There’s a reasonable probability that I’ll be heavily downvoted for this, but it’s my two cents, so here I go. For clarity, I’ll in the following use “male” and “female” to refer to biological groups identified by their reproductive organs (by far most people can clearly be identified as one or the other), and “man” and “women” to refer to groups of people that identify as such.

Sex (the action) is pretty fundamentally tied to your reproductive organs. As such, I think it makes most sense to define “straight” vs. “bi” vs. “gay” in terms of sex (the attribute). I would say that a male that is exclusively attracted to females is “straight”, while a male that is exclusively attracted to women “bi with a strong preference for women”, and that a male that is exclusively attracted to males is “gay”.

My reasoning here is twofold: First, a male that is attracted to women can have a range for how “female presenting” the woman has to be before they are interested. Some will only consider women that have gone through surgery and full hormonal therapy attractive, while others will find women without any surgery or hormone therapy attractive. This brings up the second point: A lot of sexuality becomes a lot easier to talk about (and de-stigmatize) if we accept that sexuality is a continuous spectrum. If we accept that, it makes sense to me to use one word for each extreme, and a more fluid language for the bulk of the spectrum. I know plenty of bi people that have more or less strong preferences towards one side of the spectrum, and some that are completely agnostic. I think a lot of stigma can be removed if we’re more open to people being “just slightly bi”, while we can keep the language clear by reserving “straight” and “gay” for the two extremes.

Finally, if we use “straight” to refer to e.g. males that are exclusively attracted to women, we open an unnecessary can of worms regarding males that are attracted to people who identify as women, but don’t present as female. In short: Sex (act) is fundamentally tied to sex (attribute), so it makes sense to me to define sexuality in terms of sex, rather than gender.

What you say is true, but doesn’t really answer “Could someone take down Wikipedia [without completely shutting off the internet]”. For obvious reasons, shutting internet access completely off isn’t going to happen short of an insurrection or a war.

Shutting down Wikipedia specifically is much harder. As others have pointed out, there are many thousand copies of Wikipedia lying around on peoples private devices. If Wikipedia were actually taken down (blocked by the government in some sense) hundreds of mirrors would likely pop up immediately, and it would be more or less impossible for the government to go after each individual site that some person decides to host, short of just cutting internet access completely.

I see where you’re coming from, but would like to add some nuance (not everywhere is like the US).

As a general rule, I think penalising malicious fraud (i.e. fraud not committed out of dire necessity, but in order to scrape an extra buck) is worth it on a societal level, even if the economic benefits aren’t a net positive. It’s about sending the message that we live in a society where people need to treat each other fairly, and where we can trust the system to protect us. Even if society as a whole loses money going after some of this fraud, it can mean an enormous amount to the individuals that have been exposed to fraud to know that society has their back.

On the second level, there’s welfare fraud. First of all, we definitely have a more generous welfare system where I’m from than what’s found in the US, and I think that’s a good thing. We also have some issues with people that are capable of working, or who do work under the table, who still claim benefits they aren’t qualified for. The major issue I see with it is this: By gaming the system, these people in the long term threaten to make the system unsustainable, thus stealing resources and putting pressure on the people the system is actually designed to help.

In a way I see actual welfare fraud (i.e. people with more than enough resources gaming the system to pull government money they don’t need) as worse, because they’re violating the trust of a system society has put in place to help the most exposed among us. This kind of fraud indirectly impacts the least resourceful (possibly a poor translation) people in our society.

In either case, I think the social element of fighting fraud is worth it, even if it is a net negative economically. Fraud in general is a severe violation of the social contract we live under, and “letting it slide” contributes to eroding peoples trust in both each other, and the social system as a whole. It’s worth spending some money to prevent that.

I’m impressed by how many good forklift-stories there are here, I never would have guessed how much crazy shit you guys go through! But this one wins the prize- that sounds sketchy as fuuuck…