[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Why exactly would Iran hope for the US to be a one-party autocracy full of imperialists who won’t suffer non-whites or non-Christians?

[-] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago

Do you also travel around in an unmarked van?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Either a comma or parentheses are what would make the difference.

I will tell the students whom I married.

Now the students know who was at your wedding.

I will tell the students, whom I married.

I will tell the students (whom I married).

You're only telling something to the students that you married.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

So why haven't you stopped the bombing?

[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago

ow oof my bones and skin and organs

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

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?

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago

Dragonborn have to come from somewhere.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 56 points 3 months ago

Rob Schneider peaked literally last century with Deuce Bigalow. As if that were not bad enough...

[-] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago

I've never tried making jokes about Catholicism before, but I'll do vatican.

[-] [email protected] 66 points 4 months ago

Joanne Rowling has released books under the name Robert Galbraith, and the poster above has mixed up the names for humourous effect.

Also Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who was a big proponent of conversion therapy for queer people. Probably nothing to do with why Rowling chose that name...

view more: next ›

svcg

joined 1 year ago