Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

And the riots were incited through social media groups and the tabloid press. Now what are the police supposed to do about that? Just sit back and let the mob just roam around on the streets?

In the U.K. the authorities seem powerless when the ring leaders are politicians, or Media moguls. Either there aren’t the requisite powers in place, or they won’t go near them for fear of a backlash and greater public disorder.

It is commonplace for the authorities to label an issue political and then just leave it alone taking no action. So rather than the authorities clamping down, or repressing free speech. The opposite is happening. Political free speech is left alone, even when it is inciting a breakdown in public order, or crossing a line into racial prejudice. Leaving the authorities only able to deal with offenders when they commit criminal offences.

This is where the breakdown is happening. So infact free speech is alive and well in the U.K. and now includes incitement, where it is labelled political and racism because it’s alright for people to be racist if they have legitimate concerns about immigration. Infact it seems to be a greater offence in the media space for someone to accuse someone of being racist, than to actually be racist.

Only one South American country and two African countries. That’s a poor turnout, it looks as though South America and Africa favour China in the shakedown.

The UK is fucked on free speech. It’s insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

It isn’t, it’s a culture war fabrication whipped up by the tabloid media and populists.

You snuck racial prejudice in there.

Not snuck, it’s also a public order issue, because it spreads easily and once embedded is very difficult to dislodge. Take the case of the Southport riots, everyone rioting had strong feelings of racial prejudice. Racism has a peculiarly visceral, or primeval effect on people.

Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Quite, so it’s not applicable in the case of the U.K. then.

And with regard to the press, in the U.K. the press is shouting the loudest about protecting free speech. Unless, by the way it’s the kind of free speech they don’t like.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards.

I’m shaking in my boots.

Where in NZ are you? I like visiting NZ, I have a few friends in Nelson and like going tramping.

I have a feeling that bombing Iran is going set in motion a chain of events that ultimately results in AI taking over the planet, and reconfiguring humans into cyborg slaves.

You reading Musk’s mind now?

but instead he only got something.

What did he get? Apart from an embarrassed look on his face and a climb down.

I'm still confused as to what those concessions are exactly. From what I've heard about the framework deal it was essentially just the same arrangement that previously existed which already gave the US full control over Greenland's defense. At the very least when they did their thing in Venezuela they got Maduro. If he's gonna be risking a decades long alliance and causing Europe to seriously reconsider its ties to the US then I was expecting something more tangible to be honest.

You’re right, there were no concessions made. It was all just one giant ego trip for Trump, where people stood up to him and he had to back down. TACO.
What it did result in though, is that the EU leaders cannot now trust him, or the U.S. to act in good faith. This is resulting in a major change of geopolitical strategy in the EU and new alliances being forged, without the U.S.

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

Yes, I’m being a bit of an attack dog here, I’ll try and tone it down a bit.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you.

Good point. I should make a few exceptions for those things. I had in mind opinions but you’re right libel and incitement laws are important.

No worries.
This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd.

This can clearly be seen in relation to the Southport riots (Farage riots) last year. Where incendiary comments and ideology were used to stir up mass rioting across the country. Farage and his cronies had started spreading the idea of two tier policing over the preceding months. Causing a large cohort of Reform Party followers to think that the police were victimising (white) people expressing racially controversial views, while allowing people of ethnic minorities free rein to say whatever they liked. This just required a trigger to set of mass rioting.

And yet, no one challenges Farage about this in the media and no charges have been brought. The only convictions were for criminal damage and assault for some of the rioters.

So laws around incitement and libel should be thrown out to defend free speech then?
You’ll be demanding we leave the ECHR next, presumably?

It’s not about speech, that is as free as it ever was, it’s about publishing.
So are you saying everyone should have the freedom to publish anything they would say in private without any consequence?

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

It’s just my opinion after watching the speech. Can you say you watched it and found it coherent?

I have been a political cartoonist (in my spare time) for over 30yrs. I knew that there were places you just don’t go as a cartoonist. This is for two reasons, firstly, you don’t create cartoons which are gratuitously insulting to protected groups, such as religions. Or create images which will incite hatred etc. Or stray into socially established taboo issues.
Secondly, you are publishing a cartoon and social media is a form of publishing.

Part of the problem with this debate is the difference between speech which is published and which isn’t published. If it is published there are greater restrictions, because it can potentially reach large numbers of people and be used by groups to incite further hatred etc.

So this whole issue is about conflating personal freedom of speech and published free speech. And the sheeple who follow the populists either propagate the conflation, or don’t understand it.

If you want to see a racist out in the open, just watch Farage on the BBC and not being challenged by the interviewers.

If you watch the officer who fired the shots, he can be seen, reaching for his gun before the car moved. While he could see clearly that the victim was turning the steering wheel as far to the right as it would go. Demonstrating that she was intending to pull away to the right, away from the officer. He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. As he fired, he leaned into the car to make it look as though he was being hit by the car.
He had decided to kill the victim when he realised that she was going to attempt to drive away, rather than exist the vehicle. A few seconds before conducting the murder, which is why he remained in front of the vehicle, so that he could lean into it as it moved towards him. So he could claim she was attempting to run him down. This was premeditated murder.

or why an omnipotent God

If people are assuming an omnipotent God, when discussing what God is up to, all discussion is pointless.

It was an excellent way of diverting attention from the Epstein files and the riots in Minneapolis. Also I expect there are lots of MAGA people riding those stock market waves too.
I watched the speech in Davos and expect that no one was listening by about half way through. He was just babbling. I could feel the tension just ebbing away as it became more and more obvious that he’s senile.
He may have come away with a “deal” after his meeting with Mark Rutte and think that everything is settled, everyone’s a winner and he’s done great again. But maybe he wasn’t listening to the speeches before he arrived. European leaders made it clear that the world has changed and the change is permanent. Europe will be decoupling it’s dependencies on the US and securing it’s future independently.

Lot’s of nice quotes from the speech like this one;

So we want a piece of ice for world protection

He could have followed that with, that’s a nice piece of ice you’ve got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

Just like his niece, Mary Trump, said, he’s nothing but a grifter.

Yes, it’s all over the news here in the U.K. We’re all well aware of it and it’s scary.

Yes, I’m expecting the audience to gradually leave the room until he’s standing there on his own.

He’s just lived up to his nickname of TACO. They just need the men in white coats to come in and lead him away now.

I’m listen to the speech now, he’s lost his mind.

The crucifixion (and the resurrection) were seen primarily as a symbolic condemnation of violence, not a sacralization of it.

I would say symbolic of the possibility of redemption. The narrative indicates this, that Jesus’s life and life story was to demonstrate an acceptance/recognition of human frailty by God. That people by their very nature do crucify each other, do deceive, enslave, etc each other. But that they can be redeemed, can be freed from the guilt and shame, it leaves them. That they can be restored to the purity they enjoyed prior to the fall,(something which is impossible without redemption).

In other religions this issue of destructive human nature is dealt with in other ways. But the goal is the same. To reduce this behaviour in the population, by offering a benevolent alternative and to provide an off ramp for the guilty.

That's the thing: US foreign policy hasn't meaningfully changed for decades, completely irrespective of whichever clown occupied the White House. Even if they say they want to do things different, they will say A, but do B.

Yes, but this amounts to the blob, the swamp in Washington and Trump is just as much a creature of the swamp as the rest of them. So no change there then particularly. But viewing geopolitics in this way seems to lack a sensitivity to current events and how these events may change the chess pieces on the board. I know that geopolitics has to be viewed in this way, because long term strategic interests, geography and culture do play a part. But what about when a creature emerges from the swamp and tries to up end the apple cart. To do away with democracy and the rule of law. To become an authoritarian dictator a stride across the global stage hand in hand with the worst authoritarian leaders on the planet, disregarding the real concerns of true allies and his own people. Does that figure in your analysis, can that change the geopolitical drift?

I have never understood the resurrection story, or, as some put it: God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself.

It fits into a larger narrative. The idea that God created the heaven and earth so that beings could live a life independent of his direct control. Or in other words like a puppet that has come to life and doesn’t need strings to move any more and a puppet master to operate them. This inevitably results in some personal autonomy in these beings. Then we have the garden of Eden story, where the beings partake of the tree of knowledge, signifying the fall.
If one takes this narrative on board then it makes sense for a representative of God to be introduced to attempt to guide the beings when they go astray.
Now the crucifixion story signifies that these autonomous beings, due to their independent autonomy have the agency to crucify themselves, or pervert their autonomous behaviour. In the crucifixion this is demonstrated writ large. The resurrection signifies that those beings can be released from the guilt and shame of this behaviour and be reinstated as pristine beings in the garden of Eden, so to speak, as they were prior to the fall.

I am not a Christian, or a Christian scholar, but do find the Christian mysticism of these narratives compelling.

Ironically I feel like now would be a great time for Russia to make a move on Greenland either to take advantage of the tensions within NATO or to exacerbate them.

Fortunately for us Russia is already preoccupied with trying to secure the Donbas. It would cause overreach for Russia to invade other territories, especially a sea based invasion. Trump’s talk of Russia, or China looking to acquire Greenland is pure fantasy, along with most of his rationale right now. People are starting to say has he lost his mind. It’s beginning to look like a classic case of megalomania.

Trump sees what's happening with Russia and China making moves on Ukraine and Taiwan and doesn't want to miss out on all the fun.

I think you’ve summed it up quite well there.

Unpredictability can be a great boon in geopolitics. There was a brief period during which I thought Trump might go against the establishment, but almost from the start of his second term it has been continuity of agenda with zero deviation. The only remarkable thing is his particular brand of domestic kool-aid is more polarizing than anything we've seen in a while.

It looks then that you agree with me that there is a general drift in US geopolitics in the national interest. But this is a meaningless platitude which can be applied similarly to any country. In order to have meaning in this discussion it should be possible to discern the effect a significant change in leadership would make to that drift.

Here we have a leader who has trashed the trust foundational to NATO and is threatening an action which will inevitably result in the end of the alliance. Meanwhile has is reported to have invited Putin to be on the board of his newly formed Palestinian rebuilding council. I heard from a reliable commentator earlier that this council is to be much more than an authority on Palestine, it is to become a global alliance of authoritarian leaders to usurp the role of the UN. Do these sort of development alter your US strategy?

I don’t disagree with your take on the deep state within the US, but I read this as a deviation from that. It’s certainly a deviation when it comes to the political strife within the US. Also, the deep state thing is more of a drift than people actively planning anything. In which case Trump’s actions will rock the boat, because there is an unpredictability thrown into the mix, along with events being shaped or not by the people, to a degree.

It comes across to me as a child realising that he is not going to get what he want’s, that saying pretty please isn’t going to work this time and is pleading why he needs to have it.
I get a feeling that he is really becoming an embarrassment now and responsible Americans will not let him do it.

E.g. reflecting on which things are you or yours. We do this casually every day.

Interestingly there are also things we take for granted every day, like that we are reliably in our home, our garden, with our social group, that the sun shines. That when we pay money into our bank, it will be there when we want it. Things, which if they they suddenly stopped our world would grind to a halt, or fall apart.

Trump seems to care. Aha, I know he could do a deal, I won’t annex Greenland if you give me a Nobel Prize.

Capital ‘S’ Self. Which is the entire aim of the path. There’s nothing really corresponding with that in Western culture save as a kind of import from Indian sources. Which is not to imply disrespect but mindfulness of context.

Yes, very much the undifferentiated self, but seen, or known from a personal perspective.
As for a Western equivalent, it seems like it was lost in the mists of time. Maybe never was here, I don’t know.

He won’t be eligible for the next one now.

Looks to me like Trump reinstated an already existing programme because it was the opposite of what Obama did. Now in his second term he has become expansionist and will probably want to add the moon to his new list of colonies.

The point which Reitan goes on to make is that both Hegel and Schleirmacher say that though we can't know the self as such, because we are the self, so this fact of our identity as the self could 'serve as a wedge to pry open a doorway'. But then, considering the great complexity (not to say prolixity) of Hegel's philosophy, this is not simple or straightforward.

Within the Indian traditions the self can be known. I don’t want to diminish the gravity of the idea that, 'the eye can see another, but not itself', rather to point out that there is another route by which the seer sees him/herself. Which might be what is being referenced by Reitan. We are the self, so access the self through being ourselves.
Not only that, but by awakening the crown chakra, one steps (metaphorically) into a transcendent world, in which one becomes both transpersonal and identifies with one’s self, simultaneously. So in a sense, the eye begins to see both ways. Which is represented in religious iconography by the deity standing within a lotus flower, which represents the thousand petalled lotus of the crown chakra.

I'm a Trump supporter and even I disagree with the Trump administration on this. I am not seeing the value of manned spaceflight at this time.

What’s it got to do with Trump?

We can draw a parallel with deepfakes, which have been going around for a few years now. The legal ramifications have been worked out and tested in the courts. What is different now is app’s like Grok make it possible to produce this kind of material in seconds as an alteration to a photo, which can be accessed by anyone on the platform.

There as no public v private, or any real privacy concerns. So one could claim to be embarrased by an Ai image getting into the public, but I highly doubt this would be the same "embarrassment" meant by that claimed when the image is a real, private image.

This is an interesting angle, maybe it doesn’t matter if the image is of the actual body of the person in the photo. As long as it is believable, or the public can be persuaded that it is. Also there is that visceral reaction people have to indecent, or explicit material. This can increase the impact and where it is used maliciously to blackmail, or abuse a vulnerable person, it is a serious issue.

There have been reports in the U.K. of a rapid increase in the amount of pedophilia related material. Where the line between real images and AI generated images is becoming blurred. I heard reports that the photo’s of Renee Good were micro bikinied and spread in social media within hours of her murder last week.
Then there are people in the public eye being depicted with bruising, smeared in blood, or with tattoos. Where defamation may be involved.

It looks like Musk backed down yesterday and is taking down the facility. As there were indications of government action against it in most European countries.

Yes, agreed, it seems a clear cut to me.
But this shines a light on what Musk and Farage are doing. They are claiming it is censorship, a free speech issue. So they are claiming that free speech includes the right to publish embarrassing, or defaming images of anyone on public forums, without their consent.
This looks like an overreach of the free speech narrative, exposing it as a false populist narrative, or culture war.