This artist got a signature gimmick, sure, and respects for that, but "Incredible Talent" it is not.

You thought right.
Give me some Kaiju and I’m there.
I also like the group. Totally unexpected from an all girl Japanese group, and they’re GOOD! inventiveness and talent together are a rarity.

Was wondering what other bands have had two epically skilled guitarist as talented as these two.

Congratulations! Your ability to discover new, unknown videos has earned you your "Talent Scout" Level 716 Badge!

Congratulations! Your ability to discover new, unknown videos has earned you your "Talent Scout" Level 715 Badge!

Congratulations! Your video, Amazing talent, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 171 Badge!

Your video, Amazing talent, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Entertainers used to have actual talent. Dance,sing,act,play instruments.

But isn't it kind of ironic that it's probably Americans (or at least its media) that's MORE enamored of royalty than people of countries that actually do have ceremonial monarchies?

You have your Queen B, GOATs real or imaginary, all the Yas Queens that Americans in general treat BETTER than actual royalty. Yes I know, the difference is talent instead of hereditary. But it's still a sort of human worship. The MAGA crowd elevate Trump to God-like level of royalty in terms of devotion for whatever f**k they believe.

There's not much a difference to me in terms of rationality.

Besides, the British monarch as a net money maker for the government. Bringing over 1 billion BP per "normal" (read: non-Covid lockdowns) year while costing a little over 100 millions supporting the Monarchy per year on average, from merch & tourism dollars the Firm brings into the government's coffer. It's more a Win to keep them than abolish the Firm... still. After Queen Elizabeth II's death... we'll see.

Very poetic and thoughtful. Don't see this kind of talent since T.S. Eliot.

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

Congratulations! Your ability to discover new, unknown videos has earned you your "Talent Scout" Level 714 Badge!