*** Individual results may vary, testimonials are not claimed to represent typical results. All testimonials are from real patients, and may not reflect the typical patient’s experience, and are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results.
Broadly speaking, has there ever been a generation that *didn't* believe that the music that they listened to when they came of age was the pinnacle? For most people, music will never be as important to them as it is between the ages 12 and 22. It's very hard to separate memory of time and place from the music you grew up with. It's all so intertwined.
That said, as someone who did come of age with grunge, I don't much listen to it anymore. I'm not sure if that speaks to how it has aged as it does my boredom with it. Probably a bit of both.
I was a sophomore in high school when GnR broke out and and a sophomore in college when Nirvana did. In my limited universe the line of demarcation between the two groups was pretty stark. We all seemingly entered college GnR fans and considered them a joke before we graduated.
GnR effectively ended when they released the video for Estranged in 1993 (Axl swims w/ dolphins!!!) - which we would watch so we could make fun of it. I just watched it again and it was as comically bad as i remembered.
Well you can start with the link I first posted and then work your way through the last 100 years of measured athletic performance between men and women.
Or you can save time and present the data demonstrating how Leah Thomas DID NOT have a distinct advantage over her female competitors.
1. That the advantage is overblown. [Objectively false]
2. A red herring. [Perhaps by some, but largely untrue]
3. Sports ethics [Is it ethical for biological women to compete against biological men?]
4. Personal liberty [I can't wait to bring this up in the next free speech debate!!! ;)]
I am baffled as how you could label someone ranked 554th as an "elite swimmer". Leah Thomas was an *objectively* average male collegiate swimmer - who only became "elite" after she began transitioning and competed against females.
As for Katie Ledecky - yes, could have beaten plenty of men. But not elite ones. In her trademark event (the 800m), her fastest time is still 30 seconds slower than the world record. There is a reason why men and women do not compete against each other.
Regardless, is your point that Leah Thomas should be able to compete against women because some women could beat her in some events?
I don't get it. And I don't think it is particularly helpful to trans advocacy to pretend that this isn't an issue.
This was great. Was nodding along as I read. Love the hair band assassin paragraph. I never really thought about that line being drawn between the opening riff of Welcome to the Jungle to the opening riff of Teen Spirit, but it's spot on.
Interesting you called them rivals. I never thought of them that way. When Nirvana took the knife to finish off the hair bands, GnR were collateral damage, imo. It was mostly their doing for rendering themselves ridiculous in the Use Your Illusion era.
I read Mr. Katz's piece and Mr. Medlin's response, and I suspect that their disagreement is largely one of emphasis. They seem to agree on the primary point that historical context is important but not an accurate predictor of outcomes.
And a hard disagree on Putin's invasion of Ukraine being somehow unprecedented. If you want to compare and contrast situational elements, you can argue that everything that happens is technically unprecedented.
I'm not sure what part of what I said you think may or may not be true. And I don't understand what you mean by "responsibilities," but I would suggest a libertarian would support a heckler but not his veto. Again, freedom of association is just as fundamental as freedom of speech.
I still don't know what a "free speech absolutist" is.
To me, it was the combo - the smacking incident *followed* by the profane threatening - that made it seem far more unhinged than if he just did one or the other.
"For the right-wing, I think it is obvious, they understand that their views are becoming more and more unacceptable to many and are trying to shore up power as much as possible."
This is a very interesting take, in that what you state is obvious is only partially so.
Both sides are trying to take/preserve as much power as they can. That's how politics is played. Yes, obvious.
But I'm quite sure the motivation you assign the right is entirely incorrect. I think their understanding is that their views are widely held by the vast majority of Americans and they are going to leverage that populism to taking back power.
It's not a defensive stance. They are playing offense.
It will only be resolved when society learns to react differently. That only happens when we reach a tipping point and collectively begin to stop ceding power to tech mob tactics OR times get really tough (war, depression) and people are forced to refocus on things that actually matter.
If we are waiting for the tools to be used differently, that just won't happen. As long as power can be leveraged, it will be.
Surprising because if you asked me what OT's "brand" was I'd say a place where adults express and debate everything and anything under the sun. I only discovered OT recently - when one of my essays was published. That essay commemorated the 20th anniversary of 9/11 by calling out the cult that it spawned. Perhaps things are different now, but I assumed it was a place for free speech since what I wrote was found highly offensive in many quarters (but not here).
Disappointing because - if I understand correctly - the contribution in question was denied before it was submitted for consideration. All editors have the right to reject any submission, for a variety of reasons - but it's weird that *this* was the topic that had a red line drawn and rejected out of hand.
Regardless, I think Burt's first instinct to allow a rebuttal to be submitted was the correct one.
I'm aware of the research and all that, but never really seemed to rise to the level of hot topic (We need to change this!) until recently. And even now, it's a very loud chorus for about 2 days after the clocks change - and then completely disappears again until the next cycle. Sort of like clock work ...
This seems like one of those actions completely driven by social media. Spring Ahead / Fall Back was never a big deal - until recently (last five years or so) when people's feeds become cluttered w complaints twice a year when the clocks change.
Personally I don't mind changing the clocks, but if it has to be one or the other - Daylight in the evening is far preferable than dealing w darkness in the morning.
On “Grunge Was the 90s Music Palate Cleanser, Not Its Highlight”
I just finished Chuck Klosterman's new book "The Nineties" Much of it is an analysis of that very point. I enjoyed it.
"
I think the less you are into music, the more you are inclined to really favor the music of your youth.
"
*** Individual results may vary, testimonials are not claimed to represent typical results. All testimonials are from real patients, and may not reflect the typical patient’s experience, and are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results.
"
Broadly speaking, has there ever been a generation that *didn't* believe that the music that they listened to when they came of age was the pinnacle? For most people, music will never be as important to them as it is between the ages 12 and 22. It's very hard to separate memory of time and place from the music you grew up with. It's all so intertwined.
That said, as someone who did come of age with grunge, I don't much listen to it anymore. I'm not sure if that speaks to how it has aged as it does my boredom with it. Probably a bit of both.
On “Well-Tuned: When the Bell Tolled for Hair Bands”
I was a sophomore in high school when GnR broke out and and a sophomore in college when Nirvana did. In my limited universe the line of demarcation between the two groups was pretty stark. We all seemingly entered college GnR fans and considered them a joke before we graduated.
GnR effectively ended when they released the video for Estranged in 1993 (Axl swims w/ dolphins!!!) - which we would watch so we could make fun of it. I just watched it again and it was as comically bad as i remembered.
https://youtu.be/dpmAY059TTY
On “Woman, Controversial Woman”
Well you can start with the link I first posted and then work your way through the last 100 years of measured athletic performance between men and women.
Or you can save time and present the data demonstrating how Leah Thomas DID NOT have a distinct advantage over her female competitors.
What a brazen attempt at gaslighting. Kudos.
"
Those are 4 points.
1. That the advantage is overblown. [Objectively false]
2. A red herring. [Perhaps by some, but largely untrue]
3. Sports ethics [Is it ethical for biological women to compete against biological men?]
4. Personal liberty [I can't wait to bring this up in the next free speech debate!!! ;)]
"
I am baffled as how you could label someone ranked 554th as an "elite swimmer". Leah Thomas was an *objectively* average male collegiate swimmer - who only became "elite" after she began transitioning and competed against females.
As for Katie Ledecky - yes, could have beaten plenty of men. But not elite ones. In her trademark event (the 800m), her fastest time is still 30 seconds slower than the world record. There is a reason why men and women do not compete against each other.
Regardless, is your point that Leah Thomas should be able to compete against women because some women could beat her in some events?
I don't get it. And I don't think it is particularly helpful to trans advocacy to pretend that this isn't an issue.
"
It's amazing to me how people on the left insist we "follow the science" except when that science is biology.
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/a-look-at-the-numbers-and-times-no-denying-the-advantages-of-lia-thomas/
On “Well-Tuned: When the Bell Tolled for Hair Bands”
This was great. Was nodding along as I read. Love the hair band assassin paragraph. I never really thought about that line being drawn between the opening riff of Welcome to the Jungle to the opening riff of Teen Spirit, but it's spot on.
Interesting you called them rivals. I never thought of them that way. When Nirvana took the knife to finish off the hair bands, GnR were collateral damage, imo. It was mostly their doing for rendering themselves ridiculous in the Use Your Illusion era.
On “In Defense of a Useful History”
I read Mr. Katz's piece and Mr. Medlin's response, and I suspect that their disagreement is largely one of emphasis. They seem to agree on the primary point that historical context is important but not an accurate predictor of outcomes.
And a hard disagree on Putin's invasion of Ukraine being somehow unprecedented. If you want to compare and contrast situational elements, you can argue that everything that happens is technically unprecedented.
On “Freedom of Speech and the Heckler’s Veto”
I'm not sure what part of what I said you think may or may not be true. And I don't understand what you mean by "responsibilities," but I would suggest a libertarian would support a heckler but not his veto. Again, freedom of association is just as fundamental as freedom of speech.
I still don't know what a "free speech absolutist" is.
On “Sticks and Stones and Hair Loss”
To me, it was the combo - the smacking incident *followed* by the profane threatening - that made it seem far more unhinged than if he just did one or the other.
On “About That Bone, Dr Freddie deBoer”
Blame everything but the popularity of your shifting ideology at your own peril.
"
"For the right-wing, I think it is obvious, they understand that their views are becoming more and more unacceptable to many and are trying to shore up power as much as possible."
This is a very interesting take, in that what you state is obvious is only partially so.
Both sides are trying to take/preserve as much power as they can. That's how politics is played. Yes, obvious.
But I'm quite sure the motivation you assign the right is entirely incorrect. I think their understanding is that their views are widely held by the vast majority of Americans and they are going to leverage that populism to taking back power.
It's not a defensive stance. They are playing offense.
On “Will Smith slaps Chris Rock at Oscar Ceremony”
I guess we know Will Smith's thoughts on the Heckler's Veto article.
On “Freedom of Speech and the Heckler’s Veto”
In my mind, a free speech absolutist is typically Libertarian.
Libertarians believe their rights end where someone else's begin, and vice versa.
The heckler's veto is an infringement on the freedom of association, so I don't agree with your second graph.
Or perhaps you had another political profile in mind when you talk of free speech absolutist?
On “Discretion Has No Substitute: Lessons In Moving The Overton Window”
This is the epitome of a first world problem.
It will only be resolved when society learns to react differently. That only happens when we reach a tipping point and collectively begin to stop ceding power to tech mob tactics OR times get really tough (war, depression) and people are forced to refocus on things that actually matter.
If we are waiting for the tools to be used differently, that just won't happen. As long as power can be leveraged, it will be.
"
The problem isn't free speech.
The problem is this new technology-enabled weaponization of mobs.
Speech, per se, is only sometimes the catalyst.
We have tools unleashed on society that we have not yet figured out how to operate - nor proportionately react to.
We are living through an ugly transition period - and I have to believe, this will be managed differently in time.
The current dynamic is unsustainable.
"
This was surprising and disappointing to read.
Surprising because if you asked me what OT's "brand" was I'd say a place where adults express and debate everything and anything under the sun. I only discovered OT recently - when one of my essays was published. That essay commemorated the 20th anniversary of 9/11 by calling out the cult that it spawned. Perhaps things are different now, but I assumed it was a place for free speech since what I wrote was found highly offensive in many quarters (but not here).
Disappointing because - if I understand correctly - the contribution in question was denied before it was submitted for consideration. All editors have the right to reject any submission, for a variety of reasons - but it's weird that *this* was the topic that had a red line drawn and rejected out of hand.
Regardless, I think Burt's first instinct to allow a rebuttal to be submitted was the correct one.
On “From NPR: The Senate approves a bill to make daylight saving time permanent”
You know who loves loves loves the bi-annual clock change, Jaybird?
The smoke alarm and battery industrial complex.
How will we know when to check them now??? Are we really prepared for this unintended consequence???
"
LOL. Yeah, I'm still a newbie.
And yet, not at all surprised that this is an OT tradition...
"
The only drawback to the 30 minute compromise is how we synch with other countries.
I always get confused scheduling calls with Mumbai, especially one client who insists on starts 15 minutes before and after the hour.
"
I'm aware of the research and all that, but never really seemed to rise to the level of hot topic (We need to change this!) until recently. And even now, it's a very loud chorus for about 2 days after the clocks change - and then completely disappears again until the next cycle. Sort of like clock work ...
"
This seems like one of those actions completely driven by social media. Spring Ahead / Fall Back was never a big deal - until recently (last five years or so) when people's feeds become cluttered w complaints twice a year when the clocks change.
Personally I don't mind changing the clocks, but if it has to be one or the other - Daylight in the evening is far preferable than dealing w darkness in the morning.