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?

His soul goes marching on!

Temba, his arms wide!

I have never met a chihuahua that was happy, though. Every single one of them are hateful little bastards.

One reason why people have historically had trouble suing tobacco companies is that non-smokers also get lung cancer. While we can say for sure that smoking makes it more likely you will get lung cancer, it’s generally impossible to say any one person’s lung cancer was caused by smoking. This is in contrast to say, someone who injures themselves climbing, where it is definitely 100% on them.

The real answer of course is that you’re paying for it either way. Insured people pay absurdly over the odds to offset the amount of money lost on people who accrue medical debt and can’t afford to pay it off.

I also think insurance shouldn’t cover cancer treatment for smokers. Or diabetes treatment for overweight people. Or broken bones for skiers. Or literally anything for anyone who has ever done anything bad for them. /s

Would you prefer that he fires back? Or perhaps that he goes off?

I think the difference between EfreetSK’s example and the situation to which MLK’s quote applies is that MLK already had enough people on his side to force others to take him seriously.

In the UK, demonstrations for trans rights are fairly common. It is also almost exactly as common for them not to be reported on at all in any major news outlet. With the laws in the UK as they are, any trans person participating in a “disruptive” protest is liable to end up in a men’s prison (and if self-medding, as many must, deprived of HRT) for a long time, so there aren’t many takers for the Just Stop Oil brand of protesting either. It sucks, but sometimes softly softly is what’s required.

Rule 1. Be happy.

Rule 2. Don’t be unhappy.

I am a certified Java hater, but you’re allowed to like it. If simple and objected oriented is what you want, I can see the attraction, and it has a good and mature ecosystem.

I also think Java is shit, but if you manage to get a NullPointerException while writing a hello world program, maybe anon is just not cut out for computers?

Someone didn’t make it past the first paragraph.

My sibling in Christ, if there is one thing that did not contribute to Trump winning the election, it is not enough shaming by leftists. If anything there is too much.

Committed Trumpists can’t be shamed. They love it when the left try to shame them because that means they’re “triggered”. And as a result non-political “centrists” who “just want to grill” can’t be shamed because they’ve got people on the one hand telling them they should be ashamed and people on the other telling them they’re doing nothing wrong; in fact, they’re doing great! Who do you think they’ll side with?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending either of these groups of people. However shame is ultimately only effective when you can convince someone that what they’re doing is shameful, and to do that you have to bring them on side first. Yes, it sucks having to play nice and be patient with the “non-committed voter”, but ultimately the right has the left outmatched both in the ability use violence and the ability to appeal to people who don’t actually want to do anything.

Anyone who says “your body, my choice” is a lost cause though, feel free to punch those people all you want.

angry people that want to watch the world burn

believe he will return Christianity to the country

They’re the same picture.