Page 10 of 41

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:29 pm
by Meadmaker
arthwollipot wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:13 pm
Meadmaker wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2024 7:04 pmApparently, the "real problem" is that boys' sports get more money than girls' sports.
That is certainly a real problem, yes. But is it the real problem?
Exactly. Very frequently, "real problem" stories are variations on, "Let's ignore whatever it is that those people care about." Instead of addressing the issue, deflect to a different issue.

The author of the article didn't deal with the question of whether or not transgirls ought to be allowed on girls' teams. Instead, he shifted to a different "real problem"
Why is that not discrimination? Or a better question - why do you think that disparity exists?
I think it's because not all students want to be part of athletic competition, and girls are less likely to want to be part of athletics than boys.

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:23 pm
by arthwollipot
Meadmaker wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:29 pmI think it's because not all students want to be part of athletic competition, and girls are less likely to want to be part of athletics than boys.
Obviously, but why? It's not like girls can't be good at physical activity. What's discouraging them?

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:45 pm
by Meadmaker
arthwollipot wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:23 pm
Meadmaker wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:29 pmI think it's because not all students want to be part of athletic competition, and girls are less likely to want to be part of athletics than boys.
Obviously, but why? It's not like girls can't be good at physical activity. What's discouraging them?
Ah....the nature or nurture question. Are the differing choices of boys and girls a result of biological differences, or societal influence?


Obviously, society can influence things, but I think there are also biological differences. I think nature plays a role.


A thought occurred to me as I typed the above. I think the greater participation by boys is obviously a result of discrimination......against boys. Take your basic benchwarmer on the 3rd string of the high school basketball team. Why is he there? Well, motivations vary from individual to individual. However, for some of them, the answer is parental pressure, or in some cases societal pressure. They are told that they have to put up with all of it because that's what's expected of them, even though they don't want to do it. On the other hand, society accepts girls who don't want to play sports.

Is that really it? I think it's a factor. I'm certain that some of the boys who are on various sports teams really would prefer not to be there, and are only doing it because dad thinks they ought to.

Anecdote: Just because I find it funny. My inlaws were very involved in my son's upbringing. More involved than I wish they were. One day, at my house, my in laws were in the next room. Mom in law was really pushing my son, 10 or 11 years old at the time, to get involved in a sport. I liked the idea, but there was only so far I was going to push it. I could hear the conversation in the next room, even though MiL was trying to be quiet. FiL asked why she was so adamant that he had to do sports. MiL answered, very emphatically, "Because if he doesn't go out for a sports team, he might become a homosexual!"

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but I didn't say anything. She ended up bribing him with an IPad, though, when they were pretty new and quite epensive. It worked. He joined cross-country. But he didn't like it, and she said it wasn't a team sport. Well, it must have been close enough, because he turned out heterosexual.

Anyway......the point is that society does influence choices, but disparity in result is not proof of discrimination. It might just be that girls aren't as interested as boys in playing sports.

And just for the record, I am a huge advocate of school sports, for both boys and girls. I would strongly encourage all young people to participate in organized athletics, even if it doesn't have any influence on their sexual orientation.

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:38 am
by arthwollipot
I'd rather that most of the money spent on professional sports be redirected to schools, yes.

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:33 am
by stanky
i'm allowed to dis it, i did sports all through school and in college. Was in the union (A.A.U.) and lettered in several very different sports. (Not bragging, was strictly an "also ran" athlete) I'm way familiar with the phenomena. Or, how it was in 60's suburban high schools. At the time, doing organized sport was a needed feather in the cap of the college bound student. Well rounded stuff. Getting into college meant student deferment from draft. Lots of us did team sport to get out of war. Some of it sucked. Endless bus rides, most not even playing...uniforms, lockers, laundry, lectures...not a great work-out. A driven jock would do better cutting lose from it.
Same with the academic stuff, too. School is clunky and inefficient. And not a great place to learn, as it turns out.

(i didn't like school)

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:23 am
by stanky
"Did 'Diddy' snitch to the feds?"

This recent Fox news thing caught my eye for the alliteration. I need to know "Did diddy did it?"
I got through about two minutes of it. Speculation and innuendo and creepy famous rich people...what's not to love?
I learned that the trial (for human trafficking?) would be long.
I can't stand Fox or hip-hop. So it was a tough assignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wv3y3O ... el=FoxNews

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 4:48 am
by Meadmaker
stanky wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:23 am "Did 'Diddy' snitch to the feds?"

This recent Fox news thing caught my eye for the alliteration. I need to know "Did diddy did it?"
I got through about two minutes of it. Speculation and innuendo and creepy famous rich people...what's not to love?
I learned that the trial (for human trafficking?) would be long.
I can't stand Fox or hip-hop. So it was a tough assignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wv3y3O ... el=FoxNews
i must admit, I know so little about the case that I couldn't automatically know that it would be stupid.

Although, merely the fact that it's about someone named "Diddy" is probably enough to signal it.

(Other names in headlines that signal a heap of stupid is on the way: "Harry" and "Megan")

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 8:33 am
by arthwollipot
I assume that "Diddy" is a hip hop artist of some kind. That seems an appropriate career path for someone who calls themself that.

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 9:27 am
by Admin
arthwollipot wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2024 8:33 am I assume that "Diddy" is a hip hop artist of some kind. That seems an appropriate career path for someone who calls themself that.
He is - he was a fairly major figure. He's accused of paying for Tupac's murder as well, but no charges have ever been laid. 50Cent is convinced it's true, and he has a massive following.

If it's true, I'd like to see him convicted, Tupac was a giant.

Re: Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 3:51 pm
by sparks
None of this, I dare say, would be topic worthy if these stupid fucks didn't believe their own shit about being 'gangstas'.

Moronic juvenile horseshit. BTW, the music isn't music. It's shit as well. :P