Are you familiar with the comedian James Acaster? He has a relevant bit: https://youtu.be/Zt5qJC1xQ8A
Are you familiar with the comedian James Acaster? He has a relevant bit: https://youtu.be/Zt5qJC1xQ8A
I am no visionary but if Linux doesn’t internalize this, I’m afraid some other kernel will do to it what it did to Unix.
Maybe that’s not a bad thing? If you ask me the GNU people are missing a trick. Perhaps if they rewrote Hurd in Rust they could finally shed that “/Linux”.
Good for you. I was assaulted on a train from London to Manchester before I learnt how to drive.
Tell me you’ve never been assaulted by a drunk guy on a train without telling me you’ve never been assaulted by a drunk guy on a train.
TIL
All this time I assumed Uranus was just the Roman equivalent of Ouranos.
Earl
Squeal
Gwee
If you want to change a politician’s mind, you don’t do it by dangling your vote on a carrot.
So how do you do it?
I’m literally always saying this.
I call Britain a shitty little TERF island all the time, and I’m from Lancashire if that helps.
I have it on good authority that no man is island entire of itself, but every man is a piece of the continent - a part of the main.
Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie.
And yet, it’s there. Just as it is in defamation law.
Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion[?]
A jury of your peers and the Public Order Act 1986.
The US has free speech. Apart from all the exceptions it carves out and designates not protected speech, including but not limited to incitement, threats and harassment, sedition, and obscenity. Obscenity in particular was famously ‘defined’ for a while as “I know it when I see it”. So why draw the line at hate speech?
Is it not a weird state of affairs when saying “X is a paedo” is legally actionable but saying “trans people are all paedos and X is trans” isn’t, even week when X’s house gets burned down either way?
When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal?
Sure, the UK parliament could pass a law saying criticising the prime minister is now illegal. The courts will inevitably issue a declaration of incompatibility with human rights law, but the government, in theory, could ignore it. If the public swallows it. But there’s nothing really stopping that happening in the US either. Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the president, and since the president gets to pick the judges, it could almost certainly come under the sedition exception to the first amendment if the president really wanted it to pass. If the public swallows it.
And that’s what it comes down to at the end of the day. Whether or not the public swallows it. For all the US right wing likes to harp on about freeze peach that sure doesn’t seem to apply if you want to say something bad about America or use the word cisgender. Do you really think the American public is much less likely to support authoritarianism than the British public?
Dragonborn have to come from somewhere.
Half way would be pilk.
Just to add on to your TL;DR (not that any of it is wrong)
The boxers had been competing and passing all eligibility requirements for years until suddenly last year, a few days after Khelif defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian-run IBA announced they had failed sex eligibility tests. Also they refuse to go into specifics about what tests were run and what the results were.
England is currently having a bunch of race riots while simultaneously throwing a shit fit over two women’s boxers who aren’t even trans, so I’m not feeling great about that.
Here 4d6 is Dungeons and Dragons (etc.) shorthand for “roll four six-sided dice and add up the numbers”.
Pretty sure that Labour didn’t deliver the NHS in 1997. What they did deliver was saddling the NHS with billions in PFI debt that has gone a not inconsiderable distance to putting it into the state it’s in now.
As a resident of Britain, I feel like we’re pretty on track for V for Vendetta, actually.
So why haven’t you stopped the bombing?