[albutr]

By promoting hard-hitting contact sports to youth, and issuing equipment that doesn't do a good job at protecting the head?

Even considering the underreporting with young, high school athletes, a large number of young football players in the US have suffered concussions[1] at a very young age when their brains are developing, and that's with equipment that we can reasonably assume is designed with safety in mind. If a nefarious government were to try to promote a sport, which had rules and equipment that lead to a higher risk of brain injury, and cultivated an image/environment that elevates "toughness"(not complaining when you feel you've been injured; a significant fraction (~16%) of high school football players continue to play even after being hit hard enough to lose consciousness, so that attitude is there, just need to bump the number up), that might get you close.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_American_footba...

[yontherubicon]

TBH, we're far better at reducing executive function and impulse control simply by widespread drug usage, pornography usage and (IMHO) highly rewarding, low-attention media, esp social meda, youtube, and video games. All of those are FAR more widespread than playing football, and in aggregate, are far more likely to render one subservient.

[maxerickson]

Wake up sheeple!

[dang]

Not here please.

[maxerickson]

Okay, but I think it probably isn't a good outcome where a serious comment saying the same thing is more welcome than the ironic one.

[dang]

I don't see that it said the same thing. This is an opportunity to practice the site guideline that asks you to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, instead of a weaker one that's more easily dismissed.