>“Why not?” was Dawe’s indignant reply. Was there a law against choosing whatever words he liked?
That's one of those cases I kinda fear being in.
How do you prove you're not giving away secrets in some secret way when the clue is some random events in life that have little behind them other than happenstance.
Isn't this the entire foundation of the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty? Of course in practice it isn't so simple. In an extreme condition that is extremely unlikely, you could be found guilty exactaly for that reason perhaps. At what point statistically is it on the wrong side of "reasonable doubt"?
They tried to transform their suspicions into material elements and came empty handed, and left the man alone, which is the core difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime.
However this coincidence is so strange that on that basis alone I am wondering if they did not miss something.
I'm just thinking of assuring the local security folks that I'm not doing a bad thing / avoiding the hassle of them thinking I am. When I probabbly don't know what the bad thing even is.
Well, not really, that's more about simply being accused not being enough to imprison or hang you.
Most importantly, what should concern all thoughtful people is that it seems to be within the Overton Window to say how much you hate white people because of the color of their skin. Not hate speech, why exactly? Because the entire concept is reactionary nonsense trying to give white people harsher criminal sentences for the same violent crimes as committed by other races. What happens if the table turns again and the standard is unfairly applied in reverse? Hate soeech advocates have already set the precedent that we get to choose which races get favored prosecution treatment for the same crime.
Violence is violence, speech is speech. You can't improve on Martin Luther King, man. Judge individuals based on the content of their character. The list is complete.
Do you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist, but so what. All discrimination is not wrong, like how employers (attempt to) strongly discriminate based on ability.
Hate speech is in the same bucket. It has a murky, varying meaning depending on who you talk to.
I personally also do not believe in "hate speech". Its an attempt to bait-and-switch language, like calling someone hateful when really you just disagree with them, or maybe theyre just rude. Its begging the question.
No it doesn't.
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls.
actions based on a belief that particular jobs and activities are suitable only for women and others are suitable only for men
What definition of sexism are you using where discriminating against what sex you want to date isnt sexism?
About 11-12 years old.
Here's the link if anyone would like to listen to some light-hearted discussion on the topic: https://www.omnibusproject.com/podcasts/the-d-day-crosswords...
I don't buy it one bit. I also find it unlikely that the bulk of the invasion force was in Surrey in May '44. I think they might have moved to the coast by then.
Seems like an unnecessarily hard way to exfiltrate data.
Considering the circumstances extreme paranoia seems justified.
— Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency