Random Thoughts.....What Are You Thinking?

I'm glad Balogun is playing for us and not England.

Tomorrow I will see if I can rent an apartment close to my work.

This event will decides if I keep working for more 6 months, or more 18.

Honestly Im fine either way, but Im not confident, as there is already another interested people who visited it before me.

Im at serious disadvantage looking for anything remotely good here, terrible offers, high demands

My rhinitis is once again reminding me why I want to retire early.

How is this related to retirement for someone obsessed with AI usage???

The problem with RA was while a lot of his stuff was real he always framed it as conspiracy theory and never used 5 words when 50 would do. Or even better 100!!

Pics or they didn't find him.

I spend a few days moving without internet, and miss the latest kerfuffle while it was hot. /sigh

That's a weak red card.

they finally invented trash that can take itself out. modern science is incredible


something about the youtube channel you linked tells me the "problem" you're alluding to has a very final "solution" as its natural endpoint. like, maybe those armed cops should round up all the "problems" in a certain place or two so they can work on "removing them". just to keep the "culture" "pure" you know


i think telling someone who criticizes you that you fantasize about them becoming homeless (without actually addressing any of their criticisms, btw, which amounted to 'hey maybe using slurs isn't cool; here's why') is probably wrongthink. weird ***bare minimum. in my day we didn't need a slur to describe that kinda guy, we just called them "dipshits"

I can already tell your hair color.

I linked the first video that came up on youtube, a simple search pulls up multiple videos

naturally strawberry blonde, everyone i've been to says they'd kill me if i dyed it and i don't take risks with people holding scissors near my face

hey you should see how the veiled villain voice worked for the last guy. wanna shunt me into an ideological box you can write off easily instead of engaging like him too? hyped for your well-sourced research and freeze peach monologue, super stuck the landing on the due diligence last time man 10/10


dw i gotchu fam

you must have something to hide

Do you live in a glass house or something?

Sigh...

I tried giving the japanese manga text for Claude (sonnet 5) to translate, and it said: "no no no. This is copyright material, no bueno".

I used to do that for others mangas with Opus, and it never complained.

I guess some of the constraints they added after the government problem.

Meh, ChatGPT gave me the answer Claude refused.

Probably with less quality though, but beggar cant be choosers.

Google also never complained with this

always a thrill to experience that slice of the community that ended their development in 2008 socially, rhetorically, and comedically. like cracking open a 4loko. maybe if we're lucky we can get some YTMND links going too


looking over the likely fear based on what i know (s127(i) of the 2003 communications act, invoked in the dubiously sourced earlier video; section 1 of the 1988 malicious communications act) i doubt anything he said in that thread would result in legal consequence, with s127(i) requiring that "The content of the message must be grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or of a menacing character." is it in poor taste? sure. off-topic? yep. an egregious display of bootlicking? very funny and also yes. however-- and i'm not a barrister here but --my read on contemporary UK culture says the average person there would not qualify it for prosecution. s1 of the '88 MCA is perhaps more relevant, specifying "it is an offence to send a malicious communication, such as a letter, electronic communication or article of any description, which is indecent or grossly offensive in nature and intends to cause distress or anxiety." to me, that's more of a maybe. i'm having a hard time finding specific examples of how these cases are tried but am super interested to see what sorts of communications are qualifying for this.

also of note, from 2020 to 2023 as a small sample, about 11,000 arrests on average annually for those two statutes resulted in around 1,000 sentences on average. so like. under 10% of arrests go anywhere, and the sources i'm digging into indicate that enormous gap is in no small part due to victims not wishing to take further action. to me that sounds like it's worth interrogating tbh. that's a lot of hours and pounds going into enforcement that could be a lot more accurate.

since then though there's also part 10 of the online safety act of 2023. s181 specifies some uglier content, but hinges it on (1(b)) conveying a threat of death or serious harm, and (2(d))'s definition of serious harm as "serious financial loss" could qualify... if it were a threat. which it wasn't. it was a really sad little daydream with no credibility from a guy who couldn't argue his way into a timeshare agreement.

so possibilities are that he's very unnecessarily jumpy, he made some more egregious posts or DMs elsewhere more worthy of scrubbing, the UK is actually a utopia where xenophobic manchildren get their doors kicked in by wokenstein's monster and dragged to the re-education centers screaming for saying the Brave Truth They DON'T Want You to Know About DEI!, or he just got embarrassed about that weak-*** grandstanding and wants it gone forever.

That wasn't even what I was saying.

That you can get reported and arrested for saying "the wrong thing" online is fact. None of the laws you cited are relevant, you get papped for "hate speech".

At the same time, wanting to remain anonymous on the Internet doesn't mean you have something to hide. It means you value your privacy. Like a house with walls and curtains instead of a full glass see through building.

If privacy didn't matter why does everyone care so much when it is violated. Are you aware the right the privacy is a fundamental human right regardless of any country laws?

the thing is, there are a handful of laws and acts that overlap somewhat spread out over the last 40 or so years of tech development. let's talk about what saying "the wrong thing" means.

the big blanket "hate speech" law in the UK is Public Order Act 1986, Parts 3 and 3A. these specify offenses of racial hatred, defined by reference to color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins, as well as religious belief or lack thereof and sexual orientation. it's lengthy, but each section specifies that use of words or behavior or display of written material that are threatening, or with the intent to stir up [relevant] hatred are offenses. scary! i would hate that to be enforced sooooo much. there are riding clauses (29J and 29JA(1)(2)) that state: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system." the A(1)(2) riders cover similar instances for talking about sexual conduct and marriage, but notably, not for racial/ethnic/citizenship status. there are also some carve-outs for performing i.e. theater and parliamentary reporting. it should also be noted that there are legal buoys marking knowledge and intent, and lack thereof.

so like. people are being (mostly fined but also) arrested for threats and stirring hatred against race/ethnic/national groups. that's what you want to go to bat for?

RA projected a vague ideology onto me, threw a massive hissyfit about how i'm faking caring about people, and capped it with a truly climactic melty where he claimed "third world immigrants" are going to take over and abolish empathy somehow. it would take a substantial stretch imo to define those things taken together as intending to stir hatred for e.g. a group by citizenship status, but again, i'm not a barrister. it's probably more accurate to say he intended to "Own the Libs" with his impressive rhetoric about how bad it is that we aren't forced to work ourselves to death in coal mines anymore and tilted right into reheated midcentury ethnonationalist talking points. that's a classic mistake right there. if only he had just addressed what we were actually talking about instead.


interestingly (to me at least), there are chunks of language in the above act that also deal with where an act/behavior/word takes place-- privacy is something of a consideration, as in whether it happens in a 'dwelling' and whether it can be observed by someone in "that or another dwelling". there's probably some fascinating case law out there dealing with how it applies to online spaces that straddle public and private. if anyone can come across your problematic post with virtually no barriers but a search, is that public? is it private then if you make it in, say, a discord server with limited access? i'd wager a guess that the UK's push toward regulating online spaces is in part an effort to disambiguate matters like that.

agreed! the carceral system in general is extractive hogshit. addressing material needs is a much, much more effective, efficient, and humane way to ensure bigotry doesn't have the anxiety-fuel it needs to metastasize. it is a genuine shame more people don't advocate to address the underlying issue but that ain't the system we got leider

unless you're talking about me, right here and right now, in which case you are drastically misinterpreting my aim and method

If the shoe fits..

RA has already been banned. You used that as a jump-off point to shove your platform down everyone's throats. The only person who's posted anything vaguely related to that topic is Dodik, and your responses aren't even addressing his post.

I will go to bat for anyone wanting to voice an opinion, whether online or offline. That is freedom of speech, another fundamental human right.

It does not mean I agree with what they are saying. It does mean I agree they have the right to voice their opinion without being arrested for it.

Does that extend to hate speech towards races or groups of people? No, and there are laws for that. Again, they have the right to voice an opinion. No one has to agree with that opinion.

I don't have to like or agree with what you say to agree that you have the right to say it. That is the distinction.

/taps the "stop talking ***about people who aren't here to defend themselves" sign

relevant specifically to viciouss's post, whom dodik was quoting:


but also there is definitely a second segment of the post where i connect back to talk about what privacy means in the information age vis a vis The Law. i was even nice about it! you just have to scroll down a little bit past all the other words to get there. just let me know if you're struggling and i can spell out the implication in that segment too.

you don't have to join in my fascination with legal study, topic's wide open bro

in the politest way i can put it: that is the exact law and situation being laid out here. GB has a specific act set for arresting and punishing people who threaten and stir hatred for racial/ethnic/nationality/citizenship status. can you see how a claim like (anodizing here) "these outsiders are moving in and replacing you, and when they finally outnumber you, you'll be sorry!" can be interpreted as an offense under these terms? to me, it sounded like that's a sentiment you were willing to go to bat for prima facia.

Not really beating the bullying allegations. Sure, you didn't use the specific no-no word that big victim™ ruled against, but you're directly attacking people in effectively every post you've made since the account was revived and stopped talking about games. Not sure who's sock you are, but you remind me of Mhomho.

These last few posts from youknowwho:

Anyways
Dominos and KFC have gotten in on mocking Sony for their dumbfuck decision to get rid of physical media

Ferrari been made fun of by Nissan for their all electric car that no one wants, Domino's and KFC making fun of Sony for a disk less PlayStation.

Corporations trolling each other online is not something I thought I'd see.

"Never force it, use a larger hammer."

They used to do it in print before I was born. Or, for that mater, before it was called trolling.

"You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!" This killed Ipana toothpaste. 1940s (I think) - 50s

"Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet" This killed Sweet Caporal cigarettes. 1928 - IDK.

First episode of Xmen 97 was banging. I'll watch the next two after work today.