It is true that the pool of female athletes to recruit from is more shallow due to social factors, but not in a way that can account for this gap.

It is common for teenage boys to be better than female Olympic athletes. If your view is that this is solely because high school boys have superior access to training than those Olympic women, this is simply not true.

It’s not 1973, and the reason the best female basketball players are too short, slow, grounded, and weak to be competitive even remotely on the level of male talent is not because of the more shallow pool of women encouraged into sports or with access to similar training.

The distribution of female athletic ability does not overlap with the higher end of male athletic ability except for some narrow exceptions such as hyper-marathoning, and this is primarily related to genetic causes, not access to training.

I don't think it's true that women are 100 years behind men in access to training lateral quickness, agility, explosive leaping ability, physical strength, or uh, "being tall," etc. but even if that were true, there are underlying biological reasons why these differ significantly on average.

One of several problems with this is that there are significant on average physical differences between men and women that training and nutrition alone cannot make up for. The gap between men and women in the constituent physical traits predispose basketball ability is extremely large.

I mean, I've done the reading in the sense I that I read a notorious article that argued this thesis in defiance of overwhelming evidence. I don't think I've ever met someone actually convinced by this argument before, though.

Yes, that's more accurate.

The best women's basketball team ever assembled would be crushed by an ordinary D III men's college team. It isn't protecting men's high status that let's there be women's basketball teams. It's a desire to create parity in access to playing competitive basketball.

It's because in most sports, basketball being an egregious example, women as a group are unable to compete at the level of men. So separate leagues are created for them because we decided this group that makes up a little over half the population should given a shot at playing competitive sports.

You could reject the idea that these kind of advantages matter at all, but at that point, I think you're more making an argument against having men's and women's sports be distinct. May the best person win (who will overwhelmingly probably be a boy/man).

The whole idea of having sports segregated by gender at all is that there is a natural physical advantage to being biologically male that women need to be shielded from in order to create equal access to athletic competition.

Bring Back the Superdole! By providing workers an extra $600 every week in unemployment insurance, the CARES Act delivered the most significant expansion of the welfare state since the 1960s — and delivered the Left its most i...

"Superdole" is just a term popularly used to describe enhanced unemployment benefits. I don't think he was complaining about its existence. Anyway, here's some commies using the term:

jacobin.com/2020/12/supe...

Lies, Damned Lies and Economic Vibes The continuing mystery of feel-bad economics

Not really, unless by “same” you lump in every single view that doesn’t describe the national economy as a catastrophe. This Paul Krugman piece is pretty similar to things I say that you are calling Bessent-thought. Think he’d agree?

paulkrugman.substack.com/p/lies-damne...

One of the things about longstanding mainline economic indicators is they are by their very nature not cherry picked. Articles about people selling plasma that don’t even contain a notable trend? Super cherry picked.

I don't think Platner is all that similar to Fetterman except that he's loved by outsider left types, has a working man aesthetic belied by his actual background, and is not a reliable vote for liberalism. They both risk going red-brown alliance, but in quite different ways.

Whenever I see a story about a neo-Nazi type where their age is revealed, I mentally subtract the number of years since either Gamergate or when Trump when down the golden escalator. If they were a kid at that time, it just feels incredibly sad to me.

Many such cases. Regular economic stats are untrustworthy, but some narrow semi-qualitative measure the coincidently supports exactly what they think is the rock of Gibraltar of economic indicators.

That said, local driving definitely became more reckless and hasn't returned to pre-COVID norms. That one is visible to the naked eye.

I would predict in 2020 that COVID would cause people to be less social / more anti-social, and I still suspect that is true, but it's also the kind of claim that needs to be tested by scientific investigation.

Telsa stock has had fantasy-land, meme-stock level valuations for years and if you tried to bet hard against it during that time, you would be likely to lose your shirt. Even if you think the bottom will fall out, it's hard to predict when.

If you just want to say that Gen X'ers have saved less for retirement than baby boomers have, congrats on that earth shattering revelation, but that's really quite different than claims about generations growing up to be in worse economic shape than their parents. Life has continued to improve.

To the idea that Gen X is worse off than baby boomers, you linked a report with data showing that Gen X is doing comparatively fine when you account for the fact that they are younger than baby boomers, which the report itself repeatedly tells you.

The argument about parents. That was Clinton's boilerplate speech line. It's also exactly what the person I replied to said. You are the one who shifted it.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/re...

I think you might've kinda sorta read this, but you don't appear to have understood it at all, at least as it relates to what was being disagreed about here. Having the gall to call other liars because you can't put 2 and 2 together is obnoxious, though.

To be clear, this is a report that finds Gen X'ers roughly where you'd expect them to be given their age along some typical dimensions of well-being. It doesn't compare them to their parental gen at all, nor does it analyze how well off they are in the sense of standard of living through time.

Yes. I, read the paper. Are you aware that standard of living has increased over time? Who Gen X parents were? Anything at all relevant to the core claim here?

Did you get as far as the subhead before you decided to link this? There is indeed a lot of data on standard of living and Gen X has not experienced a reversal compared to their parents. And, again, the youth referred to by Clinton included much of the very large millennial generation.

I think back to COVID where I could directly trace the soft COVID denialism arguments I would hear in person to social media group-thinks I had directly read as they formed. These were circulating among people who clearly were hearing them second-hand and they were more, not less naive about it.

Really hard to get across how mainstream the Satanic Panic was to those who didn't live through it.

The idea of repressed memories being recovered that was wrapped up in the Satanic Panic is something I still see people randomly bring up as something they believe in from time to time.