisely the same about age divisions. A 30-year-old could in theory have the mind of a 60-year-old, but lets not force the actual 60-year-old into the ring with them because we want to accommodate the younger guy's beliefs... Again leaving aside whether 60-year-olds should be competing at all.
Lefties don't (currently) see the age spectrum as an issue worth fighting over, but dohoho they certainly will take any and every opportunity presented to fight over the gender identity spectrum. Especially when they're desperate to make inroads into the combat sports world which, as I stated elsewhere, is extremely resistant to entryism. This helps them slap a facade over the "males and females are fundamentally physically different in non-trivial ways" hole by arguing "transphobes can't even tell the difference between a trans woman and a woman who is merely huge physical outlier."
Anyhow. Maybe we revisit this topic after the Jake Paul/Mike Tyson fight
faceh
10mo ago
And that is their right. I tend to fall more on the American normie side of "maybe people who fuck 12 year-olds don't need to be around".
Yes that's the easy rule. I somehow feel like nobody is quite prepared to apply it to every single imagineable case, however.
Plenty of people are talented. Kevin Spacey has literally been found innocent in multiple trials and will still likely not be allowed to climb back to anything like his peak status. Ryan Garcia is currently in the doghouse. Poor Kyrie Irving was suspended for moronic conspiracy theories of the sort you hear yelled in the subway, no threat to anyone. He wasn't even allowed to pay jizya at first because he was not sufficiently deferential in his apologies.
Yes so you see my point.
If the rule is "having sex with a 12 year old is an instant social death sentence, and maybe a literal death sentence" then there's some incentive to use this claim as a bludgeon and create false allegations.
I don't know if there's a better equilibrium achievable, but I'd perhaps like to search for it.
faceh
10mo ago
Yeah, I'm reluctant to even classify this as 'misinformation' any more than, say, The Daily Show airing a creatively edited interview with a politician.
Either you can detect the joke from the context, or you are so susceptible to being misled that no amount of disclaimers would help. Probably.
faceh
10mo ago
Same thing, though. His punishment was carried out. Presumably his country deemed that punishment sufficient for the nature of his crimes.
What crimes are so heinous as to disqualify someone from 'representing his country,' assuming they're otherwise talented enough to hack it?
Do we agree that Michael Phelps' kerfuffle over Marijuana use doesn't invalidate his gold medal wins, nor should he be prevented from competing?
So light drug use is 'acceptable.'
I'll grant murder is beyond the pale.
I think I'd be fine with a person with a single DUI on their record representing the U.S. I'd be okay with someone convicted of 'simple' assault and battery too, assuming they had history of good behavior since then.
Sexual Assault is beyond simple assault, but I think I can be okay with someone convicted of sexual assault representing the country if it is 10 years after the fact.
Since the OP says the crime was committed
with no additional elements of coercion
I guess I'm just left wondering how much harsher to judge when the victim is 12.
My own thoughts on the crime of rape are nuanced, because the law treats it very differently from most other crimes, and nowadays doesn't even need to prove the perp's intent to stick.
On the one hand raping a child should be punished heavily. On the other I definitely don't see the benefit of continuing to drop sanctions on the perp once their sentence is done. I'd certainly argue that every consecutive year of demonstrably good behavior is grounds for easing up on him.
"Having sex with a child forever stains your reputation such that you can never be given any position of esteem or honor ever again"
is a pretty simple rule and certainly isn't the worst way to govern these things, but preventing someone with actual skills from using those skills to their fullest extent also creates economic deadweight loss. Maybe the answer is to legally enslave him and FORCE him to play Volleyball for the country, but he has to look like he's really unhappy about it, maybe they send someone out there to hit him with electrical shocks between rounds. But oh, fielding slave athletes is also a bad look for your country.
Hmm.
I don't want to seem flippant about it, but picking an athlete to represent my country has so little effect on my daily life, or anyone's, that I simply can't find it hugely controversial that they've got some nasty history. Like I said, keep him away from kids, and that's the sum total of my concern for the situation. Most Olympians ain't kids.
I hold people who are put in positions where they exercise actual authority over others (Politicians, CEOs, and the like) or in direct positions of trust to a much higher standard in this regard.
faceh
10mo ago
These crimes indicate something much more severe
There's an extent to which I agree with this general point, but I also assume that the law was designed so the punishment fits with the alleged severity of the offense, so that really means your issue is with the law itself being too lenient?
It’s fair to note a pedophile long after the fact in a way that noting a tax cheat isn’t.
Hmmm. I think it is wise to keep your kids away from him as a general rule, and we should assume a certain propensity for bad behavior and not really give him the benefit of the doubt...
But it is not clear that this should impact his ability to compete in a sport he's actually very good at if he's maintained good behavior since.
Also I think its a reversal of cause and effect.
Guys who are 'cool' just have an easier time getting casual sex.
So casual sex is a perk of being cool.
So yes there's some association with coolness and casual sex, but I can think of a number of scenarios where guys who get regular casual sex are in fact deemed 'pathetic' by society.
Is a guy that goes to Thailand on a regular basis specifically to engage in sex tourism 'cool?' I can't think of a single case of such.
faceh
10mo ago
I really do not think that is the case.
For example, is a man who constantly goes to strip clubs to pick up strippers for sex, or hires escorts on a weekly basis... do people consider this guy 'cool' for all the sex he has (and pays for?).
Is the guy who hangs around college campuses to hit on younger girls and seduces a new girl every month or hits up frat parties to bring drunk girls home 'cool?'
Is the guy who trolls the apps and hits on every single unattractive female he can find, and manages to bag one every so often, 'cool?'
I think the 'coolness' is ALMOST ENTIRELY derived from the status of the person engaging in the casual sex. A rock star, a celebrity athlete, maybe the guy who fits the 'bad boy' or 'outlaw' model to a T is 'cool.'
The mere knowledge that a guy engages in lots of casual sex isn't going to raise his social status much, but a guy with a lot of social status will have an easier time getting casual sex, and the fact that he gets so much casual sex is considered a perk of being so cool.
I.e. casual sex doesn't grant men status, men acquiring status grants them casual sex.
faceh
10mo ago
Yeah, that's perhaps my take on it.
We're in prime 'Black Swan' territory where the interaction of several different crises at once can lead to sharp and SUDDEN downturns from angles we weren't looking at directly.
My position is that Covid sufficed to pull a LOT of slack out of the system. Putin started strumming on the taut strings. China (or any number of other actors) might just go ahead and take a wire cutter to the strained order and let things fall where they may.
faceh
10mo ago
Interesting observation there.
You get a cohort of males raised without discipline from father figures, and eventually realizing that the only thing restraining their bad behavior is physical force, and maybe noticing that there's a shortage of people who are capable of using physical force to stop them.
If these men are likewise convinced that their lives will not improve by following along with the roles society suggests, then yeah, what else COULD happen?
Liberal women steer clear of Trump supporters not because they worry "he won't be able to effectively prioritize my emotional needs in the relationship" but because they worry that the cops are going to knock on their door if they go the doctor after a miscarriage.
This is an interesting inversion of the usual complaint that Males try to avoid SJWs because they worry that the cops are going to knock on their door if their partner goes to the doctor and claims they've been physically abused.
Which happens more often than the scenario you're describing.
Is one fear rational and the other irrational? If so, which is which?
Hmmmmm.
faceh
10mo ago
I uh, think he had more to his comment there that you failed to respond to.
For my part, casual fun sex is probably the optimal outcome/lifestyle for like <10% of males, who are psychologically inclined against commitment and towards Hedonism, but outside of the literal rockstars who engage in it, merely being a manwhore doesn't make you 'cool' to the larger population.
Something something 'there's a lot of ruin in a nation.'
Seems like the bet is that they can stave off a sharp collapse for a while and even if there is one as long as they control the narrative then most men won't be inspired to suddenly turn to violence to either attack the existing order or to defend a competing one.
It is really hard to imagine a group of capable young men organizing into something resembling a warband without being infiltrated by six different federal agencies, vilified to hell and back by every media company, and possibly debanked and deplatformed as well.
Which is just to say, they'd probably have to push things REALLLLLLLLY far before this became a real concern. Which is not me saying that it won't get there.
There is a way to thread a needle wherein they argue that men just train more because they don't get harassed out of the gym and thus are more likely to get good at fighting, so you end up with men tending to be strong and 'dangerous' and women who are less so, unless they power through all the harassment and naysayers to trains as much as a comparable man. Thus they could willfully believe that a trained woman is able to take on a trained man but that most women are still 'at risk.'
However, I really wonder if anyone believes that female powerlifters could match male powerlifters if they were just given the chance to start training as early and train as hard as men.
There does seem to be a large-ish contingent who want to deny that going through puberty awash in testosterone and having an elevated level of same later on equates to VASTLY improved muscle development and bone density... even though they tacitly acknowledge that it DOES make one more aggressive overall and thus makes men more likely to assault others.
Also, I laugh a bit at the argument that women are harassed or threatened and THAT is why they won't train in certain sports as much as men... which just implies that women are unable to handle being insulted or verbally abused as well as men can, so they're still 'weaker' in a certain sense.
More options
Context Copy link