Except for the part where they charge extra for delivery. If I'm driving there planning to buy large items I might as well make sure to bring a vehicle that can bring my purchases home with me. Usually that means a trailer - and unlike delivery, renting a trailer at IKEA is free where I live (provided you've bought something).
Could you highlight any part of the post of the accused woman referencing violence?
Indeed, that's why Hydro assets are generally already used to the greatest possible extent. Nuclear is needed to supplement that baseline power. The problem is with Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) not renewables as a whole.
This
Thankfully, I don’t live in a fucked up country where the legal apparatus can chase me down for other people misinterpreting my words.
has to do with this
If proof is important for internet debates, where’s your proof that she wasn’t anywhere near the start of this batch of far right violence? That’s a bold unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the police. Where’s your proof that the police falsely claimed that they traced online calls for violence following the child murders back to her? That’s an even bolder unsubstantiated claim. You claim she’s a political scapegoat. Where’s your proof that there was political interference in her arrest? That’s another bold unsubstantiated claim.
Again, you are misinterpreting my words and going to a lot of effort to fight strawmen.
I have to ask is why the **** you’re supporting her and acting like her defence lawyer?
Because: a) I find it highly doubtful that the intent to incite exists or can be proven and
The crime here isn’t lying on the internet, it’s spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.
b) I'm bothered by these sorts of laws existing in a country even remotely close to me. They're wrong, offensive, dangerous and worthy of combating.
Who decides what speech is dangerous? Given that woman was arrested, my b) statement above might easily be considered equally or more inciteful.
These sorts of laws could be leveraged even when people are saying the truth, but instead by a truly malicious operator. Let's paint an obviously fictive scenario.
The new "Britain First" movement has gained a lot of popularity within the UK police force and military, and is set to get several seats in the new election. An insider in the London force blows the whistle!
"The Britain First party intends to overturn the election under the guise of voting fraud if they lose. They have to be stopped!" (Link to treasure trove of evidence)
Later that day, the posters door is broken down, along with several other people who had reposted the statement online. They are arrested for "incitement to violence" and forced to take down their dangerous speech to prevent violent uprisings against the legitimate authority of the police.
It's important to remember that the very same powers given to institutions to protect us can be used against us if hijacked by malicious actors. Liberal democracy is a fragile thing.
I’m not sure that you’re entirely clear on what incitement is.
Enough to be certain that proving intent to incite is supposed to be central to the conviction.
You keep demanding proof of me and never providing anything at all
I'm claiming that there is a lack of evidence for the polices suspicion and that it will be difficult to obtain. Your inability to point to even the slightest external evidence that the post was made maliciously is enough to say that any other explanation is just as likely and validates my claim.
Maybe you've heard of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
It's also funny how you've set up a bunch of strawmen claims that I never made to fight. Thankfully, I don't live in a fucked up country where the legal apparatus can chase me down for other people misinterpreting my words.
Oh, and btw, do you think the UK police don't also want a scapegoat after fucking up containing riots and having kids get killed on their watch?
Just exercising my freedom of expression to share my speculations on the matter ;)
You’ve addressed a total of zero points I raised.
I addressed a total of one.
…and how exactly is the intent going to be proven?
The original question that you still haven't adressed, probably because you can't. Thing is, the rest of your arguments are moot if there is no intent. You assume she is malicious, but she very well mightn't have been, and even if she was it'll be difficult to prove.
"All hell will break loose" really isn't an incitement to violence. It might mean political scandal, flame wars on social media, protests etc., none of which are riots.
If anything, what I see is politicians wanting somebody to blame for their own mistakes, a convenient scapegoat, one person who they can pin the blame on instead of taking responsibility.
She wasn't anywhere near the "start" of this, merely one (potentially innocent) link in a chain of events starting years prior with gross political mismanagement.
You keep dodging my question. You claim that the poster knew that this was false and intended to incite violence, can you cite any external proof for this at all or is it just a hunch?
Occam's razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake by the poster originating from hearsay or... a hunch (something that happens thousands of times) rather than some conspiracy to incite riots and violence.
Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?
If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.
Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.
...and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn't an incitement to violence, she isn't even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying "if this is the truth".
The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.
Depends greatly on whether it's someone I expect to meet again.
Don't expect to meet again: Treat them like any other person. Either (a) not interact with them, maybe glance and smile, wonder what goes on in their life for a moment, (b) do whatever non-personal interaction I'm having with them, be polite, smile or (c) very rarely strike up a casual conversation until we part ways.
Expect to meet again: Again, treat them like any other person, but I also usually look for any reason to not be romantically attracted to them anymore. The overwhelming majority of women aren't interested in me, and being able to move them over to the Big Box of Potential Friends (where all men live) significantly lowers the stakes of interactions and makes life simpler in general.
Trouble only really starts if I've been unable to find a good reason to not be attracted to you after meeting a few times (these people are few and far between, less than a handful per year). At this point I'll usually ask them out, which thus far has filtered out the rest.
Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats
The "left" vs "right" dichotomy is inherently context-dependent though. Objectively, it's a terrible way to compare ideologies without context. Personally I find 8axis to be pretty decent instead. Unfortunately, the world on average is more authoritarian & conservative than the US, your scale may be an accurate representation of the lemmy overton window.
What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures...
Because they think that the changes they achieved were good, and they see themselves as good, and they consider themselves american liberals.
Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives.
In the global overton window? Yes way.
What pushes democratic socialists a full point towards the fringe compared to social democrats?
From wikipedia:
Democratic socialism is a left-wing set of political philosophies that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.
Unlike social democrats, democratic socialists want to do away with private ownership and market economies. For the record, the US democratic party are not social democrats.
I'll finish off with my take on the infamous "what's a liberal?". In hindsight it was probably a poor choice of words as there is no such thing as a "pure" liberal. The basic liberal value is freedom. To me, that includes freedoms of thought, speech, press (i.e writing, possibly also digital), organization, bodily autonomy and lastly ownership. Everything else is a product of how to interpret those freedoms and how to implement them.
"Pure liberals" would most of all strive to uphold these individual freedoms, though their solutions when different peoples rights clash may be different. A "pure" liberal strives for a balance maximizing freedoms of individuals whilst simultaneously minimizing infringements from both government and private actors. To me, neither ancaps nor libertarians are liberal. Libertarians prioritize small government to the point where it is incapable of protecting individual rights from abuse by third parties whilst ancaps prioritize property rights over individual freedoms.
Soclibs and libcons both limit freedoms somewhat in favour of other values.
Have it at home overnight and then leave it back at IKEA on my way to work the next day.