Realistically, people are sharing abstracts with one another and then citing their preferred, biased sources of information, whether it’s Al Jazeera, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, Democracy Now, The New York Times, etc… In practice, this means relying mostly on secondary sources, with primary studies cherry-picked to support whatever point they are trying to make.

What do you mean by “Do tell”?

So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender, tied to the population it is meant to protect? That is, if the population is around 50% women, the military should attempt to have 50% women in all positions? And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism? Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?

This reminds me of Jeremy Kauffman’s ad, “War is Gay,” which advocated for making militarism as gay as possible. The point is that militarism, or zabernism, is considered acceptable and even encouraged as long as DEI quotas are met within the military. https://youtu.be/kdfym6LKpQ0

Just because one does not blame billionaires as the root cause of problems does not mean they are inclined to automatically blame those who look different from them, whether in terms of gender, ethnicity, nationality, or whatever.