ok, so basically im very smol

BoJack, stop. You are all the things that are wrong with you! It’s not the alcohol, or the drugs, or any of the shitty things that happened in your career, or when you were a kid! It’s you! Alright? It’s you. Fuck, man. What else is there to say?

Yes! I originally found it posted on their TikTok account:
https://www.tiktok.com/@thehuntington/video/7321812764421475630

;)

Most people don’t have an issue with it. But starting each interview with a question: “Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?” is sinister. It is not a good faith question.

If you are asked this question each time you want to speak about atrocities committed against civilians and have to proclaim that you do not in fact support terrorists, you have the right to be offended. Especially when the person asking you that question cannot condemn cutting off water to civilians.

After 9/11, thousands of Arabs living peacefully in the US were asked to condemn Al-Qaeda, which they did because who wouldn’t? That condemnation and support was used to justify attacking Iraq - the country where Al-Qaeda was not located in, and resulted in the death of a million people there. Imagine being an American Iraqi supporting the US’s right to “defend itself” and seeing your family in Iraq and their children being killed.

There is a level of analogy here where a person with relatives in Gaza is asked by interviewers that question while trying to advocate to not cut water or bomb one of the most densely populated places in the region.

You have the right to be offended if people start asking you to condemn segregation, Nazism, or bigotry when you never claimed that you don’t have an issue with those things. Especially when the person asking you is using it as a tactic while you are trying to alarm about human rights being violated, and civilians / children being hurt.

Classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ

I’m not a native speaker, and it seems like you hear what you want to hear. My responses were polite, but please continue with your whistle-blowing, it’s evident that argumentation is not your strong suit.

Removing categories in sports would result in podiums filled with men, which is a root of that problem.

It is fine if you don’t mind it.

I prefer categorization for men, women, trans men, trans women, paralympics, and I would even leave that amusing category of not-tall-man basketball because they in fact cannot compete with tall players but they still can compete among themselves.

People without legs participate in runs in the Paralympics, and some of their prosthetics are quite bouncy. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point they beat runners with legs using those prosthetics.

I would prefer for them not to compete with “regular” runners because the balance between having legs and bounciness of the prosthetics shouldn’t be the deciding factor when determining the winner.

Letting people with prosthetics compete with each other and not with people with legs is fair for both groups.

This argument has existed before Trans. I rememberan Olympic sprinter opened this debate. She had more masc hormones than average. She didn’t take masc hormones, she didn’t drake performance enhancing drugs, she wasn’t Trans. She was just born with more than the average male hormones than the average woman and there was a debate on if that gave her an unfair advantage.

Yes, it’s a valid counterargument to what I’ve written. Defining a woman is hard.

Every time you people shift the goalposts, you shift them even more when it’s finally met. If a naturally born woman gets the same argument, when will this argument end? When women can’t compete in sports at all? Back in the kitchen taking care of house and family?

But I see that being reasonable didn’t work for you in the long run.

I advocate for the creation of separate categories for those people.

I’d argue they’re on the same level as the cis female population.

I would oppose that statement. You can balance hormones, but there are differences in how men grow taller, gain muscles while using different hormones, and fat distribution is different for different genders, with fat located in different places. These things don’t disappear after transitioning completely. The trans community would love that because it would improve their lives and they wouldn’t be misgendered as often, but it’s not how it works for people after puberty.

Trans people make up 1% of the United States and within that 1% barely any trans people play sports.

As I mentioned, you don’t need to have 10% of people with an unfair advantage in sports; you just need a few on the podium. You completely ignored that because it’s easier for you to fight with an imagined bot than an actual argument.

If those athletes’ performance would align with others, that wouldn’t be an issue. What I’m raising as an issue is that they could build muscle differently, and even bone density can be different for men and women. It’s impossible to eradicate all those characteristics. That’s what trans people are trying to do and they have made progress, but some things stay, especially for those who began transitioning late after puberty.

The reasons a person transitions don’t really matter if they do it later in life and can benefit from it.

I’m not a native English speaker.

What you’re saying doesn’t constitute a strong argument. My position is that we should notinclude trans people in those categories because, later on, we cannot remove them (which would be much worse). You, on the other hand, seem to opt for ignoring that and, through ignorance, place people with views similar to mine in the position of oppressors trying to remove those people from that category. That’s malevolent.

Removed by mod

Yes, the EU should consist of democratic and non-corrupt nations, with being a healthy democracy as the bare minimum requirement. You mentioned corruption in Ukraine as if its level were similar to that in other EU countries, but it isn’t. From my perspective, Ukraine’s Euromaidan was a significant step in the right direction, albeit just one of many needed.

The European Union already has nations grappling with issues related to the rule of law and democracy. The goal should be to promote these values and expect them from both current member nations and aspiring candidates. To be considered a part of the European Union, countries should embody these values.

I wish Ukraine and Georgia the best, but it’s not unfounded for people to point out the challenges these states face in those aspects.