Migrated from rainynight65@feddit.de, which now appears to be dead. Sadly lost my comment history in the process. Let’s start fresh.

  • 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2024

help-circle




  • Railway and train modellers, of all scales. To their credit, a fair fee people are becoming more open, but especially modelling clubs are often run by old white men with questionable politics and problematic behaviours. They will sneer at anything that’s not steam, or at people who run modern instead of vintage trains, or who don’t get a train model exactly right the way the original ran that one time in the mid 50s from Bumfuck, Idaho to the middle of nowhere. They have little patience for newbies who might not have internalised all the lingo, or who might need something explained in simple English. If you build something that is not an exact replica of a real world location, they’ll say you’re not doing model railway, but merely toy trains. And then these same people go and wonder why they can’t attract new people to the hobby.



  • As an older metalhead, this makes me a bit sad, but I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. The metal scene I joined in the early 90s did have its tolerance problems specifically against other music genres, but I never knew it as particularly gatekeepy, at least the circles I socialised with and the concerts and festivals I went to. There were some people who though you weren’t a real metal fan if you didn’t exclusively listen to metal, but they were a minority. Nobody had a problem with me not particularly liking Slayer or Motörhead, and there was no requirement to have long hair and be covered in leather and/or band patches.



  • Many people suffer from impostor syndrome to a degree. Many people make mistakes even when it comes to subject matters they are very familiar with. Everyone has technical problems every now and then - that’s outside of your control. Technology is finicky and increasingly shit.

    You’ll always get people who think they know better than you, or could do something better than you. But they aren’t. You are. You got where you are through your work and experience. As long you feel that you’re prepared to the best of your ability and knowledge, I think your conscience can be clear.

    You will never have everyone you meet like you. Some people are just basic shitheads, and some of them will write reviews like that precisely to gaslight you into doubting yourself and your abilities. They do it for kicks. If 95% of your reviews are positive, you’re in a good place.


  • These people never walk back their bullshit. When called out on it, they will double down. When proven wrong, they will change the topic. But they need to be seen as strong, and right. Admitting that you’re wrong or even apologising is neither - it’s weak, and it can create doubt. If they were wrong about this, then what else are they wrong about?

    They radicalise their followers with lies and falsehoods, and they can only keep that up if they are not seen as being wrong about what they say. They spread their lies with confidence and zeal, and if reality disagrees, then reality is wrong.




  • But do you have to?

    For me, knowing that the artist is a terrible person ruins the art for me, or at least compromises it to the point where I don’t feel comfortable in my skin continuing to peruse it. And that even if I wouldn’t be buying anything new or otherwise be giving the artist money.

    Take as an example Jon Schaffer, head of metal bad Iced Earth, which I liked quite a bit in the past. Later it became clear that he is at least problematic, and once he was identified as having participated in the January 6 riots, that was the end of it. I still own older Iced Earth CDs, but I can’t listen to them any more.

    Or Joss Whedon, whose work I used to love, and I own a lot of DVDs of his stuff. But watching it now knowing what he’s done particularly to many women he worked with just seriously hinders my enjoyment of what I once really liked.






  • Most of the studies you linked are focused on men. The evidence regarding women is more tenuous.

    Testosterone levels are generally linked to muscle size and strength, as well as higher haemoglobin concentration and thus better oxygen uptake. It has also been associated with more competitiveness in men. In terms of competitiveness, testosterone influences men’s tendency to take more risks, both within and beyond sports.

    There is limited research on how testosterone affects women (or how oestrogen affects men). Men and women generally do not have overlapping ranges of testosterone. In her book Better Faster Farther: How Running Changed Everything We Know About Women, Maggie Mertens writes that averages can mask the great diversity of hormone ranges.

    There isn’t a clear linear relationship between testosterone levels and performance, says Mertens, a journalist focusing on sports and gender. “In fact, a lot of very elite male athletes have pretty low testosterone levels overall on average.” One endocrinology study found low testosterone concentrations in one-quarter of men competing in 12 of the 15 Olympic sports analysed. And Mertens says even women with hyperandrogenism, who can have testosterone levels that reach typical male ranges, don’t have the same level of performance as men.

    Emphases mine.

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men


  • You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

    Or sometimes it was just done to stop women from beating men.

    In the 1992 Olympics, a woman won gold in the mixed sex skeet shooting category, beating male competitors.

    In 1996 women were barred from the erstwhile mixed event, but did not get a separate category either. Only from the 2000 Olympics a separate women’s skeet shooting event was established.