772
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
772 points (96.3% liked)
World News
39129 readers
1032 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If I'm understanding correctly the argument against her competing hinges upon a genetic test that the article provides no information for.
The evidence that she's a woman seems overwhelming. But the article doesn't provide the necessary information for an reader to understand and defeat the objection. We're not to reason for ourselves. Instead, we're to rely on ad hominem: The objection itself doesn't matter because it came from Russia. The article also ignores fallacy fallacy: There's also a very small possibility that Russia has reached the "good" conclusion for entirely "bad" reasons.
I know three things:
Afaik the IOC did all the standard testing on her and didn't find any issues (no doping, normal testosterone levels, etc). Idk if they did a genetic sex test - I'd imagine that isn't standard. Is that correct? Regardless of the Russian-run boxing federation's intentions, I'd still trust the IOC's findings over theirs.
Plus, even if she was XXY or something, does that actually have any impact on athletic performance? I'd imagine not
Edi: yep. Looks like it is widely believed that having a y chromosome is unfair, but the science doesn't necessarily back that up.
"improved understanding about genetic factors that lead to selection in sport should offer reassurance that female athletes with hyperandrogenism do not possess any physical attribute relevant to athletic performance that is neither attainable, nor present in other women."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-014-0249-8
The fact that trans athletes aren't all at the top of their leagues is proof that a y chromosome isn't unfair.
The gradient caused by sexual dimorphism is smaller than the gradient caused by intense, advanced training in all but the most pure strength based competitions like powerlifting.
There is no info, because it was just Russian misinformation from a former boxing org. boss. She was disqualified after beating a Russian. There is nothing more to this story, just the “West” again show its weakness and vulnerability for Russian news manipulation.
The austrian commentator (who was working for an austrian boxing committee before) on her semifinals fight said about that boxing org: "i've has seen quite a lot in my time, but they were the most corrupt org i ever saw" (he said "korrupter haufen", which is derogatory for a corrupt group of people)
Repetition doesn't break reason.
The author was right about you.
Arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If I made an absurd claim, such as: "Donald Trump was not born in the United States, he was born in Kenya." Without any evidence supporting my claim, It doesn't matter if a bunch of idiots jump on board agreeing with me. There is no moral imperative for Donald Trump to provide his birth certificate (good evidence) in order to dismiss my made up nonsense claims.
The article is pretty well done and shows exactly why this discussion is moot. There's simply no merit to the accusation, plain and simple.
If an accusation comes from Russia and only from Russia, it's part of their misinformation warfare. That's not ad-hominem, that's paying some fucking attention.
Exactly. So sick of reading about this non-news. There is nothing here, were just chewing on Russian propaganda and arguing with each other (as intended).
It just bugs me the wording "wrongly questioned" - it's never wrong to question, you just have to be prepared to accept answers.
Not true, 'just asking questions' is a common media manipulation tactic.
For example, Why hasn't Ted Cruz commented on the fact that many people believe he is the Zodiac Killer? It seems pretty odd to me that despite the public outcry, he has made no public statement as to this accusation. Why are you looking at me like that? I'm just asking questions...
Prove to me that you're not a rapist right now. I'm just asking questions, but you better come back with proof fast before I start spreading the word.
No.
Come on, this is a complete fallacious argument... Being a rapist is connected to actions, which can't be proven that didn't happen. This is completely different from measurable and observable properties like "being blonde" or "having certain chromosomes". You can 100% disagree on having to prove anything, but your example is completely wrong.
But it's never wrong to question, you just have to be prepared to accept answers.
With that said, this wasn't a denial.
I was not the person you were answering too. Just a random observer that has underlined the fallacy of that particular argument (it's hard or impossible to prove things are not or did not happen).
I was being tongue-in-cheek and you still walked right into a hypocrisy trap.
Which hypocrisy...? The whole point of your argument is already addressed. You can't prove anybody didn't commit actions. mah...