What you say is true, but doesn’t really answer “Could someone take down Wikipedia [without completely shutting off the internet]”. For obvious reasons, shutting internet access completely off isn’t going to happen short of an insurrection or a war.

Shutting down Wikipedia specifically is much harder. As others have pointed out, there are many thousand copies of Wikipedia lying around on peoples private devices. If Wikipedia were actually taken down (blocked by the government in some sense) hundreds of mirrors would likely pop up immediately, and it would be more or less impossible for the government to go after each individual site that some person decides to host, short of just cutting internet access completely.

You know architect was an god you thought now

Isn’t the idea of having an authority at all contrary to the anarchist ideology? Sounds to me like they were more “representative democratic brigades” than anarchistic brigades, since they elected officials that had full control until the next election.

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?

I don’t see how the “separate rooms” thing is positive in any way. Letting them actually sleep together is much more healthy for their relationship than forcing practically adult people to “sneak around”.

Also, if you want your kid to keep letting you know what’s going on, you shouldn’t encourage or enforce a habit of “do whatever, just keep it hidden from me and it’s fine”, which is effectively what putting them in different rooms and expecting them to sneak over is.

Why would you “endorse” or “not endorse” your 17 year old sleeping with someone? It’s none of your business, outside the fact that you should help them make good decisions. Even suggesting that two consenting 17 year olds shouldn’t sleep together without their parents “endorsement” is really weird- like, wanting to check what strangers have in their pants kind of weird.

That’s an interesting take, to me it’s always been either porn or not porn, and the idea of “porn but censored so I fill in the gaps myself” hasn’t ever had any appeal. I don’t know if this is related to what I’ve been more exposed to (probably is), but anytime I come across porn that shows everything except a tiny pixelated part (as in, only pixelating part of the junk) kind of funny.

I think they were agreeing with you

To be fair, I didn’t expect you to respond at all, and really just wanted to point out that calling a stranger you know nothing about a “dweeb” in response to something they wrote is a prime example of “just being a cunt to someone”. You didn’t need to respond, but you chose to do so by being a cunt.

Regardless, I think you missed some of the sarcasm in what I was writing (which, in hindsight, isn’t very clear). My point isn’t that shitposting is some form of high art. It’s that it’s a form of humor that amounts to more than saying provocative stuff or being a cunt. At it’s best, a shitpost can even contain some social commentary in the same way as caricatures can. Of course, as with all other humor, there are plenty of bad shitposts out there too, which are often just trolls trying to stir up shit.

• fig 2 Accurate illustration of “just being a cunt to someone”

I’ll defend shitposting here, because I think you’re simplifying it a bit too much.

Shitposting is so much more than “saying dumb stuff for shits n’ giggles”. First of all, as with anything else, there are good and bad shitposts. A good shitpost usually contains a solid undertone of irony or sarcasm. An important part of the humour is not just in “being dumb” it’s about using a statement that is dumb in a very specific way in combination with a specific context in order to create something funny.

Furthermore, a good shitpost uses exaggeration in a good way. The reader should preferably be “lured into” the post, not realising it’s a shitpost, before the notch is turned to 11 revealing that it was a shitpost. This adds an extra layer of humor and social commentary: The fact that the post at first seems believable forces you to recon with what kind of things you would actually believe someone could write. It also makes the target of the humor clear.

Shitposting may not be high art, but calling it “just being a cunt to someone” is missing the mark. “Just being a cunt to someone” is exactly that, and it’s not shitposting.

This is a terrible take. Obviously, I can say something offensive to a friend that they would find funny exactly because they know I don’t mean it seriously.

Saying that is some kind of “reflection of my true self” is honestly just dumb. I’m saying the offensive thing because I find it offensive myself, and because I would never say it to someone I don’t trust to understand that.

I’ll never forget the video of a guy in his car literally praying to trump…

Not ironic here: I was at a very low point, and what I did was ditch everything, brought some gear to sleep outside, and decided to see how long I could stay outside with just my fishing gear.

To be fair, I brought freeze-dried food for a couple days, but after about a week I felt better enough to head back to society.

What I did that week was primarily fish for dinner and gather firewood for the evening. Did wonders for my psyke.

Little fun-fact: We still have a trace of this left in Norwegian, where the most common way to say “1.5” is not “en og en halv” (“one and a half”) but “halvannen” which roughly translates to “half second”.

We abandoned the “half third”, “half fourth” etc. very long ago (if we ever used them), but “halvannen” just rolls nicely off the tongue.

What we’re observing here is a class example of what happens in an unregulated economy in fields where economies of scale are a large advantage. Whoever has the biggest production will over time out-compete smaller companies and consolidate control of the market. The barrier to entry for new companies with new innovations becomes impassably high, because they’re at such a massive disadvantage due to the scale of the large companies. In addition, larger companies buy up any newcomers before they can grow large.

All this is the classical way in which monopolies form and are maintained. In the case of modern social media, online gaming, etc. these effects are multiplied a thousandfold, because pretty much for the first time in history the scale of the product is the product. It’s near-impossible to compete with a social medium with > 1 billion users, because what makes the medium attractive is the scale of it.