Ok, I’ll bite, what.

No, what?

Apparently it is what is known as a rigged rental which is the equivalent of a quarter muncher. The game was so difficult that it would be to hard for new players to beat during the rental period to force them to buy it. It doesn’t seem like there was an actual arcade version, just a case of mixed metaphors. edit: typo

I think you are correct. To spec made me think spec was being used as a verb. But it’s definitely to specification as in used as intended. My bad. edit: typo

spec

Sorry, what do you mean by spec? Spec ops was the closest I could find.

Do people not enjoy ripping the paper off of plastic water bottles? This looks like the same kind of fun to me.

Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.

I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.

Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.

“Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”

Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.

It’s sushi. The carbs form four sides of the cube.

Head of State + Commander in Chief “Prime Congressman” who is nominated by the house and approved by the senate.

Republicans are overrepresented in the House of Representatives because of the cap on members being set to 435 and in the Senate which gives unequal representation to low population states. We would be stuck under Republican rule if we did it this way. Why not just elect this Prime Congressman with a popular vote?

Invention of shotgun ~1500s

<---------->

Pay to win power creep

Thanks for sharing your stories and experiences. I’ll tell you a bit about myself. I am a single trans woman. I do not have kids. I have not undergone any surgery or used any medicine in order to transition. I knew I was a girl when I was three years old. I am sure your friends knew their genders at a young age as well.

Hormone blockers are a safe and effective way to delay puberty. It is completely reversible because a person can stop taking the medication at any time to begin puberty. This is something that a child of the ages ten to eleven can understand and consent to. Hormone blockers are not equivalent to sex which is something only adults can consent to. None of the medical treatments prescribed to trans people are forced on anyone. And only people with a history of gender dysphoria are given access to these treatments.

If you don’t like Mayo Clinic, I can give you another source with the same information.

https://www.medicinenet.com/at_what_age_does_gender_identity_develop/article.htm

https://www.stlouischildrens.org/conditions-treatments/transgender-center/puberty-blockers

It seem like the health and well being of young people is important to you. I would recommend reading this article on gender-affirming care. I think it will address many of your concerns. For some trans people, medical transition is not even necessary.

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/gender-affirming-care-saves-lives

No, it was sunny. I paid extra too, because the person who delivered didn’t bring change for a twenty. I think it was the cheese they used.

It depends on the Lemmy instance.

While i do believe it is possible that there maybe Trans people in existence that knew since a young age that they would want to transition

Most children know their gender by age 3.

The second fact is, children simply cannot make an informed decision let alone give informed consent to any hormones, pills, “binding” or transitionary intervention.

Here some facts about puberty blockers.

Here are some facts about what age a person can get HRT.

Here are some facts about binding and also packing and tucking.

Here is more on binding specifically.

It is possible for a person to learn about these topics. It is also possible for people of the appropriate ages, in some cases kids depending on what we are talking about, for example puberty blockers, to give informed consent.

A lot of trans people are fucked up, because they were denied the ability to express their gender like cis people. What’s changing is that trans people are finally able to open up about their experiences. The las time this happened was right before World War II.

It sounds like you would happy to know they were shot.

Gender dysphoria is a real condition people experience. It was not “made up”. It is not culturally specific in the way that the article claims.

What is gender dysphoria?

Also there is a scientific basis for transgender people. Here is one such study.

Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender

Here is an article on the scientific basis for transgender people.

How Does Science Explain Transgenderism?

What is different between our culture in the West and other societies is that, in the US at least, we stigmatize people who identify with a gender that is different than the one they were assigned at birth. This is stigmatization is what is made up. The gender dysphoria this causes is very real. The reason people in cultures that lack this stigmatization do not experience gender dysphoria is that they are free to explore their gender the way they see fit.

The article, Trans is something we made up, is a constant stream of gas lighting, claiming gender dysphoria is driven by a cultural diagnosis, and a causal disregard for science, ignoring the evidence that explains the scientific basis for transgender people. Trans people in the West aren’t experiencing gender dysphoria because someone told them that’s how they should feel. That’s what any human person feels when they are denied their gender, whether that person is cis or trans. It’s just that, in the West, it is common practice to deny trans people their gender.

Here is an example of a case where a cis person was forced to be the opposite sex. They ended up experiencing gender dysphoria, and a bunch of other crazy situations as well. Gender dysphoria is real and not somehow subconsciously culturally conformed to by trans people. The reason it is not universal is that the stigmatization of trans people is not universal. On a related note though, from what I’ve read on the internet, stigmatization of lgbtq+ people, including trans people, is quite wide spread. It seems pretty universal to me, I’ve read about instances of discrimination in the US, the UK, Africa, the Middle East, India, and China but I suppose there are probably lucky exceptions everywhere.

John Money Gender Experiment: Reimer Twins

Medical treatments for trans people have been shown to be safe and effective. They are not forced on anyone. The people who seek these treatments are doing so as a way to affirm their gender. That is no different than what any culture that accepts gender non-conforming, which includes trans people, allows those people to do. The only thing that is different is we now have medicine and technology to help trans people.

Anyone who wants to make a culture of acceptance for gender non-conforming people should allow those people to make their own health care decisions.

I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, “We are using the same words, but they all mean different things.” It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That’s how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.

That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.

I used to think that as well. Now I think that modern conservatism is founded on a rejection of modernity. Conservatives do not want to be a break to make sure progress is slow but steady. They want to turn the car around and drive the other way. People who are willing to try new things aren’t above pointing out something was a mistake. Progressives can try a new idea and then reject it based on new evidence. Progressives do no need a mechanism that is constantly trying to wrench the steering wheel out of their hands and turn the car around in an endless exercise of driving in circles.

What a mix of progressive and conservative people actually leads to is an absolute deadlock in government. Conservatives are not simply hesitant to try new things. They would rather die than see the world change. And they would rather blame their problems on immigrants, people of color, lgbtq+ people, anyone other than their political views that are derailing our economy and the planet’s environment.

We can have disagreements on policy and implementations. Two sides to an argument can allow a person to walk down the middle. But that’s not what we have currently with progressives and conservatives. There is plenty of room for discussion on how to go about solving a problem like climate change. But that isn’t the kind of discussion we are having with conservatives. Conservatives are fundamentally opposed to the idea that there are existential problems that need to be solved. And the only problems that they do see are other people.

I believe that is actually a popular fact. What is the opinion?

Would we still have the executive branch or just Congress and the Supreme Court?