Let's see how many dramanauts are chasers

https://www.strawpoll.me/19151047

😍😍😍Drama Mommy Trussy Queen 😍😍😍

Stop calling hetero sex seekers chasers smh

I feel like her “vagina” would smell really bad.

Those fingers 🤢

I will forever hate myself for even knowing who this narcissistic drug addicted nympho is, and I will hate society even more for treating retarded 40 minute cosplay skits about a troid’s miserable sex life like they’re works of revelatory philosophy

Society?

As a living societer, I really think you have a wrong idea of us in The Society.

| #NotAllOfSociety

I will forever hate myself

Same

Wasnt asking you, cretin.

Let me speak in your language of Cretin Retardian. Im a bit rusty. I haven't fully grasped your language.

Ok...ahem

Darrrr dyurrr wewoo wewoo wavaba nyarn wohoo wohoo waaaaaaa durrr durhhhhhh duhhhh

For people who arent Cretin Retardians, that translates to:

Go fuck your Dad's dick hole like the good little sperm you are

Snapshots:

1. [Incoming Drama] Contras back! - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

She left?

He

/r/onejoke

r/oneresponse

Lmao went from positive 5 to negative mdes woke up

Right? Are we not tired of this hilarious joke?

That's a psuedo intellectual historically, to economically, and morally retarded man in a dress. Not sure if he sliced off his cock and balls and had a butcher shove them into his body cavity to make a pu seeping wound that the mentally ill think is a vagina though. Where's the joke?

/r/onejoke

TIL biology is a joke. Imagine having such an anti scientific opinion that you have to pretend that people correcting you are joking. This is peak 2019 right here.

/r/onejoke

/r/science

TIL biology is a joke.

Fuckers like you, purporting to speak absolutely retarded garbage on behalf of science, annoy me.

Can you devise a falsification experiment that'd demonstrate that a person with XY chromosomes is indeed a man? Like, if we went with self-identification as the determinant of being a man, you could make a device that measures a physical quality of being a man and show that this physical quality is better correlated with the karyotype than with the self-identification?

Is this a joke?

That's a typical reaction of a person suddenly discovering themselves helpless and drifting, philosophically speaking.

Is it possible to send a probe to Pluto to determine if our classification of it as a dwarf planet rather than an actual planet is wrong, could the probe perform spectral analysis on the matter recovered from a deep drilled core or something and say that nope, Pluto definitely has enough of the physical quality of a planet and your decision to exclude it because there's a lot of asteroids still in its orbit was wrong?

Can you find an atom that says "this stellar body is a planet", so that anyone who uses a different criteria is wrong? Can you find a molecule that says "this person is a male", like, literally, so that anyone who says that they are not male despite having XY chromosomes is wrong?

LOL. Next you're going to tell me that gravity is a social construct. Or you know, penises. Which the morons in your field actually peer reviewed and published as a serious academic paper.

Do you even understand the mind numbing stupidity of the unfuckable harpies that you're using to argue AGAINST fucking science?!

Next you're going to tell me that gravity is a social construct. Or you know, penises.

No, I'm not going to tell you that. I accept your inability to answer simple questions as a concession of defeat.

And don't open your whore mouth in what you think is defense of science ever again. You're retarded and you only besmirch its good name.

You are mind numbingly stupid or more likely this charade is pathological for you.

I accept your inability to answer simple questions as a concession of defeat.

Lol. Your sperg out is adorable. Were you hitting yourself in the head while you wrote it? Your retarded psuedo intellectual bullshit equating philosophy and biology is so monumentally stupid that it's an insult to rhetoric itself. Why not show me your little science denying radical "study" and stop bloviating.

Next you're going to tell me that the number of legs horses have is on a fucking spectrum because some are born with a different number than four.

And don't open your whore mouth in what you think is defense of science ever again. You're retarded and you only besmirch its good name.

Says someone literally denying biological reality. Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species you fucking mongoloid.

I have asked you a simple question: how would you design a scientific experiment to determine whether or not Pluto is a planet, to verify or falsify the IAU's definition.

Instead of even attempting to answer this question you linked some insane shit about gravity and talk about horse legs and other irrelevant stuff.

You are an intellectual midget and you have been thoroughly trounced.

Your question is a total non sequitir you drooling moron. Whether or not pluto is classified as a planet or not has NOTHING to do with the FACT that human beings are sexually dimorphic. What, are you reading from some kind of idiot's science denial handbook? Just make your point you fucking sperg.

Your question is a total non sequitir you drooling moron.

Of course it appears as a non sequitur to an intellectual midget.

But I don't want to confuse you even more by revealing the connection. Just explain how you'd scientifically test the correctness of the IAN's definition of a planet using Pluto as a test subject, and we'll see where we can get from there.

What, are you reading from some kind of idiot's science denial handbook?

This might surprise you, but people who aren't intellectual midgets are capable of forming their own complex ideas instead of reading from a handbook, and don't feel scared and lost when an unfamiliar argument is presented ;^)

Just make your point you fucking sperg.

Where's the fun in that? As I see it, either you manage to produce a more or less correct description of the Pluto situation and then have to accept it when it's applied to gender, or you can't figure it out and I get to laugh at you derisively and tell you to avoid topics so far above your intellectual stature in the future.

But I don't want to confuse you even more by revealing the connection.

Okay! You got me. I am a total idiot. Now embarrass yourself further by making your anti science argument.

forming their own complex ideas

Yeah, denying biology sure does take "complex ideas". So does denying the laws of physics or arguing that the earth is flat.

As I see it, either you manage to produce a more or less correct description of the Pluto situation and then have to accept it when it's applied to gender

Hahaha yup. This is 100% pathological for you. My god you're a walking cliche.

and tell you to avoid topics so far above your intellectual stature in the future.

You are a true moron's moron.

Okay! You got me. I am a total idiot. Now embarrass yourself further by making your anti science argument.

I claim that these three statements are statements about the physical world, can be true or false, and their truth can be verified experimentally:

1. Pluto orbits the Sun directly.

2. Pluto is heavy enough to get mostly round under its own weight.

3. Pluto has not cleared its orbital neighborhood of asteroids and stuff.

I claim that the following claim is not a statement about the physical world, can't be objectively true or false, and there's no conceivable experiment that could test it:

4. Pluto is a planet.

If you think that this is "anti science" and "denies the laws of physics", you're welcome to try and describe such an experiment.

[removed]

Ugh, reddit failed to notify me about your comment somehow.

My god... First of all, claiming that fucking pluto is a planet is scientific shorthand for saying that it fits the criteria you mentioned above. So yes, it is indeed a statement about the phsysical world. As far as the difficulty measuring those criteria go, we already know it meets two of those criteria, but recently discovered that it doesn't meet a third because of the DISCOVERY of Eris, which was larger than pluto. So science can absolutely fucking measure the criteria they chose to determine if a body is a planet or not you fucking nitwit.

No, that's not what happened. Prior to 2006 it was only necessary to fit the first two criteria, and yes we knew that Pluto didn't fit the third, and Eris had nothing to do with that on account of not being quite there

So then they discovered Sedna and realized that it's likely that we're going to find dozens of new planets out there (and were right) and different proposals were floated which you can read about in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet, but eventually a new definition by Uruguayan astronomers Gonzalo Tancredi and Julio Ángel Fernández was accepted that added the third criterion which Pluto and most probably all further Cuiper belt planetoids would fail. So instead of about 20 and growing number of planets we have 8.

So my question is: can you devise a scientific experiment that could determine which of the two definitions, the old with the two or the new with the three criteria, is scientifically correct? Like, add a fifth fundamental interaction and the corresponding charge of planetness, make a measuring device that measures planetness charge of an object independently of roundness and sun-orbitness and neighborhood-clearedness, and check out how Pluto scores?

I understand that admitting that you can't and that the set of criteria we use is arbitrary in a sense will upset you greatly because you feel that this sort of arbitrariness lets anyone hijack the definitions. Actually it's the opposite kind of arbitrariness, one that demands solid justifications for usefulness, but let's not go there until you manage to do the Science thing and admit the disturbing truth just because it's true.

zergling_Lester - I'm following this thread and IMO you're beating around the bush. Would you mind getting to the point?

Your current line of reasoning will ultimately have to end with a discussion on what's at the epistemic bottom, namely the laws of logic and how we can "prove" them.

If we can't prove the laws of logic are "true", then why even move on to math and by extension STEM fields, right?

That's ultimately the end of your line of reasoning. But currently, whatever you're trying to get at hinges on your observation that Pluto differs in classification depending on what set of criteria is used.

Again, what's your point?

I have many points.

My first point is that classifying Pluto as a planet or a dwarf planet is arbitrary in the sense that it can't be proven or disproven by an experiment.

The important point there is that while all three criteria are "scientific", choosing a subset of them as your Planet definition is not "scientific".

If that is accepted I'd move further to discussing whether whales are fish. Because, you see, whales live in the ocean, have fins, eat fish. At the same time, whales' nearest ancestors with cows are cows, so. At the same time whales' and ours' nearest ancestors with cod are fish, so we all are fish, if you insist, but whatever.

The real question is: when you fully understand that the classification of Pluto as a planet or whales as fish is arbitrary, what do you do as a King when:

• The minister of Forestry points out that whales are not fishes according to Science, so they should be tracked by his ministry and not he ministry of Fisheries, and he needs a billion dollars to buy boats and shit?

• The minister of Sociology and Blackness Studies points out that "fish" is a social construct so whales should be tracked by her ministry just because and she needs a billion dollars to buy boats and shit?

What would I, as an elected leader, do when some career politician utters a statement on matters of Science?

I would personally consult with the proper authorities on the subject matter.

Who would those be? Those with expertise on the subject matter, who've been tutored and tested by accredited institutions of higher learning.

What are accredited institutions of higher learning? etc.

Pluto's classification is arbitrary to the experts. Not to non-experts.

Well, if you're not interested in how experts decide category boundaries and how much epistemic weight their decisions really have, that's your business.

But then you just have an extra reason to deride arrogant laymen who dare speak against accredited sociology professors on the subject of gender.

(the correct answer to both supplicants as a king is to tell them go fuck themselves: the only valid criterion for comparing different definitions is usefulness and anyone who tries to get you to accept some definition without discussing consequences is trying to scam you)

Well, if you're not interested in how experts decide category boundaries and how much epistemic weight their decisions really have, that's your business.

How experts arrive at their decisions about category boundaries is, I imagine, in part related to the effects on the explanatory and predictive power of the models being used.

But then you just have an extra reason to deride arrogant laymen who dare speak against accredited sociology professors on the subject of gender.

Alright, I think you and the other guy can finally resume talking.

I have strong opinions about some of the soft sciences, particularly about the quality of their literature and when they conflict with the natural sciences. But I only interjected to get you two past the topic of Pluto.

Cheers.

How experts arrive at their decisions about category boundaries is, I imagine, in part related to the effects on the explanatory and predictive power of the models being used.

I.e. how easy it is to convey more precise information ("x is mostly an Y but has such and such deviations from the central member of the category") and how bad are the consequences of transmitting necessarily imprecise information.

But the fact that categories don't actually objectively exist has a profound consequence: it means that different people don't necessarily converge on the same ideal categorization (that doesn't exist) as they make their individual categorizations more and more useful for them.

So for example for scientists studying whales drawing boundaries based on phylogenetics is useful because it predicts a ton of stuff that interests them, such as tiny hairs in whales' nostrils.

For the government officials who are primarily interested in whether their inspectors would have to use boats or cars etc and couldn't care less about the hairs in whale nostrils the categorization of fish as anything that lives in the ocean makes much more salient predictions.

It would be a mistake to force those two groups of people to use the same categorization, and there's absolutely no epistemic reason to prioritize the categorization used by scientists -- notice by the way how as soon as phylogenetics stop being useful for them as well they drop them, nobody insists that whales are fish, monophyletically speaking.

(I didn't intend to become an active participant in this discussion about 'categories' with you but...)

Allow me to steer this discussion back into what was originally controversial.

• When we gather data about sexual characteristics in humans, we notice a bimodal distribution arise.

• Certain sexual characteristics occur significantly more often in the first group than the second.

• Certain diseases occur almost exclusively in one group e.g. prostate/uterus-related diseases.

Can we establish common ground and agree that these bullet points are indeed factual observations about the natural world?

Please notice that I'm not implying these observations are moral/social prescriptions on how individuals should behave and present themselves.

I agree that these are factual observations, and I even agree that in certain contexts like medicine it's useful to have categories "biological male/female" that carve the reality at this joint.

Excellent, thank you for responding, we have common ground.

With that in mind, we can rewind this to your quote here:

Can you devise a falsification experiment that'd demonstrate that a person with XY chromosomes is indeed a man?

Like, if we went with self-identification as the determinant of being a man, you could make a device that measures a physical quality of being a man and show that this physical quality is better correlated with the karyotype than with the self-identification?

If we agree than by "man" we mean "biological male", then the presence of XY chromosomes in an individual is a reliable predictor of the individual being a man.

Notice that the test criteria is a reliable predictor (strong correlation) rather than a determinant (causal link). I believe most things in science are like that.

If we instead went for self-identification as the test criteria, I believe it would be less reliable of a predictor because results would be subject to the honesty and test interpretation of the individual rather than the effectiveness of the DNA sequencing machine.

Again, this differs from matters such as traditional gender roles, behaviors generally associated with it...you COULD reliably predict some sex-specific behaviors based on the test criteria but that says nothing about what the individual SHOULD do in terms of societal behavior.

Is any of this at all controversial to you?

If we agree than by "man" we mean "biological male", then the presence of XY chromosomes in an individual is a reliable predictor of the individual being a man.

Depending on how we define "biological male" that's not just a reliable predictor but a tautology.

But of course the entire point of contention is that we don't agree whether by "man" we should mean "a person with XY chromosomes".

but that says nothing about what the individual SHOULD do in terms of societal behavior.

If it didn't then we wouldn't have this discussion. Nobody prevents or indeed could possibly prevent you from forming however shaped and weighted inferential nets in your head.

We have this discussion because there are social expectations and bylaws and actual laws downstream of the definitions, from the pronouns to whether the person should disclose their unusual genitalia on a date to which sports leagues the person is allowed to participate in to which bathrooms they are allowed to use.

In my opinion all this stuff should be negotiated on an item by item basis, and that would determine our definition or several context-depended definitions of gender. But each side of the culture war is trying to do it the other way around, to push for their definition of gender and then get everyone accept all consequences.

The part where you say that there is a strongly bimodal distribution is not helping. The part where you propose XY chromosomes in particular as the discriminating feature really doesn't help. The part where you insinuate that since your definition is based on a scientifically measurable quality and is inspired by a factual observation it must be a scientifically correct definition is categorically wrong.

In my opinion all this stuff should be negotiated on an item by item basis, and that would determine our definition or several context-depended definitions of gender. But each side of the culture war is trying to do it the other way around, to push for their definition of gender and then get everyone accept all consequences.

I guess I don't disagree with your opinion.

The part where you say that there is a strongly bimodal distribution is not helping. The part where you propose XY chromosomes in particular as the discriminating feature really doesn't help.

The "parts" where I list facts were me trying to establish common ground with you and for the most part it was successful, don't you agree? How is it my fault if the reader infers that as a justification of the status quo of laws, bylaws and norms i.e. "not helping"?

The part where you insinuate that since your definition is based on a scientifically measurable quality and is inspired by a factual observation it must be a scientifically correct definition is categorically wrong.

The colloquial definition of "man" is "an adult human male". You can keep unpacking the colloquial definition quite easily by appealing to biological facts.

I would like for you to elaborate why you think this line of reasoning is wrong. What practical problems does this run into? It seems to work, for the most part, in the context of medicine and we both agree on that.

The "parts" where I list facts were me trying to establish common ground with you and for the most part it was successful, don't you agree?

Well, all right, I probably unfairly projected on you my frustrations with the people like the guy I was discussing this with originally, who very definitely believe that it's possible to scientifically determine what "gender" is, and it's having these or that chromosomes, and it's their holy duty to protect science from everyone who disagrees.

I would like for you to elaborate why you think this line of reasoning is wrong. What practical problems does this run into?

Well, it turns out that we have a bunch of people that are sort of like whales: basically fitting smack in the middle of one category based on outward appearances and behavior, but if you look at the genes, they belong to a different one. So using a category based on genes hurts them. Hurting people is a problem.

I was hoping you were talking about the death squads.

There's no social capital to be gained proving your better than facists.

Proving that you're better than other leftists in the other hand...

A glimmer of self awareness

No idea who this is....

I'm guessing this person comes from a rich family...went to an out of state university.... definitely private.

I would imagine they at some point failed to finish their academic goal. So rich, lap of luxary failure is pulling in lots of money on YouTube or those internet panhandling websites because. This person is very woke and fights against censorship that has never actually affected this person. And at some point this person said something slightly not woke and the blue checks lost their shit.

How far off am I?

famous twitter tranny

THE ABSOLUTE GRIFTER COPE

Yep. If Natalie says, "NEW VIDEO THIS WEEK" on a Wednesday, for example, there is usually uncertainty on whether or not she meant by the end of that week on the calendar, which would be the following Saturday if that week started on Sunday, or the end of seven days since the announcement was made, the following Wednesday. Making an announcement on a Sunday avoids the ambiguity.

These people are insufferable

I thought you were talking about Nicaraguan guerrillas.