You know architect was an god you thought now

I agree with the sentiment that different roles have different specific requirements- a tank driver doesn’t need to be as strong or fast as an infantryman. However, there are some base requirements that apply to all front-line troops. No matter your role, if you are expected to see combat, you need to be at a certain level with regards to weapons handling, but also physical strength and endurance. Even a tank driver, medic or radio operator may need to fire a gun, carry wounded, or help push a jeep upright.

Still, I agree that there are different requirements for different specialities, and definitely think it is a good idea to have different requirements for these in the selection process. However, I can’t see a compelling argument saying that the base requirements for male and female tank drivers, medics, infantry, etc. should be different. I think the tank crew is an especially good example here, because research on Norwegian soldiers has indicated that women are (on average) better suited to this role, because they are often better at handling high cognitive load while exhausted. Putting the same requirements for everyone, with requirements tuned to the specialisation, could very well lead to more women in certain roles.

Of course, for your second point, I think that falls under the category of “everything is bad if poorly implemented”. I definitely agree that it’s a bad idea to place very hard baseline physical requirements for all roles. That means the military will lose out on highly capable medics, tank crews, radio operators, etc. both male and female. But as you say, more of the capable people lost will be women, simply because of biology. However, I think that’s more a question about how requirements for the military should be implemented, and not really a question of “should we place the same requirements on men and women in the same role?” to which I think, on general grounds, the answer should be yes.

To be clear - I have no doubts that the people pushing this in the current administration intend to leverage it to push highly capable women out of roles they are more than capable of filling, and that’s an unambiguously bad thing.

Ok, so this guy is a known misogynist, and is likely to twist this into something that gives women an objective disadvantage. With that said, I want to ask what makes people opposed to the idea of actually gender-neutral physical requirements for military positions.

Personally, I served in the Norwegian army alongside a bunch of very capable women. I think women in the army bring a big positive contribution. There’s even research suggesting that women are better suited than men for certain combat roles. With that established, is it not fair to require that a woman in the infantry is capable of carrying the same kit, or wounded partner, as her male counterparts? I’ve done my fair share of ammo runs, and the women in my platoon carried just as heavy shells as the men. If they hadn’t been capable of that, I would say they simply weren’t qualified for the job.

I don’t know what current requirements are in the US military. What I’m questioning is why so many people here seem opposed to the idea that anyone in a physically demanding role meets the same base criteria?

If I was religious, I probably wouldn’t be too far from thinking that a biblical plague hitting the country every time The Führer was elected was some kind of sign…

I seem to remember seeing a comic about the moment in an RPG shooter game where you walk into an area and notice lots of cover - you know shit’s about to hit the fan.

Looks like Alabama was inspired…

There do of course exist (far too many) people out there that objectify women, but that’s not what this post is about (at least the way I’m reading it). I can definitely relate to the situation where some random woman will do some mundane everyday thing, like put on a purse or let down her hair, and my body just decides to react to that.

It has nothing to do with objectifying women, and of course I don’t make a point out of it, but just push it out of my head and move on with my day. The point of the post is that it’s funny and relatable how the body can just decide to send a puff of hormones around your system as a response to the most mundane things, even though you know that it’s wildly inappropriate. I’m sure you’ve experienced the same thing at some point?

For added effect, read the right-hand side in the voice of a British aristocrat.

I’m just waiting for the moment when a country exposed to “accidental” cable cutting, or attacks using water jets from the Chinese coast guard or similar, just responds by shooting first and asking questions later.

Like: You cut our cables/blocked our atoll from getting resupply, etc… put a 50mm in their face and carry on. Let them do the responding.

“Oh no, they were conducting acts of war and were in our way, so we sank them. What are you gonna do about it? Maybe stop doing that?”

My wrists though… if I’m using a laptop without peripherals, it’s because I currently don’t have access to peripherals, and need to use the keyboard and trackpad on my laptop…

See, the issue isn’t that they’ve made a bunch of illegal money, it’s that they haven’t made enough illegal money, which means they’re still susceptible to seeing consequences for it.

If there’s any American reading this: Please vote. The world needs you and all your friends to vote. I’m begging you, please get out and vote.

I didn’t say that. I’m pointing out that we spent shitloads of money that could have gone to out own schools and healthcare, and a dozens of young soldiers lives (I’m not American), and we were clearly told by both the local population and a bunch of other countries to fuck off.

So yes. I’ll say it. Fuck em. We don’t owe them shit. We came down there, suppressed the Taliban, built s schools and hospitals, and secured elections, and when we left, the Afghan army, which we had trained and supplied, folded immediately.

We can’t be held responsible for them not revolting against a suppressive regime. We gave them all the tools to keep the taliban out, but they chose to fold. That’s on them.

It’s tragic, but that’s how it is. If they’re not willing to fight for their own rights, they won’t get to enjoy them.

I’ve heard this explanation before as well, that essentially nobody felt any loyalty to the national government. You could kind of tell why when the whole government just evacuated the country when the west left.

Are you suggesting that a new coalition goes back to Afghanistan to throw out the Taliban again? Remember how popular that was last time?

It just doesn’t stop baffling me how quickly the Afghan army folded to these people and accepted this as their future… just tragic all around

First of all, that speech is awesome.

But I want to comment on something regarding modding, and ask an honest question: Shouldn’t reiteration of historical speeches or texts be omitted from rules about slurs? I mean, reiterating a speech, or a section of Huckleberry Finn, is obviously not the same thing as devaluing someone by calling them a slur. We actually have a quite hot debate going on in my country about this now, where some teachers were harassed for “being racist”, because in class they read aloud a famous poem written by an immigrant about racism, where he writes some of the things that were shouted at him. The whole point of the poem, and of reading it in class, is of course to make a point out of how bad racism is, and to educate about racism. Still, these teachers have been stamped as “racists” because they reiterated specific words in the poem.

For the honest question (I’m not American or a native english speaker): Isn’t there a historical difference between the word “Negro”, and a certain similar word I’ll refrain from reiterating? The way I’ve understood it, the former is a historically more neutral form, that was simply used the way we today would use “black person”, while the latter has more or less always had some kind of devaluating undertone. I’ve gotten that interpretation, among other things, from having read speeches where people are promoting equal rights, and use “Negro” to refer to black people, while clearly not believing that they are inferior in any way (hence the promotion of equal rights). Of course, today, both words are considered unacceptable, but I would like to clarify if I’ve misunderstood, as it helps in interpreting things that were said or written in the past.

Vertical video platform

I’m stealing this term

Just remember to keep track of which BTU you’re using

Nature is healing.

Very. There are people I know that had spent hundreds of days navigating technically challenging terrain on everything from dry rock to wet ice by the time they were 21. Not saying this guy was that experienced, but don’t underestimate the fact that some people spend 2-3 days a week in challenging mountain terrain from the time they are 15.