karaddin

I don't think intent is part of the Australian racial discrimination act, just whether a reasonable person would view the speech as harassing/vilifying/intimidating groups xyz or something along those lines. Perhaps I'm misremembering as its quite a few years ago that I remember it being discussed and definitely not a lawyer, it could have been "whether a reasonable person would believe the intent was to <list of stuff>". I don't think "I was drunk" is the defense being used with respect to intent here though, I agree its a not a good one.

Are you actually interested in understanding a potential rationale for what he said*, or is this point scoring in an argument? I don't agree with him on that so I'm not interested in defending it, but if the goal is understanding I can take a crack. *Was it ever confirmed those comments were definitely him?

Bolded is what I would have thought and why I posted, the second bit does make sense though if this isn't actually indicative of the standard turn around on something like this. The year wait for the court booking still isn't good, but that's a pretty straightforward explanation of the courts being overburdened/insufficiently resourced. That's not even a question of the law though. I don't find what she said offensive, with the disclaimer that her general tone and demeanor could dramatically change how I'd feel about it, but that's the precarious nature of making most of your income from sponsorships. If you do something the sponsors don't like you'll lose them. The only reason I gave any weight to what I'd read on Reddit about it requiring intent was that the reporting indicated that a lack of intent was the defence her lawyers were going with, that seems a poor angle if that's not even a component of the charge.

I'll spare the thread from dealing with yet another rehash of our dramatically different views and just note that population demographics are not a subjective matter, white people are the overwhelming majority - both of people in the UK (82%*), and officers in the Met (85%*) and that impacts how such statements can be taken. All of that said, I'm not saying this law is illegitimate or wrong. I'd view jail time as absurd, but if found guilty I assume there would be a fine and that's the price of being stupid when drunk. The lengthy delays are the problem (or at least the sign of one). *Numbers from a quick Google search that should be ok as a ball park.

Yeah, it was really more of a "this is a demonstration of things not being good" than anything I thought was particularly revelatory. Even police budgets have been pretty cut to the bone right? It's a one year delay for the court case, but just taking a year to decide whether to even push ahead with charges seems really slow and I would have thought not wholly dependent on the courts?

Then the people I was reading were wrong, which is hardly surprising lol. If the charge is entirely about how it's perceived by the target/or the reasonable person standard then that seems much less frivolous to go ahead with charges yeah.

No I wouldn't because, funnily enough, context actually matters and the societal and power dynamics of white and black people aren't the same in our countries. Also half the point of my criticism is that taking 2 years to handle minor shit like that is indicative of significant issues with the system - either too much minor shit being charged or inadequate police/court resourcing and *that* should be fixed. I'm going to roll my eyes at this charge but she did bring it on herself, but it should go to trial and be resolved far faster than this.

Only if there's intent if the keyboard lawyers I saw yesterday are correct about the relevant British law, although I'm blanking on the specifics of what needs to be intended - I don't think it matched up with the Aus ones I'm familiar with and seemed a high bar to meet for that particular phrase. Not to mention no one even gets an opportunity to know and claim double standard if the officer in question had just ignored it.

Sam Kerr facing a 4 day trial in 2025 for calling a cop "white bastard" seems like a questionable investment of resources if your court system is sufficiently overburdened it takes 2 years to handle something that minor.

You don't need to agree with the logic to accept it's motivated by the same concern in both cases though, that's still consistent.

Pretty sure Rip went from "appeasement via conceding territory is the fastest way to end the war and avert the risk of nuclear war" to "Putin is not acting the way he thought, appeasement via limited territorial gains is not possible but he's not at the point of ending the world over a conventional conflict in Ukraine. Therefore the fastest way to end the war, and with it the risk of uncontrolled escalation leading to nuclear war, would have been immediately bringing the initial conflict to an end via overwhelming international force". It's still motivated by avoiding nuclear war.

And the money angle only makes sense from a short term perspective imo. Sure it costs you less now and perhaps people will watch the first season, but it's less likely to be the smash hit they want so it winds up making less money. And most shows get increasing cost efficiency per episode when they get to reuse the sets, although admittedly a show like this doesn't get to reuse as many sets since it keeps relocating. But that feeds back into the argument for giving the characters more time to breath - you can have multiple episodes on the same sets before moving on.

I finished up the rest of the season as well so either it became more enjoyable or the performance style bothered me less as I got used to them. It just feels like an industry wide decision at the corporate level that's having a major negative impact on a lot of series that really need to be 2-4 episodes longer.

I've finished episode 5 now and I can definitely see some seeds that could grow nicely, but some of the others are hard to understand. Ep 4 Ep 5 On the whole Zuko's plot line feels more promising, although I worry they're not selling the start of the arc enough.

Thanks. I clicked through to read that tweet the first time having already read polish's first comment about it, immediately thought he'd misread it and read the rest of the comment with blinders on for that perspective. When polish responded to me I read it again without the blinders and think it's a pretty fair read on the comment.

You disagreeing with the interpretation I was clearing reading doesn't make my usage of the phrase wrong, it means you disagree with me. And hey look at how I replied to polishgenius, I'm capable of listening to differing viewpoints and conceding points when someone doesn't act like a jackass. On an international forum you frequently run into English as second language individuals, or merely people from another country that doesn't use a particular phrase that you take for granted. When someone replies to my usage of a phrase saying nothing but repeating the phrase with a question mark I assume this is what happened, and try to explain in good faith.

My point at least is that you can draw some conclusions about the type of person he was based on what he actually did, rather than a hypothetical worst case scenario of what he didn't do. And that the actual actions taken are at odds with that worst case scenario.

Ok yeah, reading it again I think your interpretation is fair. Acknowledging that civilians exist doesn't carry much weight when you're viewing them as a legitimate target despite that.

Oh come on, I said it wasn't particularly associated not it was incapable. How about responding to what I actually write instead of what you think I write? What percentage of mass shootings in the last decade have been motivated by right wing political beliefs vs left wing political beliefs? The majority are neither, but the scale comparing these two is going to be leaning pretty clearly to one side. On top of that and irrespective of his alleged (do we actually have confirmation these comments are from him? Genuinely unsure here) comments, we're talking about someone who sacrificed their own life asking for the killing of innocents to stop, its incredibly insulting to equate that impulse to be the same as homicidal suicide.

I'm terrible at definitions so just going to copy an actual one This is both drawing a very long bow given the left-wing rabbit hole isn't particularly associated with people doing mass shootings as a form of suicide and pretty gross.

I don't agree with that comment but I think 'There are no civilians' is a misreading of what he's saying there. I interpret that as saying that the civilians that do exist are still complicit in the oppression, not that they don't exist. Putting scare quotes around civilians like that does muddy the waters though so I don't think your interpretation is deliberately uncharitable.

I want to preface this post by saying I absolutely believe Trump specifically, and the modern Republican party generally, is a genuine threat to democracy in the US. I've been saying that on this board for a lot longer than most here who hold that view, so what follows is not questioning whether that's true. From @Consigliere in the last thread: I think this raises a significant electoral issue for Biden that I haven't seen much discussion of. A significant component of the push to get people, in particular left wing voters, to vote for Biden in 2020 was that Trump is an existential threat to democracy and that if they didn't vote Biden they might not get to vote again. I agree and I think the record turn out says its a message that resonated with plenty of people. The problem arises when you need to use that same argument again. People are going to say "you said that last time, but what have you actually done to prevent this danger from future elections? Or are you just going to expect our unquestioning vote in every single election because the other side will take it away?". If the reality is the latter, then people will become apathetic to that argument sooner or later. It might still get across the line in 2024, but is it really still going to work in 2028? People will have had 8 years at that point to forget how awful Trump was. So you need to be able to point to things that you have actually done to mitigate the risk. What are they? Its possible I just haven't paid enough attention to the news, and there are some genuine things - in which case I'd argue the campaign needs to do a better job of communicating that while insisting there's still a long way to go so you can't relax yet. The big thing that would stand out to me would be actually addressing the supreme court sized elephant in the room, but at this point I have the impression Biden is never going to do that. And voters believing that could well be an obstacle to them accepting that they need to vote for Biden again to save democracy. Especially for voters that are thinking along the lines that Kal is talking about...

The last thread was locked with the instruction that there was not to be another unless Ran himself created it. https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163719-israel-hamas-war-xvi/&do=findComment&comment=9016282

Yeah. I might agree with the idea that technically it fits the definition but I'm deeply uncomfortable with putting that label on it for exactly this reason. Also with declaring that it was successful - even if it is, you're treading a dangerous line.

I can't speak for Kal but I certainly wouldn't have parsed this as meaning a month, if that's a common usage its not one I'm familiar with. Unless you mean you said a month separate and this was just meant to be a rhetorical flourish, not literal?