Well let's hear some suggestions then.

I think they should be given a pass - same way women-only gyms get one. That hypothetical person of color has a million places they can go and just one where they’re not welcome. Seems like a fair trade to me.

Stay strong, brother. Out of solidarity, I’m going to go label a few more things with my new white paint marker - purely out of spite.

I mean - it’s certainly possible, but you’d still be risking that 500k prize if you got caught.

And most people seem to tap out because of loneliness or starvation, so if you were going to cheat, you’d pretty much have to smuggle in either food or a better way of getting it - like a decent fishing rod and proper lures.

I've put things in my ass for no points. 1000 points sure sounds worth it.

They do regular health check-ins with the contestants, and if you’re not losing weight but there’s no footage of you catching food, they’re going to figure out pretty quickly that something’s up.

On top of that, the locations are chosen so that just hiking out to you with food would be a survival challenge in itself - and coming in by boat would almost certainly be noticed.

Interestingly, I've just been binge watching the show for the first time. I'm on season 5 currently.

Two
spaces
before
you
press
enter.

Mine is complaining that I'm way too excited for my new white paint marker and number 64 rubber bands. I just don't get women..

What are you suggesting exactly? You have an actual solution here to offer or you just want to be a smart ass?

Not sure what the article is getting at, but there’s a thing called “weaponized empathy” - or “concern trolling” - which is a bad-faith argumentation tactic where you pretend to be worried about someone, when in reality you’re just using that as a cover for judgment or hostility.

It can also be used more broadly. Think of how often “think of the children” gets trotted out as a justification to invade people’s privacy, when the supposed concern for kids’ wellbeing is really just an excuse.

When people have sex, they usually do it in private, without any witnesses. Whatever happens during that time is often difficult to prove afterward, since it typically comes down to one person’s word against the other’s. Unless there’s clear physical evidence of assault, it can be extremely hard to establish that something was done against someone’s will. Most reasonable people would agree that “she said so” alone doesn’t amount to proof - and isn’t, by itself, a valid basis for sending someone to prison.

"If we just trusted women"

We don't trust people based on their gender. We trust them based on credibility and evidence. If there's even the tiniest amount of doubt then it better to let the guilty walk free rather than put an innocent person in jail. And I'm speaking broadly here - not about Trump specifically.