That’s the key word- inclusion. Someone could make an “all black avengers” with “white tiger” and “black iron man’s” “white side kick,” but that isn’t inclusive either is it? In fact- it’s the opposite isn’t it? That’s not a proportionate representation of the population is it, and we shouldn’t have to say that for minorities to have representation it needs to be separate and “stick to their own kind” should we?

We are seeing pushes for what amounts to segregation in our culture. “Let them have their own separate but equal stuff!” “They can compete by the same rules. That’s fair..” no. It’s not. The game is already fixed. “In time...” yes. It’s possible that over decades a new hero could become a franchise that could topple avengers. Maybe. However the staying power of modern franchises and reboots calls that into question. The historical good will that established franchises have isn’t something that one can create in short order, and that just continues and draws out the ongoing struggle for civil rights and inclusion.

Yes yes yes. People argue “just make new characters then!” But that’s part of the problem isn’t it? There is no black Superman, Superman or captain America weren’t going to be black because when they were made- that would be almost a crime to do. Forcing minorities to compete against characters with established franchises that are pop culture dynasties? Do you think a brand new “black” hero could pull down what black panther did or compete with avengers?

2. The primary force behind “race swapping” is the under representation of minorities. In America it was only within the last decade that the number of main characters who weren’t white dropped below 90%. Over 30% of the country is made up of “minorities.” That’s hugely disproportionate. Turning “white” characters other races skews this towards fair representation. Turning “minority” characters white by only skews it towards disproportionate but literally takes one of the few “minority” characters fans have to identify with away- and taking things away from minorities is a historical problem which underlies all this isn’t it? So one might see where there is sensitivity there.

A brutalist society favors advancement, personal, socially, etc at ANY cost. Each person has a value in what they can do, what role they are used for. Like an insect colony every drone serves a purpose and can be replaced. You’re only as good as you are at this moment, yesterday doesn’t mater and tomorrow is considered but not heavily weighted. Or we can aspire to a more noble virtue of society. I prefer the latter. At some point idealism must take a back seat to pragmatism. When it’s just you and another lost at sea in a raft- one of you WILL eat the other or you both die. But perhaps we don’t need to make that choice 2 days in when there are still lots of supplies. Maybe we can try to high road first and save that as a fallback?

On paper- in a very 2D and basic childish view of just the uneducated facts, I could see where one might say “gee- it makes sense women make less...” but if we zoom out a bit, fire up some of those surplus unused neurons, and look at things from a more enlightened angle- we are taking a bout a game. A children’s game played by adults for ungodly amounts of money. It’s all very silly but the money is not. However that’s what it comes down to and we have a choice to make don’t we? A slippery slope where we decide wether or not we prioritize money or social progress.

And how does that work in college? Where players play for a school and aren’t allowed to take endorsements or even get paid to play, the sport is supposed to generate funds and “spirit” for the school and its programs... yet male athletic programs get more attention, more funding, and male athletes are awarded more lucrative scholarships and stipends or benefits?

One of THE biggest arguments when the insane salaries of sports stars comes up is that they “need” that money because their jobs make health insurance and long term careers unlikely, the aspects of expense and the tolls being a pro take require these sums. So somehow, women, who are “physically less adequate” for sports than men- need health care etc LESS when playing the same sports and pushing the limits of their bodies? Another that comes up is that without high salaries you wouldn’t get the best players (I’m sure... a guy who’s primary choices are sell used cars or loft a ball around for millions would turn down $5million a year because he’s holding out for another job that pays 10?) but let’s defend that’s true. If that’s true- and pro sports may pay insane salaries to keep the sport healthy and competitive- and women or women’s sports “aren’t as good” as men’s- then women’s sports would NEED salary boosts even more to get up to speed no?

Female athletes aren’t responsible for making sure their games get airtime, their leagues make tie in deals, their teams and ownership promote their sports. They play at 100% like male athletes. Their job is to play sports and do fan service. If the league can’t make money that isn’t on them. The case is somewhat unique because however you want to split hairs we have segregated sports leagues, one of the few examples of segregation by protected class we have. It’s a complex thing but it simply isn’t fair to ask the same sacrifices and same demanding job of women and then pay them less.

It’s one thing to admit- “yeah. Most people just want to watch men play...” and another to try and say there’s fair and equitable treatment, or as this guy says that women have or better than male athletes. Wether it’s sexist or just preference or whatever reason a person just isn’t interested in female sports that’s their feeling. But when a woman can do the same job as a man and get paid less to do it that’s another. A woman playing pro basketball or football or whatever sport and a man are doing the same job. Even IF we just agree that women can’t play on the same level of ability as men- that’s irrelevant as they are giving the same effort or maybe even more.

A single woman played an NHL game and did mediocre. One woman in history has had an NFL tryout. How many men are considered or vetted or tried out per any given season? Hell- you could judge athletes like Micheal Jordon off one or two games and if it was a “bad day” conclude some of the best athletes in history couldn’t make the pros. Giving “A woman A chance” isn’t the same as giving women a chance. It also isn’t a fair shot because women don’t enjoy many of the aids that male athletes do in training and support, marketing etc.

Men’s leagues aka “pro leagues” are some of the largest and most established enterprises in the world, largely due to historical events in which women weren’t allowed to compete. That’s like forbidding a team from starting up until there are 3 games left in a season with all rookie players and staff and no budget and saying that you’re giving them a fair shot.

While some players and even perhaps coaches, MAYBE an owner or two might be up for female talent, one would have to be naive to think that there isn’t discrimination against female players in professional sports. This discrimination starts even before college- but is certainly cemented in college where female athletic scholarships and programs don’t receive the funding or attention of male sports. Female leagues do not receive the media coverage of their male counterparts either, and as is often the case in such matters of discrimination, female sports starts at a disadvantage due to past discrimination in which women weren’t allowed to play at all.

@felixo777- .777 sv doesn’t make her the best goalie in history but puts her on the board with tons of NHL goalies who play in the league. Many pro sports teams do not have explicit regulations banning female players, some only made those distinctions recently, and college sports from title IX institutions can’t discriminate against female athletes... on paper. But court rulings have made clear that so long as employers or teams don’t EXPLICITLy state “it’s because you’re female,” they aren’t violating discrimination law.

It would seem a bit strange that we consider women to be able to trust the lives of male soldiers to, to trust national security and the safety of the public to, but there isn’t a single woman in the world who can even be a relief or backup or any position in FIFA, the NFL, NHL, MLB, etc? We can trust women with combat but not to win a sports match? Somehow- I find that dubious. But regardless- the point this guy is trying to make is saggy without even getting into history or economics or any other points to discredit his argument on- simply because, women can’t join men’s sports and so women can’t be part of the more profitable franchise even if they wanted to and were as capable as say- a male goalie or kicker- or even a backup.

Dunnoh. Facts are facts. Regardless of wether we think or can prove that every female athlete in the world isn’t up to the same standards of ability as any professional male athlete in any position on any league- almost all major sports leagues don’t even let women try out or send scouts to look for women. Even in countries that have certified that a woman is as combat ready in any given military role or just as able as a man to serve the public peace as a peace officer.

What’s more- dogs tend to trust things more, trust people more. If you’re kind to a dog it’s likely to assume you will continue to be kind to it. Even if you treat it cruelly it is likely to assume that’s an exception and not the rule. Cats and many birds however tend to discount kindness for even a single instance of sufficient perceived cruelty. Humans don’t trust humans so implicitly as fogs because... well, humans do messed up stuff and we are well aware of that. We know humans can use kindness or lies to mask ulterior motives and such.

The STEN and various version survive on to this day as with the M3 with various countries and private users. Much like the AK series and related weapons, it may not be equal to more complex weapons on paper, and may sacrifice some real world absolute performance, but the longevity, reliability, and the ability to easily and cheaply outfit armed forces are distinct advantages in war where 1,000 zip guns usually trumps an army with 100 top tier weapons. Likewise, things like absolute accuracy often aren’t critical to general infantry so much as reliability when it comes to real world performance.

Yes. A working variant of the STEN could be created without welding, allowing guerrillas to easily construct working weapons from even places like bicycle shops and facilities with limited tools and equipment. So existing guns could be dropped behind lines or new ones made on the ground. The Tommy was a fine gun and had better performance in several areas to the STEN, but the costs of the gun and the realities of combat led the allies to create their own cheap submachine gun (the m3) and even the Germans used and made STEN machine guns to supplant the costly and more complex mp40- with the German MP3000 being a Sten derivative.

So even without getting in to birth control debates there are compelling reasons for people to practice safe sex, and considering condone a luxury doesn’t seem to be, and studies show it not to be, a prudent move for public health.

Condoms as a necessity? Well- no more or less so than coffee. I can say the WHO and other health organizations distribute more condoms for public health than they do coffee, and condone work better at fighting AIDS- and have had a traceable and significant global impact on doing so. We KNOW for a fact that people will have sex, it’s considered a component of mental health on top of being a biological imperative and is one of our strongest drives.

Oh- and I might add that even IF we wanted to count the transitional temps of water- you still have to remember two numbers. Round numbers yes- but remembering the number 4 and the number 6 is remembering a number either way- so it’s somewhat arbitrary since you STILL have to remember 2 numbers. And of course- the range BETWEEN those temperature extremes is MUCH smaller in C than F which means using whole numbers you have less ability to express nuance in temperature ranges a human might encounter. So whooo. It’s easy to deal with freezing and boiling but the other 90% of temperatures a human cares about require the added complication of decimals. So the thing you seldom use and has little relation to daily needs is easier but the thing you’re more likely to use is harder vs. the opposite. I don’t call that “better.”