"Spotify is currently not available in your country."
Take my euros goddarnit. Probably fights involving licensing agreements, or competition buying whole markets. I don't know if I should play at being an international spy and buy VPN just for Rogan or just pirate it out of the general principle.
You are choosing the most uncharitable reading which is not what he meant. How do I know that? Because, despite his meatheaddy appearances, he has consistently shown himself to not be transphobic, I watch his show. What he wanted to say is that her sex was biologically of male and that's why she has in this specific case unduly enormous advantage, to a degree that she is depriving others of fair chance at competing.
Transphobia is a property of actions, not an immutable property of people. Rogan may not hold transphobic beliefs. That does not stop a particular action from being harmful.
This isn't a judgement on his person. I don't want to shoot him into space. I want people to recognize that this specific sentence is harmful and we can be better than that. We can have conversations around transgender people in sports without using the same exact same phrasing as people who want to kick them out of their homes and call them freaks.
Whether or not trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the same classes as their cis counterparts in MMA is a conversation we can have, but it is beside the point. Trans women are women. If someone makes plainly transphobic comments, and then refuses to apologize for them (or even doubles down), I'm not going to go and listen to hundreds of hours of their content to attempt to gain a more nuanced understanding of their attitude towards the trans community. I'm just going to think of that person as a transphobe.
Respectfully, I understand you have good intent trying to stand up for a marginalized group, but you're being very ignorant. You can't just helicopter in, show no interest in understanding the situation, then cherry-pick something to spew off some unwarranted opinions about before helicoptering out again. While that singular sentence is absolutely insensitive, the context absolutely matters if you're going to judge the character of the person who said it.
And I appreciate that you are not trying to impute ill intent on me, although you may be underestimating my proximity to the transgender community personally. From my reading of the longer-form quotes – those that I have based my opinion on, I really don't think the context helps Rogan out all that much.
"Look, [Fox is] huge! She's not just huge, she's got a fucking man's face. I mean, you can wear all the lipstick you want. You want to be a woman and you want to take female hormones, you want to get a boob job, that's all fine. I support your life to live, your right to live as a woman. Fight guys, yes. She has to fight guys. First of all, she's not really a she. She's a transgender, post-op person. The operation doesn't shave down your bone density. It doesn't change. You look at a man's hands and you look at a women's hands and they're built different. They're just thicker, they're stronger, your wrists are thicker, your elbows are thicker, your joints are thicker. Just the mechanical function of punching, a man can do it much harder than a woman can, period."
"If you want to be a woman in the bedroom and you know you want to play house and all of that other shit and you feel like you have, your body is really a woman's body trapped inside a man's frame and so you got a operation, that's all good in the hood. But you can't fight chicks. Get the fuck out of here. You're out of your mind. You need to fight men, you know? Period. You need to fight men your size because you're a man. You're a man without a dick. I'm not trying to discriminate against women in any way, shape, or form and I'm a big supporter of women's fighting. I loved watching that Ronda Rousey/Liz Carmouche fight. But those are actual women. Those are actual women. And as strong as Ronda Rousey looks, she's still looks to me like a pretty girl. She's a beautiful girl who happens to be strong. She's a girl! [Fallon Fox] is not a girl, OK? This is a [transgender] woman. It's a totally different specification."
I'm not talking about a single sentence here. Despite whatever permissive or lassiez-faire attitudes he might hold, there is a constant drumbeat of "they're not really women." "Benign" transphobia is still transphobia, even if it's preferable to more aggressive forms. It's possible to be sober about physical differences that might exist between trans women and cis women without denying the former "full" womanhood. I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with the main point he's making, but I still find these comments to be transphobic, and I don't need to be a fan of his to hold an informed opinion here.
I premise that your is a perfectly valid interpretation, he said the things your criticize him for saying.
I would disagree with calling this transphobic... On the topic of the statement "trans women are women" for example wikipedia notoriously offer an interesting position
Trans woman: A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
Woman: A woman is a female human being.
This is not necessarily contradictory, but it as the effect that the statements "Trans women are women" and "Trans women are females" are linked together.
My assumption (which I believe you agree with, if you disagree with the next statement I would be interested in hearing your opinion on it) is that many people that (strongly) agree with "trans women are women" do not necessarily fully embrace "trans women are female"
I am not arguing for or against any of those statements (I am trying not to inject my opinions (if any) on them in this comment), but to me this says that the linguistic concept of woman is not intrinsically obvious in this phase of an evolving language.
In my opinion what Rogan says here is that in term of fighting he believe the only contextual concept of gender is similar to duck-typing: If you punch like a man, then you are a man.
Agree or disagree with that I believe it is (still) important to be able to express that concept without being transphobic, as in my opinion that would impede our ability to talk about the complex multidimesional bimodal distribution that is human sexuality.
What I am trying as hard as I am able to is to steel-man Rogan's position without straw-manning yours.
A short summary of what I am trying to say is that I believe that Rogan's position is not transphobic; maybe he is toxic, maybe he is poisoning the conversation with inflammatory language, maybe he is on the wrong side of history. And maybe he deserves being called transphobic for what he said; I am not trying to defend Joe Rogan the person, I am trying to find a small reasonable kernel of his position where I believe we can agree.
I am not entirely sure what you mean, what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement.
Specifically I think it is in the interest of the side challenging the status quo to keep their arguments as precise as possible.
Otherwise conversations become extremely difficult and layered, like a relationship fight that stem from a resentment decades old. There are so many branches and so many directions that even if the core problem might be easy it requires a monumental effort just to get close to it.
Intrinsically examples of where I think this happened would be flamebait topics :)
> what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement
Yes, I think I'm definitely not understanding you correctly. It seems like you're objectively stating that conversation would be of higher quality if people would construct arguments more like you do. But what if people do want to use that argument for their statement that they find JR transphobic?
"Don't use this argument; it's wrong and devalues the conversation" reads very strange to me when discussing something as fuzzy as "does this person exhibit transphobic behaviour?"
This is close to what I am saying. If people want to use that argument they are free to do so, I intend to keep butting and try to steel man the opposing position without strawmanning their argument.
Also I need to confess that, no, I do not actually want people to argue like I do, I argue this way because otherwise I would make terrible, inconsistent, and vague arguments. Many other people are better than me and they do not need a whole paragraph where they preemptively state their intentions.
Overall I believe that there is great value in trying to find a common ground we can agree on and base the discussion. In my perception arguments in forums like this one should be the complete opposite of a debate. If I believe A is true and you believe B is true and they are mutually exclusive, I believe that the "proper" way to argue my position by exposing the basis of my opinion so that you can both understand why I believe A and explain me your interpretation of those positions.
Now I am devolving into rambling, but I think that shaping conversations as debate is indeed damaging. As an example if I am convinced of A by some internal reasoning and you prove not A to me then only half the job is done. We (or I) need to also resolve the conflict between my internal reasoning and what you are saying. Or at the very least take note of the fact that there is an internal conflict to be resolved.
There is no foundation in anything for this opinion, but I believe that the lack of this second step in the popular sciences made the scientific community elitist and was fertilizer for things like antivaxxers.
>Whether or not trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the same classes as their cis counterparts in MMA is a conversation we can have
Thats the conversation he was having. You don't have to listen to hours of content, just take it from people here telling you that that was the context of the discussion. Or don't and simply don't comment on the matter. You are not obliged to have an opinion on everything.
On cheaper Android devices that are sold at-cost or below cost, you usually can't. They need to make money on your data with those "value-add" apps, to remain profitable, so they mark ALL apps as "system required", to prevent disabling (i.e. try disabling SystemUI through the UI, it won't let you, the button will be greyed out).
I use Linux, I am pretty ambivalent about Windows, I don't like adware and telemetry in my paid-for software but if they really start doing that honestly that will irritate me enough to start pushing people to Ubuntu when that's possible.
As much as I use Linux for everyday use and dislike windows lately, Linux is still too high-tech for normal people to use. Without terminal command it's hard to manage services, etc. Moreover many drivers and games only available and optimized for windows only.
Careful. You're gunning for someone linuxsplaining how their grandpa has used Arch for years without difficulty, so you must be just wrong about all the normal people you know who find linux too hard.
(I'm exclusively a linux user for now, but really .. linux people can be such a pain).
Microsoft has been giving people reasons to switch to Linux for quite a while. They started with the major overhaul of the Office UI. Then they came out with Windows 10. Ubuntu and Libre Office are just so much easier to work with.
Yeah, I have seen that remark when XP came out, then it was Vista, followed up by how Windows 7 would drive everyone into Linux, then was how Windows 8 would do it, ....
Somehow there is a pattern here, meanwhile Steam Hardware survey still shows GNU/Linux desktops at 1% on average.
I think it would be wonderful if people abandon Windows for alternatives but that won't happen. People are somehow utterly enthralled by that crapware.
This is not true. I have Win 10 Pro on my work laptop. It's very much "paid in full". Some of the things I paid in full for include Bubble Witch 3 Saga, Candy Crush Saga and Candy Crush Friends, and the Start menu came pre-populated with a bunch of ads for similarly useful apps (edit: among other things).
Edit: if someone who's more Windows-savvy than this ol' Unix nerd knows what information I ought to edit out of a screenshot so that I can safely share it, I have the screenshot, too. This "if you pay for Win 10 Pro there are no ads" crap pops up every single damn time so I took a screenshot of my laptop's untouched Win 10 Pro installation.
I also have Win 10 Pro and the maximum I had was, I think, "Install Minecraft" link or something. This is not like Win 10 Home where they tried to keep the ads coming. Which also makes sense, since you are getting a discounted OS.
Going along that route, there is a lot of stuff a default Linux installation bundles, that I don't personally need, so I usually have to do a custom install to have only the stuff I'm comfortable with. Throwing a fit that a product doesn't cater exactly to your particular interests is a bit entitled. You assume that most of Windows consumers don't want those things on their computer.
Who said anything about not catering exactly to my particular interests? You said a legit copy of Windows 10 Pro doesn't show ads. It does. I see them. Ads were some of the first things I saw after I installed it, and I still see them every once in a while. Even you seem to have seen one, even though you literally just said there aren't any.
You are deliberately conflating ads and suggestions. I don't see them and haven't seen them the 3 years I have my Surface Book with Windows Pro. Honestly, I don't remember what I did: either deleted the shortcuts or turned something off in settings. Maybe you should do that?
> You are deliberately conflating ads and suggestions.
Really? What's the difference? When I see nice, red, highlighted text saying "Try out the new Edge browser", should I think of it as "just a suggestion"? How is it different from one saying "Try out the new Coca-Cola"?
Well, as far as I remember, the suggestions in the start menu for me were implemented as .LNK files. Although I might be mistaken there, since I've encountered those years ago and never since. Obviously, in contrast to your experience, where by some mysterious, unfortunate circumstance and surely through no oversight of your own, you seem to be struggling with suggestions and/or ads (who knows which?) in your system on a daily basis, even though you seem to have a Win 10 Pro system.
In my experience, those links weren't intrusive, they weren't detrimental to my experience and I could get rid of them once and for all. And I'm pretty sure .LNK files don't track you if you don't call them.
So to answer your question, I draw the line at opt-out functionality.
> So to answer your question, I draw the line at opt-out functionality.
Great! So any idea how you can opt out? Last time I've seen one of these "suggestions" was one or two weeks ago, when I ended up with a big red "Still using Firefox? The new Edge version is here" entry in the Start menu.
What FUD? And what aversion to "googling stuff"? The Start Menu Personalization is only one of the ad delivery channels, and only one about which I (literally) forgot.
Do you still mean to say that there are no ads on a legitimately-purchased Windows 10 copy, after literally writing that you, yourself, have seen at least one?
Apparently when a GNU/Linux installation shows messages to try out stuff, it is "spreading the good for the community", or has a modified motd, when one gets a couple of links on the start menu, easily removed by right clicking on them, it is "bloody Microsoft".
The whataboutism defense is absolutely failing at this point. If there was material criticism on HN of say Ubuntu or other providers for the same stuff Microsoft gets criticized your words might've been credible. But there isn't and they are not.
Pretending to be fair and objective is not the same thing as being fair and objective.
Whataboutism is a logical fallacy even when the "what about" thing doesn't get enough attention. If Ubuntu got more criticism on HN, would the ads you see on Windows become less intrusive, or more appropriate?
But FWIW, Ubuntu absolutely got, and still gets, plenty of criticism for that, even here on HN.
Just like the "fallacy fallacy" is also a fallacy.
That's not the point I'm debating. Whether I'm OK with product design choices of Microsoft is my own consumer decision. But what really is getting old, is the utterly predictable and abysmal level of discourse on this matter on HN, Reddit or wherever.
My point is, that since the Internet has learned about whataboutism, it is being used to shut down any criticism of bias. In fact, your comment uses the common formula for that "Just because A does B, doesn't mean that C can do B."
Sure, but then your actions don't really correspond to your words. If you take the amount of privacy invasion in Android, for example, HN should be loosing their collective shit on a daily basis. They don't.
This is obviously just people emotionally bashing things they have been taught are outside of their "tribe".
I'm sorry but really none of this makes any sense to me.
How exactly did you reach the conclusion that "my actions don't really correspond to my words" based on how HN collectively treats Android? What actions are you talking about specifically? Using Android? I don't.
An how exactly does this post:
"I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Does my post say anything about what Ubuntu does being excusable in any way?"
follow this formula:
"Just because A does B, doesn't mean that C can do B."
My original reply said nothing about anything other than Windows, and my second post hinted that I think both Canonical and Microsoft are wrong in doing this. If I followed any formula, I'm pretty sure that's "neither A nor C should be doing B", which is as far removed from whataboutism as criticizing bias is removed from astroturfing.
> How exactly did you reach the conclusion that "my actions don't really correspond to my words" based on how HN collectively treats Android? What actions are you talking about specifically? Using Android? I don't.
I wasn't talking about you, the individual. It's a disembodied, collective "you" of HN. It's a rhetorical turn of phrase.
I don't know what to say to the rest. It's pretty obvious to me. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Also, on astroturfing:
"Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants."
When Ubuntu does it you will see a ton of complaining, like if it shows you some text and a link that you can disable easily and still people complain, I think people are consistent and you should consider that say Ubuntu is free and Canonical is not profitable where Microsoft is extremely rich and after you paid for the OS they still want to suck more money from you.
I will assure you that I seen it on HN(you can search and find proof you don't believe me), articles about the Amazon shortcut, about the SSH ads, about the Ubuntu/Fedora telemetry etc. Now probably Windows related news were submitted more often but this makes sense .
What version of Windows do people need to buy for it to (right after the installation, with no additional tweaking) have the telemetry keylogger turned off and no ads in start menu and no adware or links to other Microsoft's products there? I've been looking for such a version for a long time.
There is a long tail of exceptions to my statement, hard to find things that escape notice for years.
There are a lot of security issues that are not really memory safety as we are talking about here. (many are memory safety in a way that has nothing to do with getting your allocate/free wrong - using uninitialized memory for example). Some of them are subtle new attacks that were just discovered and now need to be mitigated.
There's slight difference in that in Firefox's case tech journals will be writing about it, everyone else will be talking about it and it will be on front page of HN. In the case of random extension going rogue it will likely get unnoticed for years and when it is finally noticed there's a small chance it will be picked by HN if planets align.
Maybe. Take a look at my exchange with u/LoSboccacc a parallel branch of this thread. If what he claims is correct (I don't know, but he seems pretty confident) then there is already a huge gaping security hole in FF that no one is talking about (AFAICT).
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Yes, the text on that page can be interpreted as supporting your position. Still, "Offer a password manager..." is not quite the same thing as "silently read all of your passwords and do whatever the extension wants with them..." I have a very hard time believing that the latter is the case and that no one has sounded the alarm on this yet.
Also, add-ons have been deprecated in favor of extensions.
That's why it's only fair we as users uphold the same rules by immediately severing any ties, present and future, with Blizzard. The rules are perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
They should move way to the other side on the scale of obviousness. Patents should be there to protect investments, not to stake out ideas bright and not so bright practitioners can stumble upon. In my opinion only ideas that necessitated a few man-years of work to be discovered should be patentable with onus on inventors to prove nonobviousness. I wouldn't be surprised if only pharma patents would survive only because expensive trials are needed.
And manufacturers. I tried to install system-wide cert on my Android to intercept and see exactly what system apps on my old Nokia phone were sending to Chinese servers but couldn't because Google thoughtfully "protects" its users. Tivoization at its worst.
Take my euros goddarnit. Probably fights involving licensing agreements, or competition buying whole markets. I don't know if I should play at being an international spy and buy VPN just for Rogan or just pirate it out of the general principle.