Wouldn't that be if they were connected at the tail? This is more of a disorganised avian garroting caused by a constant futile bid for meaningful independence.
I think of America more as a swarm of 50 plus angry pigeons tied together at the neck with string.
This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?
If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn't particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn't always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors... And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.
It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.
However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.
Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine... But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.
Agreed, but you also said :
I'm okay with this phrase except for the word "intent". If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.
And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.
We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.
The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.
Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press.... But will also send you to prison for publishing "LGBTQIA propaganda"
Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it's own.
Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren't nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It's on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.
But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn't the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.
I am in the process of a long term tea vs coffee war with my partner. I love both but tea is easier on me. Both are rabbitholes and because they are cultural standbys a lot of people grew up with one or the other and like it more because of personal familiarity than actually forming a detached opinion.
A lot of friends over the years who "didn't like coffee" simply formed the opinion because people who didn't really know coffee gave them stuff that was kind of shit. Giving them something on the upper end of the spectrum or is just very different from their expectation can change people into full on coffee drinkers. It's more common in coffee because a lot of people actually don't like dark roasts or are sensitive to stale oxidized tastes.
Tea is generally harder to convert people to with as much enthusiasm because individual blends vary so widely that it can be hit or miss for individual tastes. You need to try people on like several blends over multiple days to find out their profile.
I mean... It's grocery store tea. Same thing as grocery store coffee. It's in the mediocre range. To convert a non-tea person you need more than just giving them "okay". If you give someone who doesn't know tea a mediocre tea and tell them it's "good tea" you basically just increase the evidence that tea isn't all that and they don't see much benefit in seeking it out the same way they would if you go out of your way to blow their mind.
The reason Yorkshire Gold doesn't trip your sensitivity is because they roast it longer. It kind of destroys the individual character and flavor profile of the different tea varieties but it means that it becomes nigh impossible to oversteep.
How on earth did you interpret I was suggesting you place that kind of burden on a beginner - are you mental?
No! You, the converter make tea for the convertee so all they need to do is put fabulous tea in their face and benefit from your experience.... Or just go to a good restaurant and have actually great tea. Point being is if you want someone to potentially like tea the burden of proof that tea is awesome is on you to prove.
Some might be swayed by giving them stale preportioned box tea that is formulated not to be awesome - just harder than average to fuck up with a long steep time because it's overroasted... But good luck.
I have converted non-coffee /tea people and it's not like they've never had tea before. Some people legit don't like it but more or have been trained to ambivalence because people have given them a lot of mediocre tea and sold them the idea that the mediocre was good. For those people it takes way more than another banal so/so experience solidifing their notion that tea kind of is just "okay" to actually get them curious.
Yeah, but if you are trying to actually impress someone it's not where you start. I buy Yorkshire when I am hard up for cash because I am already addicted to black tea and it's ridiculously cheap but in the realm of tea in general it's equivalent to the same supermarket coffees.
If you actually want to hook someone you give them the good stuff first to show them the experience to aspire. If it's coffee go to a roaster, buy whole bean, grind it yourself before brew and use good technique in prep or go to a shop that knows their shit to do it all for you. If it's tea go and spring for a loose leaf properly sealed, pay attention to steep time and ideal water temp. You want to see their eyes shine when they take their first sip with the realization of a new word opening up.
Give it like a few years and they'll drink Yorkshire of their own volition. If you didn't grow up with tea as a nostalgia you got to traverse a barrier and create a memory they want to relive in another way.
There's actually kind of a funny history behind the Eggplant emoji. Emoji are Japanese in origin and around the time they were taking off there was this Survivor like gameshow where one guy was confined to his apartment and he had to try and survive past the basics by applying for and winning sweepstakes items from various promotions from newspapers and magazines.
The participant's shortened form name was Nasu - which means "eggplant" so since the guy started the challenge with literally nothing including clothes they put a little Eggplant over his junk in post. That became a Japanese cultural meme that translated over once emoji became more widely adopted.
You probably won't see actual dick emoji in the actual set because emoji are an all ages access thing and exist on an international level. It's actually kind of funny how different cultures use the same finite set. Like in China how the angel emoji is construed as "I'm going to end you". One could see the things as becoming essentially a hieroglyphic set where they gain their own full individual linguistic meanings.
Due to a guy at work spewing right wing radio into my work space for a few weeks before he was stopped I heard a lot of Musk in interviews... It is the most sycophantic non-sense that they pass off as journalism. The framing of the questions are always overflattering ("So we know your new plans for the widget is AWESOME but what can you tell us about....") and no actual critical questions are even posed.
A lot of it is that his entire company exists on hype. Critical thinking is trained out of his audience by simple lack of exposure. I imagine if an interviewer were to treat him as anything less than the tech messiah he just doesn't give them the opportunity. Provided the novel data problems with AI remain unsolved he may find himself in hot water if his audience ever gets wise.