That's the kind of right hand grip that requires years of training.

What constitutes reliable is a matter of opinion I suppose, but the first concrete statement of fact:

0 emissions

Wrong, right out of the gate.

It's true. REAL anti-fascists only live in safe, non-fascist places. If you stay and try to fight the fascists, then you're really just a fascist. /s

I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the Democrats reckon that coming out against Israel will lose them more zionist votes then sticking with Israel will lose them anti-genocide votes. And given the amount of money AIPAC has been throwing around against anti-zionist candidates in primaries, that might not be an incorrect reckoning.

Well I think it was offensive of Cynthia to erase the original artist's vision and it's shameful of you to defend her.

Both of you have hurt my feelings, and therefore you are in the wrong.

ow oof my bones and skin and organs

I am no visionary but if Linux doesn’t internalize this, I’m afraid some other kernel will do to it what it did to Unix.

Maybe that's not a bad thing? If you ask me the GNU people are missing a trick. Perhaps if they rewrote Hurd in Rust they could finally shed that "/Linux".

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?

Dragonborn have to come from somewhere.

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.

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