Back when North and South Korea were Korea, the US killed more than 10% of the civilian population and razed every building of what is now North Korea.
This is an english speaking tech forum, so it’s safe to assume most people here live in a country that has nukes like the US, UK, India, probably decent number of people who came from China and Russia too.
How so? That's explicitly not considered to be "race," but a separate qualifier on top of it. In any case, nothing here is going to make any sense, because the entire social construct of "race" inherently makes no sense.
Are we really going to pretend like jewish white and non-jewish white doesn't make sense in a context where white is considered a race? I don't really see the sense in this pretense.
I agree that in both cases there is an issue that needs to be solved (see NYPD budget as example) so don’t take “defund” at face value but more like “radical changes are needed”
if you want to tear something apart to rebuild peacefully this is the way. their salaries are paid by public money so defund, get everyone out and rebuild. not unlike dept of education which may also need a similar treatment to rebuild
Most of humanity has lived without police for most of its existence. It's not an inherent part of life. And in many places, the police is a very recent (few centuries old) invention with ties to oppressive structures such as slavery and colonialism.
Whether abolishing the police, or defunding the police (to deescalate the militarization), both are proposals formulated by serious academics and politicians, whether you agree or not. It's not virtue signalling. If anything, "defund the police" is still very badly regarded outside very small circles and there's no credit to be gained by holding such positions.
There should be standard procedures for this. Something like, you go through the emails for compromising materials, so you would know vectors of attack beforehand, and train the person to not fall for them.
I think not many people are arguing that we shouldn’t exclude people based on testosterone in elite events, but none of these were trans women, these were all women who lived their entire lives as women from the moment they were born
I'd argue about testosterone. High testosterone happens in some woman naturally, why exclude them? They still are woman, they should have a right to participate.
Height is also an advantage in sports, and women statistically are much shorter then man, should we ban tall woman from sports? Should we say "she exhibits a male amount of height, it isn't fair to let her participate with 'normal' woman"?
The more "fair" we make woman competition the narrower our definition of a woman gets.
If you want to make it fair, let's pick a random chemical in man exclude people from competition based on their readings. That surely would make sport career look more fun for everyone, training all your life only to find out that some committee doesn't consider you a man. And then we can celebrate equality by noticing that man-to-woman sport participation ratio got closer to 50-50
My view is that testosterone is a reasonable thing to discriminate on because:
1. It is causally connected to primary and secondary sex characteristics
2. It has a large impact on performance in many sports
3. It's easy to explain to most people and somewhat matches people's intuitions around fairness
But, yes, it is true that there are cis women with high T levels and it is somewhat unfair and arbitrary to include them when not excluding other random advantages that people have. I'm just not sure if I have a better solution
It's dumb because there are two types of hyper/hypo-gonadism. "Primary" hypergonadism is where you have way more of the hormone in your blood stream. You're advocating testing for only "primary hypergonadism" in women.
Secondary hypergonadism is where someone has a normal concentration of the hormone in their blood, but they have an unusual abundance of hormone receptors.
The effects are the same, but currently we can only measure secondary hypergonadism during an autopsy/dissection.
reply