I’m not saying that all the women need to wear ‘skimpy bikinis’, I’m just making the point that the teams that are wearing the ‘sport hijab’ aren’t doing it because they have any kind of freedom, but because there is enormous societal pressure and political/legal/religious oppression, that extends beyond the games into their daily lives. Calling that ‘freedom’ is unreasonable, because the choice is either ‘wear these specific clothes (men-excluded) or face social outcast/death’

I completely agree that the frequent sexualisation of women’s sporting outfits is something which is still shitty and I’m not defending the objectification of talented athletes who want to be seen as skilled, rather than oggled for their body - but claiming that because the voluntary admission sports-team outfit is more revealing than necessary, doesn’t mean the athletes were forced into wearing it, and in the broader society, people in those same countries actually have the freedom to wear whatever they please, whether it’s ‘skimpy’ or not.

Sure, the women on the western team are perhaps pressured into the bikinis from decades of objectification and commercial sex-appeal underwriting womens sports, but in their daily lives outside, they aren’t beholden to a religious dress code, and consequently have much more ‘freedom’. The argument can also be made that even though the ‘skimpy’ outfits are objectifying, the athletes would have known what the prevailing dress code at the sport was before they signed up, and were ‘okay’ with it - at least to the extent that they still participated.

well nobody is forcing anybody to wear anything in the western countries - the huge difference is that outside of the sporting environment, women can choose to wear or not wear ‘skimpy bikinis’ - but in a sharia observant country, there is no such allowance made, so the sports team outfit actually is indicative of the dress standards forced upon women and expected by society.

Some cultures allow women to cover their bodies. While others allowed them to show as much as they’d like. Oh they’re allowed to cover themselves? They’re forced to wear it.

A truly insane way of phrasing repression - I guess Jews in nazi Germany were allowed to wear a star of david? No, I don’t care how liberating some women say the enforced coverings are, when there isn’t a choice - it’s repression. Plain and simple. Try being a woman in saudi wearing normal clothing in public and see how permissive the regime is.

Yeah but people are correct when they ask if that’s really the standard you should be aiming for. If democrats want to beat trump as much as they say - perhaps to stop shooting themselves in the foot, picking incrementalist candidates who forget where they are, and trying to re-engage people that (correctly) feel completely unrepresented by offering up these ancient clowns would be a good start.

Blind allegiance to the most uninspiring dem runner in history, and his campaign being more about who he isn’t…it’s just the emperor’s new clothes but as an extremely consequential election.

If democrats lose again, it’s time for some serious self reflection - as bad as trump is, and as insane and dangerous some of his supporters are - that’s not an acceptable excuse for losing an election - if anything, it makes it more embarrassing that there’s anything resembling an actual contest.

dont know why youre being downvoted, this is completely true. The majority of people favour the convenience that streaming has represented, and TVs have been designed to turn on showing a shiny netflix icon instead of “Composite II” for like a decade now.

Yes, while consumers have been sold a double-edged sword/lie - the streaming companies were obviously never going to market their platforms by saying “one downside of streaming is we can take away content whenever we like”.

The average person with a bluray collection is going to be much more aware of the pros and cons of the formats - I’d be willing to guess most peoples family “collections” are still on DVD.

The issue is WhatsApp from a few years ago versus WhatsApp today - meta/favebook is probably the worst possible company to have bought it, their record on security, privacy, and features is horrible.

The app today is full of enshitification (meta ai being shoved down my throat by the communication monopoly) and nobody can ever fully trust their security or privacy because its not open source.

Signal sadly doesn’t yet have the ubiquity of whatsapp - but for everyone that has it (now I’m finding even non tech-savvy family are switching over) use signal, and where you have to, use WhatsApp.

imessage is no better in that case - and outside America barely anybody still uses either SMS or RCS, apple is a smaller share of the market meaning the ubiquity of imessage isn’t there.

If you want anything beyond SMS which is a universal standard, you both have to be using the same service - I’m just saying that signal is available for anyone who wants to use it.

I was also upset at the removal of texting from signal, but in hindsight its for the best - if its a secure message service that youre not charged per message to use, the support of a dying platform which is difficult to distinguish when in use is an issue - now its extremely clear whether youre reaching someone through signal or text, cause signal only sends signal messages.

Signal is better than any other common alternative, and its on both android and ios