Ulty

12 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

That’s possible.  But, you risk the DR telling your wife you can return to light duty after 72 hours. Don’t want to risk her thinking you can do something on Sunday. 
 

I had mine at a relatively young age (32) and have always been a pretty fast healer, but 72 hours was not nearly enough healing time. I was able to return to my desk job of course, but for at least a week, every step I walked gave me that little stomach ache that you get when you get kicked in the balls. I wore a jock strap to keep things from being unnecessarily jostled for at least a couple weeks, until the stitches fully healed.

However, I will say that sitting on the couch with an ice pack (or a bag of frozen peas) on your balls is an underrated pleasure. I might actually recommend the occasional lounge sesh with ice on your nuts even if you haven't had a recent vasectomy.

37 minutes ago, TonyStalloni said:

There are reasons that coaches should not have relationships with players and I'm betting it is part of a code of conduct that is part of their contract. Coaches determine playing time and when a player needs to be taken out of a game. If that judgement is skewered by the coaches feelings for one of the players then his loyalty to his head coach, the university and the other players is in question. 

Not just a contractual issue, but also likely policy violations and legal issues. I don't know UNL's specific policies, but I would bet they have something about prohibiting romantic relationships where there is a power disparity, such as professor/student, supervisor/employee, or coach/athlete. Also because of that power disparity, it could become a Title IX issue if there was ever a question of consent, harassment, or quid pro quo. 

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

This isn't an explicit example of racism, but I found the execution and reaction to this Google Pixel Super Bowl ad interesting and problematic. Seems like a lot of other people did, too.

 

TL;DR for those who didn't see it: Google's ad shows photos of black people having their photo taken in dark environments, lamenting that it's difficult to see themselves because of their skin tone. Google then showcases that their new phone has skin tone technology to help bring out their skin color better.

 

The reaction to the ad seems to be REALLY hit or miss, particularly within the black community. A lot of people feel pandered too because many of the black people in the 'new' photos have lighter skin tones than the 'old' photos. Or that Google is (jokingly) calling other cameras racist. I myself found the ad a bit odd because it's pretty clear all of their new 'look we solved this problem!' photos were taken in like... broad f'ing daylight. So of course people are going to look better. Lighting is literally what makes or breaks a photo, so if you take a photo in a dark bowling alley... of course it's going to look worse than one taken in the middle of a park on a Tuesday afternoon.

 

 

This is moreso an exclusion/inclusion issue. 

I know jack $h!t about camera technology and lighting, but there are quite a few examples of technological conveniences that do not work as well for people of color as they do for white people. For example, those automatic faucets and soap dispensers in many public restrooms: many of them do not work well with darker skin. This technology was probably not intentionally designed to be racist, but it is a distinct possibility that the programmers or engineers or whoever makes these things were not thinking about how their censors would recognize skin tones different than their own. 

Check out this article: "Bigotry Encoded: Racial Bias in Technology". A few interesting paragraphs:

Quote

This epic design flaw may seem hilarious on the internet, but demonstrates a major issue with many technology-based companies: diversity. The soap dispenser was created by a company called Technical Concepts, which unintentionally made a discriminatory soap dispenser because no one at the company thought to test their product on dark skin.

 

According to Alec Harris, a fourth year Manufacturing Engineering Technology major and the Pre-Collegiate Initiative Chair for National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) chapter, this is an endemic problem within the tech industry.

 

“If you have an office full of white people, whatever products that come out of that office are more likely to be geared more towards white people. The less diversity there is in a workplace environment, the more likely major design flaws will be present that only affect people of color,” Harris said.

Quote

 facial recognition software has consistently shown racial bias when identifying faces. From iPhone’s face unlock not being able to differentiate between two colleagues in China to Google Photos mistakenly tagging two black friends in a selfie as gorillas, algorithms still fail at recognizing and distinguishing people of color. I'm a black woman and I've even been locked out of my Surface because Windows Hello couldn’t detect my face. Yet the ramifications run much deeper than shoddy cell phones now that facial recognition software is being introduced into policing.

 

“Facial-recognition systems are more likely either to misidentify or fail to identify African Americans than other races, errors that could result in innocent citizens being marked as suspects in crimes,” according to the Atlantic. 

 

The consequences are clear: technology is becoming a white people’s brand. Caitlin Pope is a third year student of Applied Arts and Sciences and noted how tech companies run the risk of alienating its diverse users. “If there was more diversity in the tech industry, then not only would there be more products that suit people of every skin tone, but it will develop each company as a brand to unify themselves instead of having consumers say, ‘That’s a white brand,'” Pope said.

Now in the case of the Google Pixel ad...of course we all look like crap in crappy lighting, and if you have darker skin you "blend in" to a darker environment when a photo is taken. That doesn't mean that the sun or our light bulbs are racist. However, if they are trying to enhance technology so that photographing people of color can be clearer and easier, why is that a bad thing? What does this say about people who have a negative reaction to this kind of accessibility?

edit: Enhance, I believe your point is about the tricky advertising, using lighter skinned models in the sunshine versus darker skinned folks in bad lighting. If their tech is as good as they say, that would be a great thing, but show an actual comparison. Is that what you are saying?

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

I agree with most of the rest of the post, can you expand on this?

Not much to explain...usually when people are complaining about cancel culture, they are often just mad that someone might have to face social consequences for being an a$shole, instead of actually reflecting upon their behavior. 

Pleeeeease don't use this to start arguing about cancel culture. The last couple pages of this thread have been a pretty good dialogue about the use of the n-word. 

Let's make it simple, guys. Don't say the n-word. Full stop. Just don't. If you feel like you must reference it for some reason, there is no need to say the actual word. Just say "the n-word." 

I used to listen to the odd Joe Rogan snippet on Youtube, and one of the most fascinating guests that I ever heard was a black man named Darryl Davis who had infiltrated and befriended a KKK group. I don't really think Joe Rogan is racist, but he has a wide variety of characters on his show and has an amazing tolerance for allowing guests to say ignorant $h!t on his show as well (in addition to very intelligent, progressive, and fascinating guests as well). And he says stupid $h!t himself.

I don't know the full context of when and how he used the n-word in the past, but I can guarantee you that it was unnecessary for him to use it, and regardless of his intent, the use of that word is harmful. I'm more interested in what he does moving forward, if this whole thing can be used as an educational launching pad for further understanding the dynamics of the word, language itself, and race relations.

But more likely, a lot of @ssholes will probably just complain about cancel culture and not even try to learn anything. 

1 hour ago, default_28 said:

I have done blind root beer taste tests with my family and friends a few times. I give them samples of 18-22 different brands of root beer

8 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I try my best to not offend people (in the real world anyway, not necessarily here on HB ) but it is all becoming a little convoluted imo. I’m pretty much of the opinion people can do or feel or identify as they see fit but I get a bit more reluctant when it comes to understanding or accepting some of these things. It sort of strikes me like some are trying to make it almost impossible. But I also often identify as an uncaring prick, so there is that 

Ya know...it's a really cool feeling, liberating actually, when you stop giving a $h!t about what other people do or how other people identify. If someone is disgusted or confused because they see a transgender person, that's their own f*&king problem. If you (not you specifically JJ, but y'all in general) don't worry about what is in someone's pants or in their bedroom if it doesn't impact you, then you might find life more pleasant. Even if you can't understand or accept the messy complications of gender dynamics, it's not harming anyone just to leave them alone. And most transgender folks and others in the LGBTQ+ community are reasonable people and just want to live their lives (sure some can be unreasonable, but that goes in all communities).

So you can still be an uncaring prick but yet be cool at the same time, right?

It's when people (I'll go ahead and say Republicans, mostly) go out of their way to marginalize or demean these folks and try to regulate/legislate the sexual activities and bodies of others that it becomes a problem. That's where the fight is. 

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-transgender-menstrual-products-20191112-2rqexd75efezhp2r4oy7njdmju-story.html
 

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1006906

Huh. These are actually some very fascinating articles. If someone were to read these articles with a preconceived notion of outrage and disgust, they will likely walk away from these articles with even more outrage and disgust. However, starting from a place of open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity, a reader will come away with a better understanding of these concepts and more knowledge (and likely even more questions).

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

As you said, age is just a number that shows how long your body has been on this earth.  It doesn’t show how mentally mature you are, or what age you identify with.  There are laws based on arbitrary numbers that really mean nothing.  That said….

 

Why can’t a mature teenager legally drink.   An arbitrary age to drink alcohol is just that, an arbitrary number.  It’s a number assigned based on the assumption that at 21. Our minds and bodies are developed enough to handle alcohol.   I’m quite certain a certain percentage of the under 21 population is mentally and physically developed enough to handle alcohol or gamble or smoke or buy handguns etc…so why doesn’t the law allow this carve out for those mature beyond their years?   
 

65 is just an arbitrary number for Medicare and SSI, so why can’t someone who feels like and identifies more with that age group, get those benefits?  Why is there not a carve out for those who identify this way.   There are people who’s bodies develop early or late or degrade early or late based on genetics but we treat them all the same based on a number of years they have been on this earth.  

These are all very valid and reasonable questions and comments about age dynamics and norms in our society. Drinking age, retirement age, and other age-related statuses are determined by lawmakers and companies, often using statistical data, sometimes possibly arbitrary. This would be an interesting discussion, maybe someone here can do some research to enlighten us about how these age thresholds were determined, and there can be a separate thread about it. But of course none of this is at all germane to the topic of gender identity.

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If what you are saying is correct, then why doesn’t this thought process carry over to age?   You’ve definitely heard the expression that someone is wise beyond his/her age.  So why can’t that person identify as someone older and get the benefits of being that age? 

I'm not sure if this is even a serious question, but I'll play along. Age and gender identity are completely different things. Apples and oranges. Age is a number based on a date which you are born. It is a concrete data point. We all progress in age in a linear fashion every single day (unless you are Benjamin Button). Having said that, ageism is a very real thing, and people often make assumptions about someone else's age based on stereotypes that may or may not be true. There are legal protections against age discrimination for this reason. But, you can't factually say you are a different age than you actually are.

Now, even if you believe that sex is an either/or scenario (even biological sex is not a black and white issue, there are several different chromosome combinations), sex is different than gender. That is the first thing that people often have trouble grasping. Sex assigned at birth is a physical/biological thing. Gender (including who you personally identify, and how you express that identity) is a social construct, often based on traditional norms and expectations. 

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I get what you are saying in that someone somewhere had those thoughts that being born a man a man or a woman a woman doesn’t make you that.  But what makes that person right?  Science sure doesn’t.  

What science are you talking about? Biology? As I mentioned above, biologically there are a variety of chromosomal combinations, not just XX and XY, and some people are born with hormones and internal plumbing that does not match their external hardware. The biology is not as simple as you think it is. Additionally, there is a whole field of social science that explores the concepts of gender dynamics and sexuality. Our understanding of it is continually evolving. So yeah, the science does support the notion of a spectrum of gender identities. 

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Are we the only species this stuff applies too?

Nope. There are a lot of species that have been known to change their sex. There are a lot of species that engage in homosexual activities. Nature is pretty wild.

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

But when people start to tell me that men can have their period or give birth, I kinda draw the line there.

Who has been telling you these things?

46 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

This is a really good post. I agree.

 

Most of my problem with a lot of these things is I don’t want to understand them. Life was so much simpler when there were just boys and girls and they were easily identified by the anatomical parts they were born with. However, I really have tried to understand some of these labels, like non-binary, and discovered I just don’t have the capability. A friend of ours son claims he is non-binary and I have read up on it and had people try to explain it to me and I’m more confused now than I was before I’d even heard of it.

 

This is where a lot of people are, but not everyone is as honest about it as you. But the truth is, a lot of this information is new, and uncomfortable, and quickly evolving. We all make mistakes when it comes to gendering and pronouns, and even having the capacity to understand. 

I work in a DEI field, and it is hard for me to keep up, so it is going to naturally be difficult for folks who live and work in other walks of life. I took a Safe Zone training in 2018 (a training program to encourage inclusivity and awareness of LGBTQ+ issues), and then took it again last month, and a lot of the concepts, terms, and language have already changed. I try to be very intentional with my language but in a conversation with our school's LGBTQ Coordinator a couple weeks ago I said "guys" in reference to a group of people. I called myself on it, and we both laughed because it was an unintentional mistake. She admitted that she still uses the wrong language at times too, and it is her job. It happens. We just need to be willing to learn and grow as humans, and realize that we all make mistakes and nobody is perfect.

14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I understand and have some difficulty with this, too. It's difficult to always remember to use preferred pronouns, and I've messed that up a few times. I give my best effort, but it's not natural to me. 

 

All we can do is make a genuine effort to see those folks as they want to be seen. And hope they understand when we mess up. 

Excellent post.

12 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

This is prolly the wrong thread but what up with the recent Jeopardy champion. She (former he) is trans but is in a gay relationship with a woman…..

Does this confuse anybody else? Isn’t that the equivalent of a double negative? Is it really a gay relationship if it’s a former male with a female? So many questions.

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

I will take "Still confused" for 500.

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s easy and damned you for not understanding this.  An easy example would be whenever you want to start collecting social security, just identify as a 65 yr old.  If you say you come from the Metaverse, age and time are just a construct and no one can tell you otherwise or they are racist or bigoted, ageist, or some other ‘ist because they are ignorant of how you identify.  

Sexuality, gender identity, sexual orienation, romantic attraction, and gender expression all exist on a spectrum, and none of them are as simple as male/female. A lot of these things are difficult to grasp for those of us (which to say almost all of us) who grew up understanding these concepts as a simple dichotomy. But the world is more nuanced and complicated than that.

It takes a willingness to try to understand society and your fellow human to really open up to these ideas.

17 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Lol. Which part of that is racist?

Do you remember what Jimmy the Greek said? Racism is built upon applying crude stereotypes toward an entire population. You're throwing around stereotypes about black athletes so casually, then using your stereotype to draw some gross conclusions about both whites and blacks. 

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Why "should" this be? It's no secret why there are  many more black athletes at the professional level than white athletes. Black people are genetically much more gifted athletes, on average, than White people. So naturally, in a "let the best man win" environment, the black/better athletes are going to rise to the top of their profession. How much athletic ability does it take to run and/or coach a professional sports team? It would appear the answer to that is next to none. In that role of the professional sports world, intellect is what matters. Leadership matters. All of which White people seem to be at least just as capable of doing. Equal representation doesn't matter on the field of play, and it shouldn't matter in any organization where the goal is to win. Let the best man win. Always.

 

Wow! This is old school Jimmy the Greek type of racism. Jesus.

Hold up, this calls for a few questions...

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

He has been told that it will be very hard to get a head coaching job (like the guy above him) because he's white.

Who told him this?

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Athletic departments are graded on their diversity.  And, for every black HC, you get a point.

Who conducts this grading? How does the point system work? Where can we find this data?

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, because every college looks at it the same.

Please explain this.

This is inflammatory stuff that needs some critical thinking, and evidence, to go along with it.

I couldn't find a listing of NCAA track & field coaches, so I looked up the individual Big Ten schools (hardly a representative sample of the entire college landscape, I know). Of the 13 men's programs (couldn't find a men's team for Northwestern), some of which had the women's and men's team under the same head coach, I found two black men, one black woman, one white woman, and nine white men. I'm sure (I hope) the assistant pools are more diverse, and a broader look at more schools at various divisions may give different data...but are white coaches really being discriminated against?

5 hours ago, Dogs In A Pile said:

6-6 - Goes to a bowl and will automatically get another year(s). Program back to where it needs to be.

A 6-6 record is where the program needs to be?

39 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Whats remarkable to me is how much of the stories here sound like the stories of people who have chosen to leave the Mormon Church or Church of Scientology (not trying to put these two religions on the same level in case we have any Mormon posters.) 

 

 

14 minutes ago, sho said:

Going to use this as an unoffical Marvel thread.   New trailer for Doctor Strange 2.

 

And 3 days until I can finally see NWH.

 

 

They showed this same footage (although parts of it in a slightly different order) in the second post-credits clip after NWH.

31 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Did you see Avengers: Endgame in the theater? It was almost like a rock concert with as much cheering and crowd participation as there was. 

I did, but it was a month after it came out, during a daytime matinee, so there wasn't much of a crowd. I always thought it was weird to clap at a movie, but the excitement and energy from the hardcore fans this weekend was honestly kind of cool. Especially since I haven't been in a theater for nearly 2 years. 

I saw it over the weekend: our theater must have been filled with a lot of hardcore fans, there were no less than four times that the crowd applauded and cheered during the movie. I've never been to any movie where that has happened before. 

I am frequently amazed and impressed by Marvel's ability to cleverly write and produce movies with so many characters woven in to the story and so much stuff going on, without having it feel like a bloated disaster (like the other Spider-Man 3, for example). I don't know how they keep pulling it off.

So if Nebraska plays against Adrian's KSU team in a bowl game next year, which team commits the most errors in the last two minutes of the game?

Kidding aside, remember when Russell Wilson was kind of okay at NC State but then had an amazing transfer year at Wisconsin? I can see AM doing something similar if he has a good supporting cast around him at KSU.

14 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Doubleing-down...

 

 

Quote

“They’ll win you two and they’ll lose you four.”

That is still better than our win percentage this year...

2 hours ago, nic said:

Sorry but I don’t want to divulge names and classes now that I mentioned the universities. I have been down this road before with someone on this board where more answers just led to more detailed questions. I believe their premise was that I was lying, or the people who told me about their encounters were lying, and they were just going to keep up the conversation like a trial lawyer. I work, so I don’t have much time to immediately answer questions and it gets tiresome. I have no reason to believe that the people were lying to me about these two situations. I think that spending time refreshing the details for you really doesn’t have a purpose, because I do not think you will believe it anyway.

If you are referring to our conversation a while back about the old man who was subject to cancel culture or some such thing, I never accused you of lying, but I did ask a lot of questions to implore some critical thinking about the subject, because there were a lot of things that did not make sense to me. That is how conversations work. I believe knapplc is asking similar questions to try to understand these incidents you are referring to. 
 

I am interested as well. I work on a college campus and routinely see potential challenges to issues that we would typically consider matters of free speech or academic freedom. It happens to on the liberal side and conservative side alike. However, there are students, faculty members, general counsels, and civil rights investigators who give a very critical eye to all of these incidents when they occur. It is very common for people to have a misunderstanding of what is actually happening and what is and isn’t allowed to happen at a public university. What knapplc is asking for are details so we can apply some critical thought. Feel free to engage!

3 minutes ago, huskerfan99 said:

Still holding out hope for a bomb recruiter
 

 

Like this guy?