Most forum guests are long time users. I've been on this site for over 15 years. There is no incentive to register a name though. I wish they would require it, because the amount of trolling and terrible threads would decrease....but trolling makes the brojos $$$ so they won't ever require it.
did this get reposted to reddit or shared by Vaush or something? Seems like most of the registered users at least got a chuckle out of this and the ones seething are all forum guests..
Think again, chumpo.
Yeah well I didn't even read the article because I don't care. I just glanced through the first few pages and saw that about 75% of registered users took it well and 25% found it offensive. That is about what I would expect. The thread keeps crashing for me so I'm not able to tally them up in full, but something seems fishy about the nature and magnitude of the reaction from forum-guests and the comment vote-counts.
Do you think making the point is worth the backlash? Not being critical, genuine question
Been off this thread for about 24 hours. I’ll probably write more tomorrow. I don’t mind taking some backlash but my general inclination is I misread our audience.
The article wasn’t really directed at the main LetsRun audience . Just the people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for Lia Thomas to win NCAA titles as a woman. But I didn’t think a lot of the LetsRun audience would think I was punching down at someone. Some people who I respect said it sort of misfired for them so everything I know I think I’d try and see if I could get the same point across in a different way .
Did it ever cross your mind that this is the main letsrun audience? Those of us who generally just read but don't "contribute" because the forum is a cesspool of hate?
Why did you delete my last comment? Brojos are typical middle-aged white males, not so different from the Infowars-types that are on this site. Fragile.
The biggest objection I have is it wasn’t clever at all. You guys are smarter than this. For you to try to be funny by saying you were wrong and that biological males do not have an athletic advantage on average is just utter stupidity so it is a pathetic effort at humor. Do better or stop the April Fools if you can do no better.
Been off this thread for about 24 hours. I’ll probably write more tomorrow. I don’t mind taking some backlash but my general inclination is I misread our audience.
The article wasn’t really directed at the main LetsRun audience . Just the people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for Lia Thomas to win NCAA titles as a woman. But I didn’t think a lot of the LetsRun audience would think I was punching down at someone. Some people who I respect said it sort of misfired for them so everything I know I think I’d try and see if I could get the same point across in a different way .
Rojo wrote the article, yes? So while we appreciate your humility, we need to hear it from the person who wrote it. After all, Rojo is a co-CEO. So he needs to act like the adult in the room
Contrary to popular belief, I wrote the article. Rojo edited or contributed to it after I wrote the initial piece.
Rojo wrote the article, yes? So while we appreciate your humility, we need to hear it from the person who wrote it. After all, Rojo is a co-CEO. So he needs to act like the adult in the room
Contrary to popular belief, I wrote the article. Rojo edited or contributed to it after I wrote the initial piece.
Wejo the article was hilarious, don’t waste your time in this thread.
Why did you delete my last comment? Brojos are typical middle-aged white males, not so different from the Infowars-types that are on this site. Fragile.
I don’t see a deleted post by you. You can view your posts if you use the created post tab.
The biggest objection I have is it wasn’t clever at all. You guys are smarter than this. For you to try to be funny by saying you were wrong and that biological males do not have an athletic advantage on average is just utter stupidity so it is a pathetic effort at humor. Do better or stop the April Fools if you can do no better.
The initial feedback internally was that it wasn’t that funny. I sort of said ‘ok.’ I’d have rather have it be funny but the main point I was trying to make was someone else could write a piece saying biological men don’t have an advantage in female sport and some would accept it. I was just trying to poke fun at that.
Robert in one set of edits I thought spiced it up and made it funnier . But some then felt it was funny at expense of Lia Thomas so we tried to remove that. Clearly jumbled the end result for some.
I initially had the word penis in the title to make this all very explicit. But I told the rest of the LetsRun team that was more for rhetorical effect to really hammer the point home and that it didn’t have to be there. I know technically a penis isn’t the reason biological men on average are better than biological women at sport but it represent the sex differences more than anything. But someone said pointing out many transgender women have penises is offensive. Perhaps it is but is true.
What if I had written an article saying ‘NCAA says biological men are the future of Women’s sport’ ?
That might be a more light hearted way to get the some point across? for those most upset with the article I understand it missed the mark but would that have been acceptable to you?
Could I ever use the word penis in the article? Or is that some sort of line in the sand thing?
Feel free to email me as well. I’ve only received one social media message on this article. Don’t think I’ve received a single email. Maybe they all think rojo wrote it .
The biggest objection I have is it wasn’t clever at all. You guys are smarter than this. For you to try to be funny by saying you were wrong and that biological males do not have an athletic advantage on average is just utter stupidity so it is a pathetic effort at humor. Do better or stop the April Fools if you can do no better.
The initial feedback internally was that it wasn’t that funny. I sort of said ‘ok.’ I’d have rather have it be funny but the main point I was trying to make was someone else could write a piece saying biological men don’t have an advantage in female sport and some would accept it. I was just trying to poke fun at that.
Robert in one set of edits I thought spiced it up and made it funnier . But some then felt it was funny at expense of Lia Thomas so we tried to remove that. Clearly jumbled the end result for some.
I initially had the word penis in the title to make this all very explicit. But I told the rest of the LetsRun team that was more for rhetorical effect to really hammer the point home and that it didn’t have to be there. I know technically a penis isn’t the reason biological men on average are better than biological women at sport but it represent the sex differences more than anything. But someone said pointing out many transgender women have penises is offensive. Perhaps it is but is true.
What if I had written an article saying ‘NCAA says biological men are the future of Women’s sport’ ?
That might be a more light hearted way to get the some point across? for those most upset with the article I understand it missed the mark but would that have been acceptable to you?
Could I ever use the word penis in the article? Or is that some sort of line in the sand thing?
Feel free to email me as well. I’ve only received one social media message on this article. Don’t think I’ve received a single email. Maybe they all think rojo wrote it .
Let me ask this: if I were to write an op-ed piece called "BroJos are trust fund Daddy's money losers who run a niche website full of right-wing nutjobs", you'd probably have a problem with that, right? It's marginally true to some degree but it misses a whole lot of other nuance and context, and is really just presented for shock value without any real interest in telling the full story.
That's basically what you did. For like the millionth time -- and don't think I haven't noticed that you haven't engaged when I brought it up -- if you actually wanted to have a conversation about it and if you actually wanted to argue it in a good-faith, you'd have done a lot more than you did. But you didn't, because you wanted to make stupid, racist out of touch uncle jokes and you wanted to use April Fool's as a cover for it.
The biggest objection I have is it wasn’t clever at all. You guys are smarter than this. For you to try to be funny by saying you were wrong and that biological males do not have an athletic advantage on average is just utter stupidity so it is a pathetic effort at humor. Do better or stop the April Fools if you can do no better.
The initial feedback internally was that it wasn’t that funny. I sort of said ‘ok.’ I’d have rather have it be funny but the main point I was trying to make was someone else could write a piece saying biological men don’t have an advantage in female sport and some would accept it. I was just trying to poke fun at that.
Robert in one set of edits I thought spiced it up and made it funnier . But some then felt it was funny at expense of Lia Thomas so we tried to remove that. Clearly jumbled the end result for some.
I initially had the word penis in the title to make this all very explicit. But I told the rest of the LetsRun team that was more for rhetorical effect to really hammer the point home and that it didn’t have to be there. I know technically a penis isn’t the reason biological men on average are better than biological women at sport but it represent the sex differences more than anything. But someone said pointing out many transgender women have penises is offensive. Perhaps it is but is true.
What if I had written an article saying ‘NCAA says biological men are the future of Women’s sport’ ?
That might be a more light hearted way to get the some point across? for those most upset with the article I understand it missed the mark but would that have been acceptable to you?
Could I ever use the word penis in the article? Or is that some sort of line in the sand thing?
Feel free to email me as well. I’ve only received one social media message on this article. Don’t think I’ve received a single email. Maybe they all think rojo wrote it .
The problem that conservatives have with telling a joke is they focus on the message first. Above all else they want to make sure the bullet points are loud and clear and then they try to dress that up with humor here and there. That is their downfall.
What would have been acceptable? Well a joke is funniest when it punches up. Start there. What you are doing is just piling on, and that rarely comes across as funny to adults. It's the kind of humor of third grade bully and frat boys.
I know..I know....you think you were punching up....at the big bad liberal media that controls the world and is trying to make everyone gay and all that. Obviously, your audience disagreed.
I think your disconnect is that you think you have a good read on the current culture of the modern US and you don't. The fact that you were surprised this didn't go over well is pretty illuminating.
The initial feedback internally was that it wasn’t that funny. I sort of said ‘ok.’ I’d have rather have it be funny but the main point I was trying to make was someone else could write a piece saying biological men don’t have an advantage in female sport and some would accept it. I was just trying to poke fun at that.
Robert in one set of edits I thought spiced it up and made it funnier . But some then felt it was funny at expense of Lia Thomas so we tried to remove that. Clearly jumbled the end result for some.
I initially had the word penis in the title to make this all very explicit. But I told the rest of the LetsRun team that was more for rhetorical effect to really hammer the point home and that it didn’t have to be there. I know technically a penis isn’t the reason biological men on average are better than biological women at sport but it represent the sex differences more than anything. But someone said pointing out many transgender women have penises is offensive. Perhaps it is but is true.
What if I had written an article saying ‘NCAA says biological men are the future of Women’s sport’ ?
That might be a more light hearted way to get the some point across? for those most upset with the article I understand it missed the mark but would that have been acceptable to you?
Could I ever use the word penis in the article? Or is that some sort of line in the sand thing?
Feel free to email me as well. I’ve only received one social media message on this article. Don’t think I’ve received a single email. Maybe they all think rojo wrote it .
Let me ask this: if I were to write an op-ed piece called "BroJos are trust fund Daddy's money losers who run a niche website full of right-wing nutjobs", you'd probably have a problem with that, right? It's marginally true to some degree but it misses a whole lot of other nuance and context, and is really just presented for shock value without any real interest in telling the full story.
That's basically what you did. For like the millionth time -- and don't think I haven't noticed that you haven't engaged when I brought it up -- if you actually wanted to have a conversation about it and if you actually wanted to argue it in a good-faith, you'd have done a lot more than you did. But you didn't, because you wanted to make stupid, racist out of touch uncle jokes and you wanted to use April Fool's as a cover for it.
So why do 'right-wing' posts (ie. anything expressing a view in common with the majority of the population rather than the extreme 'progressive' elite) get so downvoted here?
Do you really consider the view that individuals with penises are men to be a 'right wing nutjob' view? Pretty sure that's the view of the overwhelming majority still in Western society, despite the blanket mainstream narrative, death threats and cancel culture to those who disagree, and the fascist application of 'hate speech' laws to silence any discussion.
Rojo wrote the article, yes? So while we appreciate your humility, we need to hear it from the person who wrote it. After all, Rojo is a co-CEO. So he needs to act like the adult in the room
Contrary to popular belief, I wrote the article. Rojo edited or contributed to it after I wrote the initial piece.
Let me ask this: if I were to write an op-ed piece called "BroJos are trust fund Daddy's money losers who run a niche website full of right-wing nutjobs", you'd probably have a problem with that, right? It's marginally true to some degree but it misses a whole lot of other nuance and context, and is really just presented for shock value without any real interest in telling the full story.
That's basically what you did. For like the millionth time -- and don't think I haven't noticed that you haven't engaged when I brought it up -- if you actually wanted to have a conversation about it and if you actually wanted to argue it in a good-faith, you'd have done a lot more than you did. But you didn't, because you wanted to make stupid, racist out of touch uncle jokes and you wanted to use April Fool's as a cover for it.
So why do 'right-wing' posts (ie. anything expressing a view in common with the majority of the population rather than the extreme 'progressive' elite) get so downvoted here?
Do you really consider the view that individuals with penises are men to be a 'right wing nutjob' view? Pretty sure that's the view of the overwhelming majority still in Western society, despite the blanket mainstream narrative, death threats and cancel culture to those who disagree, and the fascist application of 'hate speech' laws to silence any discussion.
Dude don't try to rationalize with them. Argument is "orange man bad". Basically everyone has the same view on the trans situation. It ain't a "right wing nutjob" thing.
So why do 'right-wing' posts (ie. anything expressing a view in common with the majority of the population rather than the extreme 'progressive' elite) get so downvoted here?
Do you really consider the view that individuals with penises are men to be a 'right wing nutjob' view? Pretty sure that's the view of the overwhelming majority still in Western society, despite the blanket mainstream narrative, death threats and cancel culture to those who disagree, and the fascist application of 'hate speech' laws to silence any discussion.
Dude don't try to rationalize with them. Argument is "orange man bad". Basically everyone has the same view on the trans situation. It ain't a "right wing nutjob" thing.
If by “basically everyone” you mean “basically everyone who gets their opinions on the news by hearing about it from their gal pal Glenda while you’re on your lunch break at the Walmart,” then I agree with you.
If you’re not a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports, then you are good with trans participation in sports.
Dude don't try to rationalize with them. Argument is "orange man bad". Basically everyone has the same view on the trans situation. It ain't a "right wing nutjob" thing.
If by “basically everyone” you mean “basically everyone who gets their opinions on the news by hearing about it from their gal pal Glenda while you’re on your lunch break at the Walmart,” then I agree with you.
If you’re not a slack-jawed yokel with a ninth grade grasp of biology, psychology, and most importantly sports, then you are good with trans participation in sports.