Yeah, Jonathan Frakes had an old hip injury that caused him pain when he sat down normally, and he’s, like, seven feet tall, so stepping over the chair was just easier for him.

The Captain Planet super villains are actually pretty accurate. Looten Plunder still looks like the average Fortune 500 CEO (minus the 80s fashion sense), and Hoggish Greedly is basically just the President.

The Politico reporting is extremely damning, and these accusations really can’t be described as anything other than rape. He’s gotta go.

I’m sorry, but it really wasn’t:

The term originates from the 1984 movie C.H.U.D. In the film, the acronym refers to a group of humanoid, flesh-eating monsters that were once humans, but mutated due to radioactive waste. While the word may have started pejorative use in 2003 to describe any repulsive person, its usage shifted as it became popular in the 2020s on sites such as Twitter and Reddit, after the podcast Chapo Trap House frequently used it to describe those who are ignorant or far-right. Source

I mean, if it’s Telegram, then it’s probably a bunch of chuds trying to shift the meaning of, “chud,” because they’re tired of being called chuds.

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean it was used regularly as slang, or that it carried the same connotations. “Lowkey,” has been around for ages, but it wasn’t slang until the late 90s, and it isn’t even used the same way. (“Keep it lowkey,” vs., “that was lowkey brilliant.”)

Oh, I haven’t heard it used that was. I still see it used pretty much exclusively to mean, “right-wing dumb-ass,” but sometimes more broadly as, “online dumb-ass.”

Yeah, the casual way, “f*g,” was used, even into the early 2000s, is pretty shocking in hindsight.

Look, Gen Z has some stinkers (“that’s fire,” sucks, and that’s coming from the generation that gave you, “hella,”), but their use of Chud is spectacular. A perfect encapsulation of every grubby, right-wing freak from incels to groypers. A near perfect onomatopoeia.

Yeah, well, maybe we shouldn’t have our government ban athletes from competitions because you don’t understand something.

I’m not qualified to answer that, and neither are you, but I don’t give a shit because it’s a goalpost shift… IOC is looking at one study, while studies that analyze multiple studies indicate there isn’t enough data, but what data there is points to there not being an advantage. I’m also curious as to whether they mean trans women or trans women and cis men when they say, “biological men,” have an advantage, but it’s neither here nor there because A) you’re still cherry picking the data that conforms to your worldview and B) you’ve very clearly conceded the initial argument that the government should be in charge of this. Anyway, you done yet, or do you still want to be wrong at ne a little longer?

Note that other studies, including meta studies that analyze multiple studies, have concluded that there trans athletes don’t appear to be at an advantage, and that their results are, “low confidence,” meaning their isn’t enough scientific data to make a determination either way. I actually shared the most recent of those studies earlier in this thread, but you ignored it because it didn’t conform to your beliefs. Which isn’t very scientific.

Well, this is an excellent example of an independent sports organization using scientific data to make their own determination on what the rules should be around trans athletes. Thank you for admitting I was right, I’m sure that wasn’t easy for you.

Yeah, where did you think the, “data that proves trans athletes have a competitive advantage,” was going to come feom? Or it’s just up to science? Like, the abstract concept of science is going to set the rules for sports leagues? Or is there gonna need to be some authority on sports and athletics to enforce those rules? Some sort of athletic association? Anyway, if ypu think you parse words until I get frustrated and drop this, you are deeply underestimating how petty I am.

(Also, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, what little science there is on trans athletes has determined that transs athletes don’t have a competitive advantage,.so I guess you support including them!)

Then they can say, “If there is data that proves trans athletes have a competitive advantage, then having them play in the same league as cis athletes would be unfair, but I trust athletic leagues and school districts to make that determination, and not politicians with ideological agendas.”

Like, seriously, this is your argument? The Democrats need to support trans athlete bans, even though a plurality of Americans don’t want them to do that, because a Republican might ask a difficult question? Are tou serious?

Yeah, and a plurality of the people in that study said they don’t want the federal government making the rules for trans athletes:

In January, a New York Times/Ipsos poll found that 79% of U.S. adults, including 67% of Democrats, think that transgender female athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. However, Americans are much more closely divided when forced to choose who should be in charge of setting the rules for fair sports participation.

In this survey, a slim plurality of adults (45%) say that “local school districts and sports associations should set the rules for fair sports participation, not the federal government,” while 42% say “the federal government should ban transgender girls from playing girls’ sports and force them to play on the boys’ team.” (Data for Progress)

Next time, find an actual analysis of the study instead of letting a right-wing rag like the post tell you the parts you want to hear.

Right, but if the plan is for her to convince the Democrats to clear the senate primary field gor her, then run for president anyway…well, they’re probably figure out she lied when she announces her presidential run, and i bet they’ll find some centrists to run for Schumer’s seat. If she wrre taking Schumer’s seat this cycle, she could then lie about not seeking the presidency and run in two years, but that’s not the timeline.

Schumer has appeared so weak and ineffectual these last two years that I don’t think he has a shot against any challenger, progressive or otherwise. Seriously, I’m pretty sure Cuomo or Adams could knock him out of that seat. Any honest advisor would probably tell him to not seek leadership again and retire at the end of his term so he can spare himself an embarrassing defeat.

Schumer isn’t up for reelection until 2028, so that wouldn’t really work. She would need to pick one or the other, she can’t run for both simultaneously.

Anybody who believes it makes a lick of fucking sense to keep pretending the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and social safety nets are unnecessary…has already switched teams.

YUP. And the most infuriating part is that, since about Reagan, the left bave been the ones that been told we must acquiesce to centrists, that we couldn’t win elections without, “moderates,” that we had to accommodate Clinton and the third-way crowd.

Now, after a decade of slow declined followed by a decade of rapid collapse, it’s clear that the centrists can’t win in this political landscape. Do the party leaders see where the wind is blowing, listen to the voters, follow the progressives’ victories, and tack to the left? Nope! They act as though pushing for social spending and welfare programs, AKA what the Democratic party stood for since FDR, is some sort of betrayal.

Moving to the right? “Look, we need a big tent, but we’re all on the same team!” Moving back to the left in the slightest? “Fuck you, I’m quitting the team.”