nautilius

OP is making no statement about what they do, only that they find it reasonable to push back against that simple wish of the trans community.

For me that's the only interesting discussion to be had here. Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).

Then again, it is 'unfair' that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.

OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".

Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.

If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.

Do people tell you that you are not really an addict or mentally ill, that that's not even a thing, and that it's just a phase you grow out of once you simply make up your mind?

[edit] Ok, got it. I don't mean to question anyone's personal experience, and sorry that this is what's happening to you.

Also, I don't want to 'rank' the degree of marginalization different groups experience, that's not at all what I'm after. Ideally, none of this would exist and everyone would just live happily ever after.

What I mean is that I don't see a national debate, through politicians or 'celebrities', that deny the existence of, say, alcoholism.

But again, I don't mean to imply that those groups don't suffer. Also, I can just be wrong.

I disagree. In particular, there is not a gay president. How did Pete Buttigieg do well? He dropped out, ranking behind Biden and Sanders. In other words, he was supported by but a fringe group. Just him running means nothing.

It will be a while before a trans president is a realistic prospect. The U.S. have yet to elect a female leader of the country 40 years after that was a thing in the UK, and 20 years after Germany. The U.S. now have an openly gay secretary of transportation, hardly a key position in the administration. Germany had their openly gay vice-chancellor and secretary of state a decade ago.

Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to 'accommodate' trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence.

It's amazing for job applications if you're on the receiving end: there is no faster shortcut for triaging an application to "Deleted Items" than mismatched formatting of my name, or "I am really interested in $SOME_SNIPPET_FROM_MY_WEBSITE".

Awesome, thank you!

Is there a pattern to it? I find it an amazing feature, but also find that it doesn't always works. Do I have to do something before I can drag the icon?

Obviously not generally true, as silvestrov discusses in the very post you reply to.

Yes, but as vassanas points out, you are not achieving this - because it is different from culture to culture!

If you add the specific culture / region you are targeting this at, it could already mitigate that issue.

As vassanas points out, the phrases you suggest would work to your disadvantage in more confrontational cultures, because you will be perceived as bullshitting and beating around the bush, but not as a serious contributer one should listen to.

See, and that's where you're a dishonest hypocrite (ah, you got me there!) while moving your goalposts by miles. The religious people are all innocent, because those who aren't, aren't true believers and pharisees; but wow does that threshold drop when it comes to atheists (or 'smug materialists'), because now everything is their true god, and they just haven't realized that they really are religious, and are "just as bad as the religious people" (TM) because nothing can exist outside of religion, hallelujah.

You claim you were an atheist once, for a decade? Maybe you mistook being an atheist for being 'edgy' and smug. All it means is that I don't believe in you sky daddy. Never in my life have I talked about atheism except in response to religious people bringing up their religion and trying to explain to me how really I am religious. I just want to be left alone from your superstition, freedom from religion is the only religious freedom.

I don't even understand how one could, even theoretically, be insecure about atheism. It would be great to believe in the 'big sky daddy', as someone else calls them here, it would make lives much easier if you don't have to think and worry for yourself. Alas, I wasn't indoctrinated form an early age.

What pisses me off in this discussion here is that you guys aren't able to have this discussion without either lying or goalpost moving. It is completely incomprehensible to you that something outside of your tiny believe bubble exists. Smug remarks about the 'smug materialists' show how insecure you guys are, then proving that atheists really only also are religious, but still need to be enlightened from you guys. Salvation!

If the only thing keeping you from being a bad person (TM) is the threat of eternal damnation and suffering through some divine almighty being - how are you then not a bad person?

That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no?

What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!

The state? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?

No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.

Would they? What's that god they killed for?

How is that the opposite of "An accidental experiment that saved 700 lives"?

The argument wasn't that you violated a law, it was that your argument is blunt and lacks nuance.

> History has a term

> History records the actions, not the intent

You haven't spent much time with history, have you?

Oh, I'm not talking legislative probability. I was responding to the comment that it's somehow an unfathomable thought to have different 'carve outs' for different people in tax law (or anywhere, really) when that is standard practice in reality already.

Those are turbojet cruise missiles.

> - We make a special carve-out for people in that situation so that the tax doesn't apply to them.

Tax law does that all the time. Maybe you've heard of tax brackets. It's so that people who earn less pay a smaller tax rate. I don't see the trouble with that. It's applied in the other direction as well, e.g. with a maximum dollar value with medicare.

Why would it have lots of hypergolics on board?

Do RTG reach the >2170K necessary for this?

Human tragedy aside (and it absolutely is, no doubt about it, on all sides), it really depends on the context.

Striking the retreating army is the 'easiest' way to 'neutralize' it, Clausewitz writes about it, and I am sure it's been practiced for thousand(s?) of years before that.

For a timely comparison: would it be 'vindictive' when Ukraine strikes the retreating Russian army in the Kyiv area before they regroup and attack the Donbas? I don't think so. Seems like a good idea, actually.

So what's this 'road' in your analogy that was installed by the union, that wasn't there before, and that introduced a lot of utility, comparable to a road?

I doubt it: it lost its importance before English was established as the world language. E.g., German was still the international scientific language in the early 1900s. And let's not kid ourselves and believe that European countries would have adopted English because it's spoken in, say, India. If sheer numbers were the defining factor, we'd all have adopted some standard Chinese a long time ago.

> I read your post in good faith and respond in kind.

Sure, sounds good. Let's do this!

> I don’t believe it’s just hyperbole to say that this is easier in Europe

You haven't brought any evidence to the table except your personal opinion, which is, as you notice yourself, often only crudely argued in your post.

> However, as you say, a US PhD contains heavy course work and (outside STEM, where I have few data points since most researchers I knew dropped out to work for startups/FAANG)

It's still pretty light compared to what you do at many European universities up to the MSc level. Hence less (or no) course work in many European universities after your MSc.

> the average full-time program duration is only going up.

Ok.

> There are exceptions of course, but admissions are centered around a personal scholarly narrative rather than a particular project and pricing is generally under the expectation of grant funding. Again, there are further details we could write books about, but I don’t think this is far from a general picture of US PhDs in the humanities and social sciences.

So far I don't see any contradiction to what I wrote.

> the more professionalized three year track

You still haven't discussed what you even mean with 'professionalized'. Is a non-three-year degree unprofessional?

> I’ve known PhD students in Germany to take 10+ years writing their dissertations.

Absolutely, many of them in full time positions doing that research.

> Unless policies have changed in the past few years, the same goes for France.

My information is different.

> agentcoops 8 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: Ask HN: I'm interested in so many disciplines, but...

I read your post in good faith and respond in kind. There are certainly very important details I did not elaborate in a quick post, but I assume you understand that the question under consideration is how someone pursuing a full-time career might partake in (non-STEM) higher academic degrees. While I regret using the expression “rest of the world”, I don’t believe it’s just hyperbole to say that this is easier in Europe. You are correct that people pursue different paths after US PhDs. However, as you say, a US PhD contains heavy course work and (outside STEM, where I have few data points since most researchers I knew dropped out to work for startups/FAANG) the average full-time program duration is only going up. There are exceptions of course, but admissions are centered around a personal scholarly narrative rather than a particular project and pricing is generally under the expectation of grant funding. Again, there are further details we could write books about, but I don’t think this is far from a general picture of US PhDs in the humanities and social sciences.

In Europe, MAs and PhDs are separated as many have noted. I know most about the UK context, where MAs are affordable and can be taken part-time, completed in two years with one class a semester. PhDs, which are research only (I agree with the you and would indeed change “writing” to “research” if I wrote the post again), can also be done part-time over eight years for a very nominal cost (about 5k a year for an international student). Systems have become more standardized in the EU after the Bologna accords towards the more professionalized three year track, but I’ve known PhD students in Germany to take 10+ years writing their dissertations. Unless policies have changed in the past few years, the same goes for France.

> Again, comparing post-graduate education between US and EU, let alone between EU countries, is a complex topic.

I know that; you're the one who's presenting it as simple.

> I have attempted only to show that there is a substantial regional difference

By 'equalizing' 96% of humanity as 'the same'?

> and that, at least outside STEM, the EU system is more accessible for those with full-time careers, who do not plan to work in academia.

You keep claiming that, but you haven't shown anything.