US Politics Megathread

[RefluxSemantic]

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

[fightinfrenchman]

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

Nope. I'm busy narrowly avoiding shitting myself

[Cometk]

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

it’s the tone of disdain

[Snuden]

On topic of gender...

Sometimes ESOC casters are guilty of gender assumptions, for example;

Main caster: That was really nice micro by Snuden!
Co-caster: Yes! He has indeed nice micro!

What if I at that exact time don't identify as either being a specific gender, OR every time I am labelled a specific gender, change gender.
Or more like quantum physics, my gender is only revealed once it's examined!

Then what...?

[Cometk]

On topic of gender...

Sometimes ESOC casters are guilty of gender assumptions, for example;

Main caster: That was really nice micro by Snuden!
Co-caster: Yes! He has indeed nice micro!

What if I at that exact time don't identify as either being a specific gender, OR every time I am labelled a specific gender, change gender.
Or more like quantum physics, my gender is only revealed once it's examined!

Then what...?

You don’t need to be obtuse. If they made a mistake you tell them.

[Snuden]

The email I used on Twitch is not verified, so I am unable to write in the chat.

[RefluxSemantic]

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

it’s the tone of disdain

It's not intended as that, and I think you're projecting whatever you think of me onto what you're reading. I used the word 'these' to refer to the aforementioned, as it is commonly used in language. I used people to specify that I was referring to people, as to make it slightly clearer. I merely wished to express that I was talking about a specific group of people. If you want to engage this discussion in this way, then I hope you find the person willing to do that.

[Cometk]

Show hidden quotes

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

it’s the tone of disdain

It's not intended as that, and I think you're projecting whatever you think of me onto what you're reading. I used the word 'these' to refer to the aforementioned, as it is commonly used in language. I used people to specify that I was referring to people, as to make it slightly clearer. I merely wished to express that I was talking about a specific group of people. If you want to engage this discussion in this way, then I hope you find the person willing to do that.

It’s the vernacular. Maybe you can claim or feign ignorance considering English is your second language. Given your talent for writing though I would’ve imagined you able to pick up on the expressive nuances of the sentence you wrote.

[Sensei]

On topic of gender...

Sometimes ESOC casters are guilty of gender assumptions, for example;

Main caster: That was really nice micro by Snuden!
Co-caster: Yes! He has indeed nice micro!

What if I at that exact time don't identify as either being a specific gender, OR every time I am labelled a specific gender, change gender.
Or more like quantum physics, my gender is only revealed once it's examined!

Then what...?

Be honest is your micro even good enough for the ESOC caster's to use that hypothetical phrasing?

[Goodspeed]

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a feminine activity
- Chess being a boy's club making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it, due to the factors mentioned above, have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

"these people"

Care to elaborate what your point is?

it’s the tone of disdain

It's not intended as that, and I think you're projecting whatever you think of me onto what you're reading. I used the word 'these' to refer to the aforementioned, as it is commonly used in language. I used people to specify that I was referring to people, as to make it slightly clearer. I merely wished to express that I was talking about a specific group of people. If you want to engage this discussion in this way, then I hope you find the person willing to do that.

It’s the vernacular. Maybe you can claim or feign ignorance considering English is your second language. Given your talent for writing though I would’ve imagined you able to pick up on the expressive nuances of the sentence you wrote.

I thought more about it, and I think it's worded perfectly. I intended to specifically talk about a specific subset of transgenders that support these ways of thinking. 'These transgenders' as I use later on might have been better, but I was afraid of not including all these other genders and getting cancelled. Turns out it's just about impossible to talk about this without people trying to frame you as someone with malicious intend.

[RefluxSemantic]

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I prefer your narrative, but I'm afraid it might not be true. I agree that I jumped to a conclusion that isn't supported by hard data though.

[duckzilla]

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

too long to quote directly

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I support this view, since it is a fairly general rule that repeating a task as often as possible makes you incrementally better with every iteration. The question is only whether the person is enabled and motivated to do so.

A football player like Christiano Ronaldo is not only as good as he is due to being talented, but due to bringing up the motivation to work incredibly hard to improve. There should be many more talented people around, but lacking either the opportunity or the motivation to increase their abilities makes them inferior.

[gibson]

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

too long to quote directly

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I support this view, since it is a fairly general rule that repeating a task as often as possible makes you incrementally better with every iteration. The question is only whether the person is enabled and motivated to do so.

A football player like Christiano Ronaldo is not only as good as he is due to being talented, but due to bringing up the motivation to work incredibly hard to improve. There should be many more talented people around, but lacking either the opportunity or the motivation to increase their abilities makes them inferior.

Sports is a little bit different though, natural ability plays a much bigger role than in chess for example. You take an 18 year old who could have been a gm but has never touched a board before and put him against someone with normal natural ability but has been playing since he’s 8 and the guy with 10 years experience is gonna win every time for a while. But take me, a 24 year old average athlete who’s played basketball for 8 years or so and put me against a Lebron James who’s never touched a basketball before and I’m gonna get my shit rekt because the disparity in athleticism is so enormous that no amount of training can ever bridge the gap.

[duckzilla]

Show hidden quotes

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

too long to quote directly

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I support this view, since it is a fairly general rule that repeating a task as often as possible makes you incrementally better with every iteration. The question is only whether the person is enabled and motivated to do so.

A football player like Christiano Ronaldo is not only as good as he is due to being talented, but due to bringing up the motivation to work incredibly hard to improve. There should be many more talented people around, but lacking either the opportunity or the motivation to increase their abilities makes them inferior.

Sports is a little bit different though, natural ability plays a much bigger role than in chess for example. You take an 18 year old who could have been a gm but has never touched a board before and put him against someone with normal natural ability but has been playing since he’s 8 and the guy with 10 years experience is gonna win every time for a while. But take me, a 24 year old average athlete who’s played basketball for 8 years or so and put me against a Lebron James who’s never touched a basketball before and I’m gonna get my shit rekt because the disparity in athleticism is so enormous that no amount of training can ever bridge the gap.

That's why I mentioned football, where athleticism play a less important role than in Basketball/American Football/Handball. While it is important to be tall to become a proper goal keeper, examples from midfielders and strikers (e.g. Lionel Messi or Diego Maradona) show that pure athleticism and body height can play a minor role.

[Cometk]

But take me, a 24 year old average athlete who’s played basketball for 8 years or so and put me against a Lebron James who’s never touched a basketball before and I’m gonna get my shit rekt because the disparity in athleticism is so enormous that no amount of training can ever bridge the gap.

David vs Goliath

[gibson]

Show hidden quotes

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

too long to quote directly

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I support this view, since it is a fairly general rule that repeating a task as often as possible makes you incrementally better with every iteration. The question is only whether the person is enabled and motivated to do so.

A football player like Christiano Ronaldo is not only as good as he is due to being talented, but due to bringing up the motivation to work incredibly hard to improve. There should be many more talented people around, but lacking either the opportunity or the motivation to increase their abilities makes them inferior.

Sports is a little bit different though, natural ability plays a much bigger role than in chess for example. You take an 18 year old who could have been a gm but has never touched a board before and put him against someone with normal natural ability but has been playing since he’s 8 and the guy with 10 years experience is gonna win every time for a while. But take me, a 24 year old average athlete who’s played basketball for 8 years or so and put me against a Lebron James who’s never touched a basketball before and I’m gonna get my shit rekt because the disparity in athleticism is so enormous that no amount of training can ever bridge the gap.

That's why I mentioned football, where athleticism play a less important role than in Basketball/American Football/Handball. While it is important to be tall to become a proper goal keeper, examples from midfielders and strikers (e.g. Lionel Messi or Diego Maradona) show that pure athleticism and body height can play a minor role.

No, people like Messi and Ronaldo are still freak athletes who would outperform just about anyone in any traditional sport with much less experience.

[fightinfrenchman]

Lotta dumb shit in this thread. Biden Derangement Syndrome is serious stuff

[Sensei]

Soccer players aren't athletic looks like America wins again

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

Its also the case that women for example cant really compete with men at chess (yes, unfortunately the queen's gambit is a rather unrealistic series).

too long to quote directly

The queen's gambit is an unrealistic series in many ways, but not necessarily in that way.

It's hard to square the idea that women lack the mental capacity to compete in games like chess with the fact that there is very little to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.

More likely is that these factors, unrelated to mental capacity, contribute to the fact that men pursue careers in chess much more than women:
- Men's generally more competitive spirit
- Parents' reluctance to let their 12 year old talented daughter travel to tournaments with a group of teenage boys and young men
- Parents being much less likely to even teach their daughters chess or encourage them to pursue it, because it's not a "feminine" activity
- Chess being a "boy's club" making it a less rewarding social experience for most girls
- The stereotype that women don't have the capacity to compete in chess making them less inclined to pursue it (self-fulfilling)

One very telling story is that of Judit Polgar, whose dad had her focus on chess from a very early age. She reached somewhere around 2750 ELO which was top 10 at the time and is only ~100 ELO below Carlsen's current rating. It's highly unlikely that this person just so happens to be a one in a million talent like Carlsen because her career in chess was predetermined by her parents, yet simply because she focused on chess from a young age she reached a level no woman before or after her has ever achieved.
The Polgar story doesn't stop there: She had a couple of sisters who were also world-class chess players, and people generally agree that she wasn't even the most talented one, just the most hard-working. If interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/ar ... experiment

So who is to say how many female one in a million, Carlsen-like talents have been born and never played chess, started playing it too late, or played it early on, were good at it, but then didn't pursue it as a career? And would this have been different if they were male?
Would a female Carlsen, with the exact same talent for chess he has right now, have a current rating of 2860? Or would it have been 2600? Or N/A?

The point is that the stars have to align in multiple ways: You need that one in a million talent to be the best in the world, but you also need the encouragement and the motivation to pursue chess as a career. The former is rare, but the latter is also rare. The stars aligned for Carlsen. They didn't align for the other thousands of people who may be as talented as Carlsen but never worked at it as hard as he did. It's no stretch to assume at least some of those are female.

In short: As of right now, with the available data, I think it's wrong to conclude that women "can't" compete with men at chess.

I support this view, since it is a fairly general rule that repeating a task as often as possible makes you incrementally better with every iteration. The question is only whether the person is enabled and motivated to do so.

A football player like Christiano Ronaldo is not only as good as he is due to being talented, but due to bringing up the motivation to work incredibly hard to improve. There should be many more talented people around, but lacking either the opportunity or the motivation to increase their abilities makes them inferior.

Sports is a little bit different though, natural ability plays a much bigger role than in chess for example. You take an 18 year old who could have been a gm but has never touched a board before and put him against someone with normal natural ability but has been playing since he’s 8 and the guy with 10 years experience is gonna win every time for a while. But take me, a 24 year old average athlete who’s played basketball for 8 years or so and put me against a Lebron James who’s never touched a basketball before and I’m gonna get my shit rekt because the disparity in athleticism is so enormous that no amount of training can ever bridge the gap.

That's why I mentioned football, where athleticism play a less important role than in Basketball/American Football/Handball. While it is important to be tall to become a proper goal keeper, examples from midfielders and strikers (e.g. Lionel Messi or Diego Maradona) show that pure athleticism and body height can play a minor role.

No, people like Messi and Ronaldo are still freak athletes who would outperform just about anyone in any traditional sport with much less experience.

Tbh you seem to miss the point

[Dolan]

There's no such thing as "soccer", that's the original football.
What Americans have is some mutant cross-breed between European football and European rugby, which they call "football", but it's a sort of hand football, like European rugby.
If you want to compare athleticity per similar gameplay, compare American "football" with European rugby.
What you'll notice is that rugby players don't wear so much protective gear as American football players, but the gameplay is equally bruising. And they are equally athletic, but without so much protective gear.

[gibson]

Derrick Henry would destroy literally any rugby player, easily

[fightinfrenchman]

There's no such thing as "soccer", that's the original football.

Yeah it's called "soccer"

[duckzilla]

There's no such thing as "soccer", that's the original football.

Yeah it's called "soccer"

Just like the American one is "handegg".

[Dolan]

Derrick Henry would destroy literally any rugby player, easily

You sound like you have American suprematist beliefs tbh