Sad, as I count oratory skill as the apex need in politics - to be able to craft a perfect sentence for a plural audience and convey correctly different nuanced messages to each audience segment.

He probably meant “you can’t shoot values (as bullets)”, but I heard “you can’t shoot values (with bullets)”.

Interesting comment. “You can’t shoot values”. I think Hesgeth meant to demean values as a reference point, but if you think harder: values cannot be threatened by violence. The more violence enacted on a people, the tighter they hold to their values. Values are immutable and should be the measure.

Draft content, “Foresee the scenario that a hostile takeover by adversarial nefarious authorities occurs. What is your prescribed response? Will you ash records? Will you enact an encryption auto-lock and if so how will you plausibly deny it exists? How will you protect your human participants?”

It’s an illegal gesture in Australia isn’t it?
Love to see how that might play out.

You can support my work by buying a ☕️ here — buymeacoffee.com/monaeltahawy

Alarming. The language is hateful and unfactual. Very unlike a financial news journal.

The natural consequences of a society embracing “the rules don’t apply to me”.
Best of luck, world, you’re going to need it.

Very interesting question. I was contemplating that there are offensive (violent) and inoffensive (non-violent) endogroups. Still a group formed as a defensive mechanism, with an identified “opposite”. Eg: Rosenberg’s NVC that I subscribe to may be a non-violent endogroup?

If he was charged, he was charged with grooming, not alleged grooming. A charge implies the grooming is alleged, until convicted. But the charge relates to named crime. “Alleged murder” is not a crime. Murder is a crime. You are charged with the crime, not the alleged crime.
🙄