incertusagnosis.bsky.social
41 posts
70 followers
90 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
2 days later find you needed one. That is unavailable now.
comment in response to
post
So spaceballs
youtu.be/VoiGZ47aRao?...
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
This is depressing.
I get people are frustrated and want to burn it all down, but that has never worked well.
Well at least they can crash and burn the local mayor's and show people they are clueless and shouldn't be the UK government. (Fingers crossed)
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/doub...
comment in response to
post
Well. It would seem that they could announce the end to hunger and poverty and some would still be angry at him.
A bit of extra time in the pub. Yet somehow that is a bad thing.
comment in response to
post
Not much point of a strip search then!
(J/k) the fact I have to point that out is depressing.
comment in response to
post
Would seem the simple solution is to ask what gender the person would like to be searched by.
comment in response to
post
Yes I skipped trains if thought as I was distracted.
1. This is a long considered judgment. It clarifies the law. Like it or not.
2. If you don't like it then the route is political now.
Personally I am open to considered wording to help further
comment in response to
post
They explained that the wording of the act would not make sense. And a word should have consistently within the act.
Frankly if they have then all parliament needs to do is pass a further act to clarify.
They have revoked nothing. And hyperbolic language won't help anyone's argument.
comment in response to
post
Not familiar with sch 3. But that would be a political decision.
Politicians Need to work out the correct balance. Not the courts.
comment in response to
post
But indirect discrimination would kick in against trans people.
The exclusion is a decision that if it excludes trans people has to be reasonably justifiable.
Like the fact that the black police offices organisation excluded white people. It cant do that unless reasonably justified.
comment in response to
post
Seems reasonably straightforward. You can have single sex only spaces. But they can only exclude trans people if it is reasonably justified.
Like you can have single race only spaces but only if it is reasonably justified.
comment in response to
post
Was there no-one to stop him? Was there no-one to step in? Or was it actually on purpose? Some vast silent conspiracy by the engineers to humiliate him before the world.
comment in response to
post
The tech billionaires salute you. And your example to future generations.
Only if we all die phone in hand will they have more money.
comment in response to
post
And I kinda get it. How many times can we say the same obvious thing? But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's false. And just because another argument is more interesting doesn't make it true.
comment in response to
post
This is essentially a morality story. As Thatcher becomes increasingly paranoid, stubborn and zealous, she becomes less successful, until eventually it ruins her. And yet it is this period of mania and collapse which modern Tories always try to replicate.
comment in response to
post
But it's a good indication of why the idea of banning things is always so popular: it pretends there are simple answers to complex problems. It means you don't really have to think.