The guy spent years being an anti-feminist generally, and shitting himself over every little thing Anita Sarkeesian ever said or did in particular, while being unable to grasp even the most basic of feminist positions. So, I’m not entirely surprised that he’s currently being ignored.

Not necessarily. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/attender

I apologise. It was elucubra who said “yeah no” and not you.

And you saying “yeah, no” doesn’t constitute a rebuttal. There’s nothing in the Qur’an that isn’t in the Bible vis-à-vis the treatment of women. The only difference between Islamic societies is that they’ve convinced more people to take it literally, and it absolutely can happen in the US.

Fair cop.

You don’t receive shares for free. You receive shares in return for your labour. You don’t become an equal member of a partnership as soon as you join.

Of course I feel sad for them. The people of New Orleans deserve better than having swasticars in their midst.

What should they have said, then? That they want Ukraine to lose and surrender? That they want the stalemate to continue indefinitely?

I think this is largely untrue. The public might have slightly left-wing views when it comes to the economy and state services, but I’d stake any money that if it was remotely feasible to build a net down the middle of the English channel to keep out the small boats, they’d be clamouring for it.

Benevolent dictator for life.

Looks more like a swastivan to me, TBF.

Please explain how you think that article relates to anything that has been said in this thread. No one other than you has tried to draw an equivalence between the holocaust and any other genocide.

Nothing says genocide apologist like insisting every genocide has to be exactly like to Holocaust to count as a genocide.

Thanks! I hate it!

A sealion is a type of troll who will try to “debate” you simply to derail a conversation and/or wind you up. https://wondermark.com/c/1062 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

It is closely related to JAQing off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

They were his policies, too. Both signed off on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained .

This gives a bit of a false impression. Specifically, it is for the defendant to show that a defamatory statement is substantially true, rather than the complainant/plaintiff to show it is false. This is essentially because truth is a defence against defamation in the same way self-defence is a defence against assault.

Essentially, the complainant must prove that:

1. the defendant made a defamatory statement (i.e. a statement of a fact that - if true - would harm your reputation),
2. you suffered a material loss as a result of harm to your reputation, and
3. it was the defendant’s statement that was the cause.

The defendant may argue in defence that:

1. it was substantially true,
2. they honestly believed it was true and had a reasonably good reason for doing so, and/or
3. it was in the public interest to say so.

The burden of proof is still “on the balance of probability” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” in each case.

This kind of makes a little bit of sense though, right? If I tell the world that you like to put your thumb in your bum and then sniff it, you’d probably feel it should be on me to provide evidence rather than on you to prove that you’ve literally never done that in your life.

We are definitely lacking in anti-SLAPP legislation, but then so are many states.

Visiting is fine as long as you stick to the Pleasure Beach.

I can excuse murder, but I draw the line at bad metre…

What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?