This is a take which is valid for maybe seven out of seven hundred events at the Olympics, which is why you see this argument made a lot by professional posters but never by any actual female athletes.

Her stats look that way because she's playing against other women. Serena Williams herself is on record as saying that she thinks that she would have immense struggles playing against men.

There should be an annual event where all the events are open so people can watch the women get annihilated in most events and hopefully return to reality.

he would, just as he would steal from big corporations (a fact he returns to like seven times), if it were not for the fact that he has weird hangups. he steadfastly and constantly defends the morality of theft except from small proprieters.

i'm not even mad at piker for having this bad opinion, even though it applies equally to stealing a truck full of laptops from best buy. he has a right to his opinion. i'm annoyed that people are claiming that piker isn't actually condoning theft and it's just a big satire when he obviously is.

I cannot tell you how many policy conversations I’ve been privy to where the central dilemma is “we need to incentivize private actors to do something, but for unclear reasons they cannot be permitted to earn any sort of profit by doing it.“

Was the "dissent" being chilled referred to in the article dissent by the author, or dissent by the illustrator? It's a question with exactly one of two possible answers that you changed the subject on instead of answering.

And given that you never will, yeah, the conversation is at a close.

"Were the authors here defending the author or the illustrator" is a question with one of two answers, which you're now attempting to pivot into a discussion of whether it's correct to defend the illustrator or not.

Do you have any response to the current topic before we change the subject, or no?

The article does in fact do exactly that. The "right wing media campaign" was criticized in those exact words by the author. Another author's criticism was that the intent was to "chill dissent", which was referring to dissent _by the illustrator_.

Writers are opposing the cancellation of the illustrator because it's part of a presumably unjust right wing media campaign.

Modular housing is usually brought in from elsewhere instead of paying local union workers.

his literal whole thing is that corporations are constantly stealing from you so it's fine to steal from them. how is it that so many of piker's supposed fans simply pretend that he doesn't believe anything he says.

You're just going to get a lot of people charging at home that way.

Mamdani and AOC are basically progressive Democrats, which is fine, but they're really not leftists in the "abolish capitalism" sense that most of this site considers leftism to be.

Like what should the NYT do with these leftists? Ignore them entirely?

until these problems are solved, which i'm not betting on, people will always think the system is rigged in favor of the rich, because... it is.

the first is very hard to overcome because of the sheer amount of money in politics (do we really think all these democrats genuinely think sports betting and crypto are great policy?) and the second is not even possible to run against unless you promise to keep winning elections forever

this argument has two very large real problems where the rich are not prosecuted for their crimes, first because they keep getting sweetheart deals from prosecutors (a la epstein) and second because they can now simply buy legal impunity for a few million dollars

One of the reasons we know that Mr. Swift doesn't think it's fine to eat kids is that _nobody_ thinks it's fine to eat kids whereas plenty of people think there's nothing wrong with heisting the Louvre. This guy isn't "joking" either. It's just what he believes.

what we learned from luigi is that one third of bluesky thinks that he's cool and based

Piker thinks it's fine to steal from thieves, such as large corporations, because he is a socialist.

If he thinks the Louvre is a thieving institution, as everyone vaguely agrees the British Museum is, then it's 100% within his worldview to say it's fine to steal from them.

If he said it in the middle of a very long a otherwise serious conversation in which he described other forms of cannibalism approvingly, I would suspect he was fine with it.

I think if somebody earnestly advocates a position to me for like half an hour straight I assume they believe what they are saying.

Okay, man, if you think Piker is literally just pretending to be a socialist you can continue to believe that.

I mean, yes, of course he is. He's very seriously explaining it. That's why, as the victim of theft, he thinks it's fine to steal. Glad we're all on the same page now.

It must be awfully convenient to pretend someone was just joking whatever they say anything that might be inconvenient to your argument.

So you're saying that throughout the entire interview by Piker, he's not saying what he actually believes? This is all just one big joke to him?

And it's fine to believe that. He's entitled to his opinions. What's strange is the degree to which people insist that he was actually just joking about it.

Piker is consistent through the entire article about how theft is perfectly fine if you're stealing from a corporation. He answers a full list of things it is our isn't okay to steal from: mp3s (yes), diners (no), libraries (no), the Louvre (yes), Whole Foods (yes). This is just what he believes.

Worldviews built on aesthetics aren't guaranteed to be bad but they usually are.