And every time, the taxpayer foots the bill. Until the funds start coming from police pensions, nothing is going to change.

Now there’s an idea.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. Fair point.

True.

On what basis doesn’t it work, though? I’m still not sure I understand what the problem is with your example.

You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.

Another way of looking at it is that we would in fact be widening the criteria of who would be considered “qualified”.

I would say the opposite, in fact.

Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to “improve” the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.

But like I said, that’s fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.

Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.

That’s why they would need to take more into account than simply weight. Surely multiple physical and hormonal factors could also be measured and an aggregate total value be applied to each athlete.

In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.

Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.

For a while I’ve been thinking that all sports should get rid of gendered male/female competitions and replace them with weight categories that take into account physiological characteristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.

Why wouldn’t this work?

Interesting. Do you know if it works with an existing LUKS-encrypted installation?

I understand very well what liberalism and socialism are, thanks. Where we disagree is the definition of the “left” versus the “right”. Even in Europe, the old socialist left is becoming a thing of a bygone age, so of course the Overton window shifts to reflect the current political landscape.

Hang on, so you’re telling me you guys lump social liberals in with classical liberals and neoliberals? That’s definitely not common, but then I suppose if you’re a communist then it kinda makes sense.

Also, while I wouldn’t call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure. I presume you don’t consider anyone a leftist if they don’t advocate for collective ownership and a centrally planned economy?

ML people often tend not to apply ‘liberal’ correctly either, so it goes both ways.

If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.

That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.

Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.

Oh, I agree - calling people Tankies/Liberals/Dronies, especially ad hominem, is reductive and generally unhelpful.

Not so. There are many progressives who stand with Marxists on issues like social justice, LGBTQ issues, and Palestine but who do not feel welcome on instances like Hexbear because they also criticize the CCP.

now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.

With respect, there’s a bit more to it than that.

The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view. If a, let’s say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.

Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.

Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.

It’s a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.

True, but I would argue that American Chinese food is a distinct cuisine in its own right, just as Anglo-Indian is.

If the argument is that the British Empire didn’t incorporate seasonings and spices into its own traditional cuisine, then I’d argue that none of the European powers did. French cuisine is still undeniably French and spice-less, despite their colonialist history in Africa and the Caribbean.

Ha! Don’t make me spit out my tea. Your cheddar is cheese-flavored plastic in comparison.