Let me put it another way. You are wrong in regards to trans participation in sports but not because you are being a contrarian. You are also wrong to use your contrarian stance to justify your opinion. Hopefully that clears things up.
zbyte64
joined 1 year ago
I'm not saying you're wrong because you're contrarian, most of the people here fall into the category. What I am saying is that using the fact that an opinion is contrarian is not evidence that it is correct.
Most of the additional ridership [that] was identified cannibalized other lines. You’re taking people who are paying on other lines, and they were just getting a free ride.
What a bizarre way to measure the success or failure of a program.
The new talking point is that man made climate change is real but burning oil isn't causing the world to warm. But that does mean we can geoengineer our climate to be cooler. 🙃
It's frankly disgusting to compare this to people wanting free Netflix. I know that's not exactly what's happening here but I think we're loosing the plot.
Contrarian has a definition, it isn't relative to what my opinion is but the mainstream. The point is you're using the fact that your opinions are contrarian as evidence that your opinions are correct. It is funny.
Like I said elsewhere, you're competing with the internet for the most contrarian take. You revealed that trans athletes is not an issue you support because they are such a small group of the whole. But when you feel insecure or challenged about your "hot take" you do the contrarian line of "it's impossible for 100% of the people on the group to agree" as if this is a matter of opinion and not facts. As long as it is rooted in opinions, you are free to claim the most contrarian take possible.
T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.
Wow that's revealing more than you probably wanted.
Nah, this is just a contrarian contest.
Not sure how I would trigger a follow-up question like that. I think most of the questions seemed pre-programmed but the transcription and AI response to the answer would "hallucinate". They really just wanted to make sure they were talking to someone real and not an AI candidate because I talked to a real person next who asked much of the same.
I had applied to a job and it screened me verbally with an AI bot. I find it strange talking to an AI bot that gives no indication of whether it is following what I am saying like a real human does with "uh huh" or what not. It asked me if I ever did Docker and I answered I transitioned a system to Docker. But I had done an awkward pause after the word transition so the AI bot congratulated me on my gender transition and it was on to the next question.
For whatever reason we are not understanding each other. I don't think I can restate it any more clearly. I guess we just have to leave it at that.