Protestors right to free speech: "Death to Leftists"

fchowd0311 was active duty Marine infantry and addressed this, so I would direct you to his response.

I think he probably said it for PR reasons. As evidence, I would point to the fact that not even the worst team in the league has offered any woman even a minimum 10 day contract, when there would be obvious PR benefits to doing so, especially if they did well. There have been tons of people that said Serena Williams would be a strong player on the Men's Tour. She and her sister challenged anyone outside the top 200 and Karsten Braasch decided to take them up on it at the Australian Open in 1998. When Serena Williams and Venus Williams Lost to a Male Tennis Player at Australian Open - EssentiallySports There is a reason we have women's leagues.

No, I just gave you several example of how diversity could be a flaw. The NBA and the Marine Corps examples both showed that.

That was an example of diversity of thought and avoiding groupthink.

It isn't you that redefined it. I never said there weren't multiple forms of racism. I said that racism used to be defined using the three forms I provided, and that now it has been redefined (in a way you have referenced, but did not come up with) to be when there is a racially disproportionate outcome, more specifically when white people do better. My claim is that a racially disproportionate outcome is not proof of racism systemic, structural, or otherwise, when based on race neutral rules and conditions.

Then it is a meaningless buzzword that is very close to the meaningful word, likely intentionally.

Why is it that basketball favors blacks because they focus on it but hockey favors whites because black people don't have access in your take? Could it not be that whites focus more on hockey? Could the same focus argument you use for basketball not be applied to school?
[quote[But here's what you are missing in your analogies. Neither the NBA or the NHL are important roads for most people. It's not like getting a bank loan or credit card, not like getting a good paying job. Becoming an NBA player is a dream, not a need.[/quote]
Is it okay to have structural racism in unimportant roads? Being a CEO is not an important road for most people. Nor is being a senator, a Congressman, a President, a movie star, hell a doctor or a lawyer. Any job is not a job held by most people. Either racism is bad or it isn't. Either it should be opposed or it shouldn't. If we need to make policies to correct for the ratio of people of different races who get into Yale, why not the NBA? Or MLS, or the NHL?

No one is saying we shouldn't be using tools and systems that are structurally racist? Are you sure?

Presumably, structural racism is a form of racism, given it is the word racism with an adjective in front of it. Examples of racism are racist. If you are arguing that something is an example of structural racism, you are saying it is structurally racist, which is racist, structurally. You wouldn't say that being really tall doesn't mean being tall, or having political power doesn't mean being powerful. Either structural racism is racist, or the whole idea is nonsense doublespeak.

I was saying it isn't rote memorization, which is why it requires a measure of intelligence.

 

There are definitely women who exist who can perform the tasks of a grunt.

The issue is are there enough who are capable and whether a small ratio of female to males in grunt units where they are deployed for a year is is accept for society to accept because that small ratio can potentially cause safety issues for those women especially during long deployments.

 

Would you feel comfortable having a 1/40 female to male ratio for a unit that will be deployed for a year in a combat zone?

The military already has a bad rap with sexual assault amongst it's ranks. This could potentially worsen it.

 

I literally point by point debated all of your points, except the one that I deferred to fchowd because he was actually a Marine grunt and I was not so he could better speak on that issue. Besides which, I already posted actual evidence that the Marine Corps studied diversity in combat units and found diverse units to be less capable than all male units, to which your reply was that you didn't like the study because they emphasized physically demanding tasks. I provided a few physically demanding tasks that are required in combat units and you said some women can do those things. Great. Now that you are on board with the idea that military units may require physically demanding tasks, let me refer you back to the article I posted where the Marine Corps studied mixed gender units and found they were consistently outperformed by all male units. Do you have any evidence that a more diverse military would be more effective? You were the one that made the claim that diversity is a strength.

In addition to pointing out that Kobe was likely promoting WNBA players for PR reasons, I also provided other evidence. Not one NBA team has brought on one female player. If diversity is a strength and the WNBA players are good enough to play in the NBA, do you think it is just that all of the front offices of every team are sexist and keeping the women out? Are they doing the same thing in every other sport? Additionally, I have seen them play. I have also seen that they play with a smaller ball and against less athletic competition. That is my evidence that they are not NBA material, what evidence do you have to support your position? Just a comment from Kobe?

Maybe we need a clearer definition. What makes something structural racism that would exclude the NBA draft but include credit scores?

So if something is structurally racist, it has to be changed to not be structurally racist, correct?

 

I haven't been able to keep up with the debate and honestly am not sure how it got to debate about women in combat. Weighing in as someone who has coached both men, women and a trans women, in a combat sport I will agree that for the most part men are stronger than women. Even by weight in general a man the same weight or even a weight class or two lighter will be stronger than a woman.

Woman though can have as much endurance as men and can be as technically precise as men.

Given how many different jobs in the military it certainly seems possible that women can fill many, including combat positions, in the military. Also given how much our military is involved in things like intelligence gathering, counter insurgency and activities where earning the trust of locals is important women could certainly be valuable in those tasks.

Also to note that the Kurdish militias had many women serving in frontline combat and by nearly all accounts they were among the most effective fighters for the Kurds.

 

The thing about conventional militaries vs militias is that conventional militaries encumber their combat troops with more weight mainly with ceramic plates(front, back and side)

It's the glorified mule task that is the biggest hurdle for females in foot combat roles in conventional militaries.

 

SL4T said diversity is always a strength and then claimed that the military agreed. I posted an article in which the Marine Corps explicitly disagreed and said all male combat units consistently outperformed mixed gender (or more diverse) units. That is how it got to women in combat.