I was lazy programmer who will do absolutely nothing if a screenshot of my bio makes FP, but now I am a lazy law student who will still do nothing if a screenshot of my bio makes FP
I was lazy programmer who will do absolutely nothing if a screenshot of my bio makes FP, but now I am a lazy law student who will still do nothing if a screenshot of my bio makes FP
That's the thing though... You're ALLOWED to say killed. You're allowed to say "murderer" and "pedophile". People are choosing to self-censor preemptively, which is simply ceding ground to authoritarianism. Resistance isn't just disobedience in the face of unjust legislation, but the refusal to capitulate socially to the pressures of the ruling class. "Unalived" is a microcosm of the passivity toward the social de-clawing of the populous and the placement of corporate profit over individuals.
Well you see, there's a potent failsafe in the American constitution... specifically it's second amendment...
I'd pay a premium for a plug that doesn't want me to listen to his mixtape or hang out at his house for an hour while he wraps up a bud slower than syrup going uphill... just me?
It's flamboyant, and egotistical to some degree, but not entirely unwarranted. He identified a disingenuous tactic from Charlie and stopped him dead to call it out instead of letting him run with his tripe. That's what needs to be done. You can't let someone make a mockery of your debate platform by engaging in fallacious and bad-faith discussion while you sit and wait your turn - you have to call it out the second they start down that track. "destroyed" was posturing for the audience though...
You can't really "source" a personal sociological observation. It's like asking for a source on "Go Lakers!"
'Requirement of minimum enforcement" is total hooey. Where are you getting you information from dude? This is stating to sound like propaganda. Find me the ruling and I'll continue to engage, but otherwise you're getting flagged as a useful idiot in my books. Please actually read the Act again and have a good think about it before you continue.
The supreme court was not forced into this decision. I've done over 6 months of legal research into the UKs laws on trans rights for a dissertation, so I'm not lacking in knowledge (I've probably read the Equalities Act more times than you've thought about it). It absolutely DID function, and was open to be interpreted either in a pro-trans way, or unfortunately, an anti-trans way. Previously, Goodwin bound us to inclusive interpretation, but that is no longer the case. This was opportunistic.
That's only according to one of many possible interpretations. The fact that they chose that interpretation (one which renders GRCs defunct, violates basic human rights, and leaves everyone in the country who operates a public bathroom confounded) is the thing we're all so pissed off about.
There were several options here, and they chose the hateful, damaging and draconian one. Please consider carefully who you're helping by perpetuating that
The legislation was functional and had been upheld without issue for OVER A DECADE. If it was so desperately flawed, why did we only find out once a biggoted children's novelist threw 30k at the issue?
Wrong. Actually read the Equalities Act, then read the ruling in Goodwin v UK. Then, read the purposes and reasons for the appeal in the first place - Scottish parliament counting trans women towards female staff for equality and inclusion stats. This whole debacle was sparked by some Scottish MPs being uncomfortable with trans women being counted as women for data collection purposes. It was always, and continues to be, a pathetic attack on a vulnerable minority for no good reason.
2/x They actually DID rewrite the law in practice - a few months ago I could piss in public, now I can't. A few months ago, trans folks had the right to privacy which has now been violated. A few months ago, employers knew how to handle trans patrons and staff, and now they don't. Nothing about this ruling was forced, and nothing about is was in line with the law up to that point.
To pretend the High Court was obligated to rule this way is a farce, and a counter-productive one at that.
They did not need to rule transphobicly. The equality Act would still be perfectly functional if they rules that trans people should be treated as their acquired gender with a GRC or their assigned sex without. It also would still be functional legislation to have ruled that gender is the important factor for public spaces over sex. Is this a good time to remind everyone that there were 0 LGBT advocacy groups consulted on this? And that several bigoted hate groups were heard by the courts? 1/x
The wording of the final paragraph is very telling - it's not really about being biologically accurate or protecting women, but actually its based upon the idea that if a cis person is uncomfortable, trans people are no longer welcome. This is textbook discrimination, and it is sickening and disheartening to see it being espoused by the highest powers in our country. This is the result of allowing hate speech to be platformed as rational politics, funded by bigoted private interest groups.
It absolutely is scandalous - no people want to be at the mercy of those in power, and it's clear as day that the lack of oversight since Brexit has directly resulted in a back-slide on human rights, in terms of freedom of expression, freedom to assemble and the right to privacy (online "safety" Act, anyone?). The UK government does not want you to be free, they want you to be complacent as they help their buddies in israel bomb kids and get rich. Fuck anyone who says its not deeply disturbing.
Recent rulings from the high court have directly violated Article 8 (right to a private life) by requiring transgender people to use single sex services according to their assigned sex at birth, regardless of their presented or recognised gender. This forces EVERYONE to disclose their assigned sex at birth when using public services, which was ruled a violation of Art. 8 in Goodwin v UK - a transgender person should be able to keep private that aspect of their life, both for safety and comfort.
So... the UK used to be a member of the EU, and therefore were protected under the European Charter of Human Rights and litigated upon human rights issues in Strasbourg. Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression. Since Brexit, the UK incorporated EU human rights law into UK law aa part of the leaving process. The issue is that now we have no oversight, and therefore our government is theoretically able to revoke or modify these rights at will. In practice, they are eroding. 1/2
No. Not because I disagree with the principle.In fact, I agree entirely in theory... but the reality is that once you give utilities companies the freedom to charge more depending on what you're doing with their stuff, I can see there being maybe a 2 second window before the average consumer needs to pay out the nose for any water or electricity use the Corpos don't approve of. Charging a vibrator? Sorry, that's a premium package (lol) utility, 200 dollars please :)
Because the only reason to ever focus on THAT aspect of the slave trade is to make it seem palatable or civilised. It was not. Even those who were "nice" slace owners still !! OWNED OTHER PEOPLE !!. That is not ok. Those people were kidnapped. Those people were separated from their families and friends. Those people were beaten into submission and forced to work all day. That is not acceptable. That is not civilised. The brutal subjugation of another people should never be taken so lightly.
Why do you think black communities were forced into poverty, and black pastimes and culture were branded as criminal? Because black prisoners are the 21 century slaves, and the cops still round them up. False charges, excessive use of force, intentionally supplying communities with narcotics.... there is nothing the USA has not done in attempt to enslave their darker skinned compatriots. It is institutional, and it is omnipresent - without addressing that racism, you will never fix the USA.
My first guess is that it's something in Hebrew, spelled phonetically in Latin script, based on the Israeli flag in the banner.
I think you're drawing a false equivalency between political parties controlling dissent through oppressive laws on permitted speech and freedom of press, and minorities asking to be considered and treated on equal footing. The so called "thought police" of the left is nothing more than people asking for basic respect and dignity. This is not the same as a government suppressing free expression of the people, and to draw that parallel is a perversion of the truth at best.
When they do cross that line and pull the trigger on crowds of civilians, they won't give a single flying fuck what it makes them look like. People will be pissed, sure, but they'll also be scared of being shot.
That's a strong motivator. Plus, they can always just blame the liberals for whatever happens and their sycophants will eat it up blindly.
Also, as a side note, the papers will more likely read "violent protesters exchange fire with ICE" or something to that effect.
It's for an internet cafe, fair call to protect your stuff from sticky-fingered customers...idk what business insurance looks like in Yemen, but you won't need to make as many claims on it if you've got ol' slugger behind the counter.
I laughed out loud when I saw the evidence pyramid
Ok but to be fair, the new testament heavily recontextualises the old testament and renders a large portion of it moot for Christians. Exodus isn't a great foundation for a Christian argument because the death of Jesus absolved humanity from the rules of the old testament and replaced those with the teachings of Christ. Jesus did teach compassion for the foreigner, and Christians should extend that compassion, but not because Exodus said so. Christofascists don't really care about Christ though.
You're a little off base there. There is a correlation between red meat consumption and some forms of cancer, but the conditions of the animal prior to slaughter weren't considered in that study, and the link (if any) is quite weak. Mass produced meat probably isn't the best for us, but that's because of preservatives, low quality feed, growth hormones and bulking agents, not scared animal hormones. You're letting your feelings on the issue guide your logic, that should be the other way around.
The day he dies, hundreds of people will come forward with their stories. It'll be like Jimmy Savile all over again.
The issue is the platforming of any idoit no matter how senseless and hateful their position as if their stupidity should be held in equal regard to the genuinely researched and considered points of their adversaries. There's no good reason why a politician who knowingly states falsehoods should be allowed to engage in public debate. There's no reason to "listen to both sides" when one of them has 0 evidence, 0 rationale and 0 respect for their interlocutor