Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[ozleicester]

[Jon the Hat]

58 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

It's amazing then how those trans athletes are competing at the elite level when they choose to compete as women isn't it?  Anyway the point is a female athlete misses out at any level if a TW takes their place unfairly.

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's amazing then how those trans athletes are competing at the elite level when they choose to compete as women isn't it?  Anyway the point is a female athlete misses out at any level if a TW takes their place unfairly.

One instance is too many - fair enough.

 

It's unfortunate that argument isn't extended into other areas of womens rights.

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sure this can wait, have a good evening

OK then...

 

Firstly, the whole argument regarding "men identifying as women" is incredibly simplistic, considering how we define such is entirely subjective both socially and scientifically.

 

Genitalia? Is a bloke who has to have extensive surgery for penile or testicular cancer or a woman that has a hysterectomy no longer a man or woman, then?

Chromosomal data? Is that something that someone relies upon at first sight (or indeed in any way beyond a blood test) for sex identification and classification, to say nothing of the multitude of different chromosomal makeups some people have.

Secondary characteristics/appearance? I'll lay good money that many people walk past a trans person in the street and assume them to be the gender they have transitioned to - "passing", with today's science, is easier to do.

 

The wholesale definitions are a matter of debate and far from cut and dried, and that's my point - yes, I come down on one side of that debate, but more than that I acknowledge that such a debate exists, not that such things are immutable which is patently untrue given what we know.

 

And that leads into the secondly...how someone defines men and women also defines how they look at the "rights" of both. Separating the rights of trans women and womens rights in general and stating, as per above, that the differences are immutable, is likewise an inaccurate position to take. Again, though I come down on one side of the fence, I also know that the debate exists.

 

Quite simply, I'm tired of people reducing this very complex matter to a soundbite, often for the purposes of dunking on a community which is already massively marginalised societally (and in some cases institutionally). People are of course welcome to view the matter as they wish - but viewing it as cut and dried and that there is no complexity to it is empirically wrong and I will not hesitate to point that out.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

OK then...

 

Firstly, the whole argument regarding "men identifying as women" is incredibly simplistic, considering how we define such is entirely subjective both socially and scientifically.

 

Genitalia? Is a bloke who has to have extensive surgery for penile or testicular cancer or a woman that has a hysterectomy no longer a man or woman, then?

Chromosomal data? Is that something that someone relies upon at first sight (or indeed in any way beyond a blood test) for sex identification and classification, to say nothing of the multitude of different chromosomal makeups some people have.

Secondary characteristics/appearance? I'll lay good money that many people walk past a trans person in the street and assume them to be the gender they have transitioned to - "passing", with today's science, is easier to do.

 

The wholesale definitions are a matter of debate and far from cut and dried, and that's my point - yes, I come down on one side of that debate, but more than that I acknowledge that such a debate exists, not that such things are immutable which is patently untrue given what we know.

 

And that leads into the secondly...how someone defines men and women also defines how they look at the "rights" of both. Separating the rights of trans women and womens rights in general and stating, as per above, that the differences are immutable, is likewise an inaccurate position to take. Again, though I come down on one side of the fence, I also know that the debate exists.

 

Quite simply, I'm tired of people reducing this very complex matter to a soundbite, often for the purposes of dunking on a community which is already massively marginalised societally (and in some cases institutionally). People are of course welcome to view the matter as they wish - but viewing it as cut and dried and that there is no complexity to it is empirically wrong and I will not hesitate to point that out.

I do not dispute any of what you say, but I see this as a smaller issue, an issue suffered by a smaller percentage of the population than say far more pressing issues such as domestic violence. Some of the nigh on outrage here feels over promoted too me, and asking people without the same experiences to share the level of empathy is misplaced, something common in todays society which edges towards libertarian oneupmanship.

 

In short, yes, it is valid what you say, but from  a personal standpoint, it does not warrant the outrage, unlike wider woman’s right or repression,  except to those unfortunate enough to suffer from it, or those promoting their libertarian viewpoints front and centre.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I do not dispute any of what you say, but I see this as a smaller issue, an issue suffered by a smaller percentage of the population than say far more pressing issues such as domestic violence. Some of the nigh on outrage here feels over promoted too me, and asking people without the same experiences to share the level of empathy is misplaced, something common in todays society which edges towards libertarian oneupmanship.

 

In short, yes, it is valid what you say, but from  a personal standpoint, it does not warrant the outrage, unlike wider woman’s right or repression,  except to those unfortunate enough to suffer from it, or those promoting their libertarian viewpoints front and centre.

Personally I'm thinking that empathy is needed in the vast majority of situations in general, but point taken about it all being perhaps disproportionate.

[Sly]

On the British Empires / evil debate:

”History is written by the victor”.

 

On the transgender issue within sport:

”it’s unfair to allow a person compete within a woman’s sport, if they still

have the physical characteristics of a man; if you can quantify they haven’t, I’ve no issue with them competing”. ……. How you quantify, I’ve no idea. 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I'm thinking that empathy is needed in the vast majority of situations in general, but point taken about it all being perhaps disproportionate.

Totally this, empathy is the greatest weapon against those that will vilify, and also bear in mind that like natural resources, peoples capacity for empathy does have a limit and calling it for it on all things dilutes it’s effectiveness.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

 

 

On the transgender issue within sport:

”it’s unfair to allow a person compete within a woman’s sport, if they still

have the physical characteristics of a man; if you can quantify they haven’t, I’ve no issue with them competing”. ……. How you quantify, I’ve no idea. 

The quantification is of course the biggest thing and no one really has any idea what definition scientifially fits, which is why it's such a complex issue.

 

2 hours ago, Sly said:

On the British Empires / evil debate:

”History is written by the victor”.

 

Yep, which is why those historical figures aren't examined in a more critical light than maybe they deserve.

 

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Totally this, empathy is the greatest weapon against those that will vilify, and also bear in mind that like natural resources, peoples capacity for empathy does have a limit and calling it for it on all things dilutes it’s effectiveness.

There's something in that.

[leicsmac]

And looking at something that was mentioned on the main forum, another unpopular opinion:

 

Football analytics (including xG) is a vital part of the success of every single Premier League club and probably more besides and those that dismiss it are overly romantic Luddites who hark for a rose tinted view of the past.

[Aus Fox]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And looking at something that was mentioned on the main forum, another unpopular opinion:

 

Football analytics (including xG) is a vital part of the success of every single Premier League club and probably more besides and those that dismiss it are overly romantic Luddites who hark for a rose tinted view of the past.

Now here’s an unpopular opinion, XG is the most meaningless stat in football, and I wouldn’t consider myself a Luddite when it comes to stats and data analysis, as this is what I do.

The problem with XG is there are too many uncontrollable variables for it to ever to be meaningful. 
It’s one thing when it’s used over time,to identify patterns and trends, but more and more it’s being used in individual games, which is ridiculous.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Now here’s an unpopular opinion, XG is the most meaningless stat in football, and I wouldn’t consider myself a Luddite when it comes to stats and data analysis, as this is what I do.

The problem with XG is there are too many uncontrollable variables for it to ever to be meaningful. 
It’s one thing when it’s used over time,to identify patterns and trends, but more and more it’s being used in individual games, which is ridiculous.

That's what I was referring to in the first instance, for the sake of clarity.

 

My viewpoint is towards those who would reject it wholesale.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And looking at something that was mentioned on the main forum, another unpopular opinion:

 

Football analytics (including xG) is a vital part of the success of every single Premier League club and probably more besides and those that dismiss it are overly romantic Luddites who hark for a rose tinted view of the past.

My issue with xG is that people will use it as a measure of which team "should" have won a match. It's just one of a hoard of statistics that are collected. Sure analytics are important, but a lot of it comes down to how you use them. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

My issue with xG is that people will use it as a measure of which team "should" have won a match. It's just one of a hoard of statistics that are collected. Sure analytics are important, but a lot of it comes down to how you use them. 

Yep, no disagreement there.

 

Again, my point was directed towards those who think they have no value at all and such data is irrelevant, because reasons.

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

My issue with xG is that people will use it as a measure of which team "should" have won a match. It's just one of a hoard of statistics that are collected. Sure analytics are important, but a lot of it comes down to how you use them. 

I'm probably the biggest proponent of xG on the whole forum and almost always caveat the use of it. Football is so good because of the variance, a team can win without taking a single shot (admittedly <0.01% chance) so having a more objective measure of the quality of chances is really useful. 

 

How many fans say "we should have won, we battered them today"? As soon as that sentiment is quantified people (not you necessarily) start to dislike it.

 

A lot ox xG's detractors use arguments that actually support it. "The number of shots is misleading, they might be potshots from 30 yards!!!"

"xG solves this"

"Too many variables!!!!"

 

Which is flippant but basically how it goes. 

 

 

[Wymsey]

Environmental protesters aren't exactly helping matters/making their protests work by gluing themselves to tables and organisations' head offices..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61147739

 

It's becoming a regular theme now.

[Stadt]

Guardiola and Klopp are are actually underrated as managers.

 

Give us or West Ham (Wolves, Villa, whoever) a £1,000,000,000 transfer budget over the next three years and none of us still win the league whilst Pep and Klopp are at their current clubs.

Edited 19 April 2022 by Stadt

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Guardiola and Klopp are are actually underrated as managers.

 

Give us or West Ham (Wolves, Villa, whoever) a £1,000,000 transfer budget over the next three years and none of us still win the league whilst Pep and Klopp are at their current clubs.

I mean. £1,000,000 didn’t even buy us Vardy from the Conference so I’d imagine that isn’t that unpopular.

[bovril]

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Environmental protesters aren't exactly helping matters/making their protests work by gluing themselves to tables and organisations' head offices..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-61147739

 

It's becoming a regular theme now.

I don't even think that's unpopular - it's clearly not helping public opinion.

 

As I've said a few times, however, none of that changes the empirically proven facts of the matter, nor the consequences thereof - so it probably would be a good idea to address that rather than worrying about the method of the messenger.

[ealingfox]

25 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Guardiola and Klopp are are actually underrated as managers.

 

Give us or West Ham (Wolves, Villa, whoever) a £1,000,000 transfer budget over the next three years and none of us still win the league whilst Pep and Klopp are at their current clubs.

 

Well neither of them won anything in their first seasons and Klopp took four years to win anything at all so you're hardly sticking your neck out even if you mean £1b which I presume you do. 

 

Clinton Morrison posed an interesting question on Soccer Special yesterday claiming that neither Guardiola nor Klopp could have kept Derby up.

 

 

[Jimothy]

 

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't even think that's unpopular - it's clearly not helping public opinion.

 

As I've said a few times, however, none of that changes the empirically proven facts of the matter, nor the consequences thereof - so it probably would be a good idea to address that rather than worrying about the method of the messenger.

Well it is fine to address the method of the messenger. Because the grand picture of all this is out of our hands ultimately. We can all do our little bit, but for wholesale changes we need the government to do things, change infrastructure etc. I get the protesters are trying to force that, but my immediate concern is getting where I'm going/doing my job, and if they are preventing that, I'm going to get annoyed and in all honesty I'm less likely to listen to what they want.

 

In summary, go make the politicians life a living hell, not mine. I know they think by causing massive disruption people will listen, they won't, they just want them to **** off out the way. We, the public can't make the big changes, only the government, but it's our day they spoil.

[Stadt]

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Well neither of them won anything in their first seasons and Klopp took four years to win anything at all so you're hardly sticking your neck out even if you mean £1b which I presume you do. 

 

Clinton Morrison posed an interesting question on Soccer Special yesterday claiming that neither Guardiola nor Klopp could have kept Derby up.

 

 

Accidental Old Bob, £1m! football's gone mad.

[Soar Fox]

Klopp is the better manager out of him & Pep. As much as I dislike him, Liverpool play a better style of football imo, Klopp has built a team instead of just be a cheque book manager. 
 

The clubs that he’s managed and the amount of money he’s had to spend Pep only winning 2 Champions League’s (his last one being 11 years ago) is not very impressive. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

 

Well it is fine to address the method of the messenger. Because the grand picture of all this is out of our hands ultimately. We can all do our little bit, but for wholesale changes we need the government to do things, change infrastructure etc. I get the protesters are trying to force that, but my immediate concern is getting where I'm going/doing my job, and if they are preventing that, I'm going to get annoyed and in all honesty I'm less likely to listen to what they want.

 

In summary, go make the politicians life a living hell, not mine. I know they think by causing massive disruption people will listen, they won't, they just want them to **** off out the way. We, the public can't make the big changes, only the government, but it's our day they spoil.

I see where you're coming from.

 

However, as right as it is that it is pretty much solely in the hands of world governments, as far as I'm concerned they're either going to act in time or not - what these protestors do is immaterial, other than, as you say, being an damned annoyance to the public. I don't actually think targetting the government would help on that one either.

 

That's what I mean when I say to look at the message, not the messenger, because these messengers actually have zero bearing on what is going to be done or not done about this IMO. The facts are as they are, people gluing themselves to pavements won't change them, so world governments have a simple choice with the data in hand - do what is necessary or not.