Defletter

8 ms·

91.
by Defletter 9mo ago
> How long have some people wanted to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of these laws? I don't know, perhaps you should give some examples of this actually happ
92.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Alas, the distraction continues.
93.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Do you also insist that we treat with proper decorum those who throw out assertions that jetfuel cannot melt steel beams? I notice you have yet to criticise them for posting what is at best misguided and unsubstantiated misinformation, and
94.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Okay, so just to be clear, you don't have even a single example of someone being prosecuted under hate speech laws for stating facts in the 40-odd years since its passage? Why is this not just concern trolling? As to the general ques
95.
by Defletter 9mo ago
> surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level. Oh we were already at that level by that time: the comment mine responds to makes the claim that "it is really difficult to define what hate spe
96.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Do you have any examples of people being prosecuted for hate speech by stating nothing but dry facts?
97.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Cool beans
98.
by Defletter 9mo ago
> Interesting that the cases that spring to mind for you are literal neo-Nazis. If I had a penny for every time this happened....
99.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Yeaaaah, the Communications Act 2003 is not fit for purpose in the modern information age where [seemingly] the vast majority of conversation is taking place in digital spaces. Sidenote, I do think it's amusing how, prior to the Online
100.
by Defletter 9mo ago
What a shining example of freedom of speech, right here. Bravo.
101.
by Defletter 9mo ago
> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Or
102.
by Defletter 9mo ago
Scope guards are neat, particularly since D has had them since 2006! ( https://forum.dlang.org/thread/dtr2fg$2vqr$4@digitaldaemon.c... ) But they are syntactically confusing since they look like a function invocations wi
103.
by Defletter 9mo ago
I think OP is directing their ire towards projects with multiple maintainers, thus is more likely to be hamstrung by consensus building and is thus less productive. It does seem like we've been swamped with drama posts about large open
104.
by Defletter 9mo ago
It depends on governance, for want of a better word: if a project has a benevolent dictator then that project will likely be more productive than one that requires consensus building.
105.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Okay, seriously, can we just get one, just ONE document/image spec that doesn't let you embed scripts or remote content? What is with this constant need to put the same exactly vulnerability into EVERYTHING?! Just let me have a
106.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Figured I'd add that the BBC has had to apologise recently for Question Time posing a question to the panellists about a stat of 1 in 3 children in Glasgow having English as a second language, but the text prompt they showed on screen
107.
by Defletter 10mo ago
> Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism Exactly, hence why JKR's depraved dogma is anti-feminist: the idea that women can be disqualified from their womanhood for not being biologically pure
108.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Partially correct but you are conflating the movement fighting for biological rights (eg: reproductive rights) as it being bio-essentialist. And there certainly was infighting about trans people within second-wave feminism (eg: feminist sex
109.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Have you never encountered a generalisation in your entire life? EDIT: Fun tidbits: - Sheila Jeffreys thinks that "any woman who takes part in a heterosexual couple helps to shore up male supremacy by making its foundations stronger&qu
110.
by Defletter 10mo ago
It's shows that JKR, a billionaire, has an army of sleeper accounts willing to jump at any mention of her nakedly virulent transphobia. Second-wave feminists would deplore her bio-essentialism. She is an anti-feminist.
111.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Oh hello, welcome to this 18-comment deep thread. This is the second time now that I've mentioned JK Rowling's transphobia and had a randomer show up and comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37058027 ). Yo
112.
by Defletter 10mo ago
> which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left Could you elaborate on that? I'm aware of the Lib Dems championing changes to the law to remove restrictions on "insulting" speech, but even so, they&#x2
113.
by Defletter 10mo ago
> You're conflating legitimate criticism with incitement. You should tell the right wingers that. Here's some of the right-wing sources I found when searching Ground News for some articles about Lucy Connolly, the woman who pub
114.
by Defletter 10mo ago
> It's natural to support free speech for what you agree and censor what you don't. Y'all really don't make a convincing case for freedom of speech when you cannot even read. Let me repeat: "You have fallen into
115.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Again, you are stripping all context and content. You are pretending that protest organising and calling for the burning down of a building populated with asylum seekers are the same thing. I vehemently reject this facetious framing.
116.
by Defletter 10mo ago
Protests are pressure valves, not tweets.
117.
by Defletter 10mo ago
The continual conflation of speech that harms society as "speech I dislike" is absurd. And yes, it's not American-style freedom of speech... we've never had that nor should we. Just look at what American-style freedom of
118.
by Defletter 10mo ago
> For you the issue is a left right issue and if the opinion matches yours it is acceptable and seen in a positive light but if it's the other side you have no tolerance. When you remove all content and context from what is actually
119.
by Defletter 10mo ago
For me at least (different person), the term "speech offences" has been so captured by the far-right who think publicly advocating for the burning down of buildings populated with minorities is totally fine, but calling someone ra
120.
by Defletter 10mo ago
I think it's because unwrap() seems to unassuming at a glance. If it were or_panic() instead I think people would intuit it more as extremely dangerous. I understand that we're not dealing with newbies here, but everyone is still

More ›