It seems like you don't quite understand how federated services work.

Here's a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.

• You can block individual users
  • That will remove posts by them from your feed.
  • All future and historical posts by them will also be removed from your vision.
• If you feel like a community as a whole is allowing behaviour you disagree with you can block that entire community
  • You also have the option of creating your own space with a similar theme, a space that you can police in exactly the way you prefer. ( for example "Video No Politics" )
• In the possible case of disliking the content and/or moderation of an entire instance...you guessed it, you can block that also.
  • Creating your own instance is also a possibility, it can be a bit involved but is certainly possible.
  • Then you have all the control, you can invite your friends, success.

You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.

"Their upvote ratio is too damn high", is an instant classic btw.

Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)

Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.

Another indication you haven't actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I'm aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren't going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I'm assuming you don't have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn't actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."

A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."

This is not a good argument.

As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.

The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.

Citation?

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

So you'd be good with phrases such as "God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time" to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people's shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn't make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

"God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

vs

"Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I'd imagine that's why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

Describe what you mean by "freedom of speech" here, I'm assuming you don't mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I'm not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it "fact" i suppose, but it's not really accurate unless it's an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn't what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

Isn't the whole point of this article to point out that no, in fact, you won't ?

Less volume perhaps, certainly less obvious, but not "without".

Goddammit, gonna lose me some internet points but it's just too juicy.

"Pedant"