A reminder us at this point that your original point wasn’t even about literal word choice, you claimed to know she wasn’t even referring to all white men. Do you reject that now? Do you see that, whether literal or not, “all white men” was strongly implied? You haven’t argued that it wasn’t

people are annoying, despite the fact that “all Welsh people are annoying” does not feature in the original text.

I’ll take a final swing: In this context, “said” and “asserted” or “claimed” are synonyms, since the only way to claim or assert something is by saying it. If I say “Welsh people are annoying but only 99.9% of English people are annoying” then I’ve literally claimed/asserted/said that all Welsh

No, that’s stupid, sorry.Should’ve perhaps pumped the brakes on self-identifying as intelligent. Saying “white men + 1/2 of white women” is literally saying all white men.It is so strongly implied as to be equivalent to an assertion. If I say the sky is blue I am saying-without saying-its not green.

But the initial post literally said all white men, because it specified only half of white women. It’s fine to acknowledge that sweeping generalisations like this are ridiculous.

Genuinely shocked that there is so much (disproportionately loud/sensationalist, i’m sure) anger at this article. There is something specifically scary about seeing presumably,generally, well-intentioned people get an issue so dangerously wrong as this. Thanks for the great and important article Ian

How did you come to the conclusion that he is expecting anything for free? There are obviously valid criticisms of his position, but it’s not crazy, and you just lied about what he said presumably about 10 seconds after having read it.

i’ll just actually state the point i’m trying to make, hassling tourists in protest of overtourism is like shouting at drivers in protest of traffic. it’s unreasonable to expect any one person to feel like they are the problem. so yes, a tourist in vigo is equivalent to a tourist in barcelona

which individual tourists on the receiving end of a water pistol are supposed to self-identify as the overtourist?

I don’t want to make overly confident claims, I’ll correct myself: replace near-certainty with can reasonably be argued and will be true in a large percentage of these types of cases

It can be said with near certainty that her words were not the reason. I don’t believe anyone seriously thinks that an otherwise non-murderous person can be motivated to murder by a tweet. And again,it can be said with near certainty that her intent did not match the literal meaning of what she said

Bluesky is really quite boring when it’s like this. Why can no one admit that it is ridiculous that someone can be jailed for almost 3 years for expressing horrible views? People are, or should be, allowed to be contemptible.

This logic can sustain you for the next 4 years if you want it to. The potential upside of waiting to see if it turns around literally could not be bigger. It would save the Western world if it did. But we are already 9 years too late in getting the message, this is exactly what it looks like.

There is not one single piece of evidence from the last 9 years of Trumpian history that he will walk this back. Starmer may as well be waiting to see if Putin decides to give up and go home. This is the logical culmination of every point Trump has ever made on the topic.

"I give up. Talk to me like I'm eight years old. How the hell do you explain what you're doing?"

We have to report equal numbers of bad things about each side.

"But what if there aren't equal numbers?"

That's our job, to make sure that there are.

END