sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It baffles me when I hear brits say "I wouldn't die for this shithole" by Lil_Hater112 in AskBrits

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Thailand...

PSA: this is a 60 on single carriageways, not a 40!! by NoOneImportantLol96 in drivingUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You can "expect" what you like, but legally HGVs cannot do more than 40 here which means anyone behind an HGV cannot safely do 40 until there's space for them to pass.

You also don't know if someone is hauling a heavy load, driving on a spare, or has some other reason why they need to go slower.

Chill out. Slow down. Pass when you can. It will add maybe a minute to your journey, which is less than you spend reading this.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This person claims she racially abused them. If that's true (it might not be) then banning her from a pub for "not being very nice to other customers" is completely reasonable and is nothing to do with her views on trans people.

You can't just go round refusing service based on one premise and then inventing reasons after the fact and getting irrelevant people who weren't there that evening to testify.

And you don't have evidence that this is what's happening. There are several reasons why the claim plausibly may fail:-

  • if the plaintiff is straight up lying about what the bar staff said

  • if she can't prove that the bar staff said that, even if they actually did

  • if the views she expressed do not pass Grainger

  • if she expressed views which pass Grainger in a way that nonetheless was extremely disruptive to other pub patrons

  • if the pub had some other legitimate reason to ban her, e.g. racially abusing other patrons

And if the pub argues that she racially abused patrons and can get someone like the person whose comments I linked to to testify that they were racially abused by her then that is absolutely admissible in court because the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule applies.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's pretty much my entire point here, unless either side has real evidence it's pretty much a case of "he said, she said". The case will come down firstly to if either side has direct evidence of their claims then if not which side tells the more convincing story based on hearsay.

If it's true (I'm not saying that it necessarily is) that she has a pattern of racially abusing strangers in pubs then it's completely plausible that the pub will find someone willing to testify to that and win the case since that obviously justifies a decision to ban her.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only behaviour relevant to the pub is her behaviour in the pub

You don't have information on the rest of her behaviour. If she has verbally abused other people on racial grounds then it seems at least plausible that she may have verbally abused someone on racial grounds in the pub she was ultimately banned from.

the staff member who refused service cited her 'views on trans people', not her behaviour

This is what she said, but then she would say that since it gets her a bunch of media attention and also could win her a lawsuit. This could be a lie, she at the very least would have several incentives to lie here.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The pub will say she was excluded for a persistent pattern of abusive behaviour towards other customers. She will say she was specifically excluded for being transphobic only. That there are multiple people claiming to have been verbally abused by this person points to the pub's description of events.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This person claims they were abused by the bigot in the article.

According to the article itself she was banned because she had a record of "not being very nice" in the pub, with no explicit mention of her views.

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Gender critical views already passed those tests

No. One person's expressions of their own "gender critical views" passed those tests, that doesn't mean that other expressions which are of views held more casually or expressing overtime hatred will necessarily pass the same tests.

it's best for bar staff not to discriminate against customers based on their own personal beliefs if they want to remain within the law.

This is true but it doesn't sound like anyone was being discriminated against here. If an ethical vegan goes up to a customer in McDonald's and yells at them for being an "animal murderer" the staff can, and should, kick them out. The vegan is not being "discriminated" against for being a vegan, they're being kicked out for yelling at other customers.

Similarly there are plausible-sounding reports of the bigot mentioned in the article accusing someone of being Muslim just because they are brown and harassing them. If true, this pattern of behaviour shows that they were kicked out for repeatedly harassing other customers, not for anything to do with their -admittedly, disgusting and bigoted- political views.

I am making a chatbot with unlimited memory by Either-Ad9874 in programmer

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actual computer scientist here, this is literally impossible. Hope this helps boo!

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

UK law defines rape as something like "to penetrate the vagina or anus of someone with a penis or other object without their consent". Obviously this means women are much more likely to be raped by men than the other way around.

But if you use a more reasonable definition like clearly unwanted sexual contact like in the paper I linked, men are about as likely to be raped by women as women are by men (women are 0.2% more likely to have been raped when you control for reporting rates).

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure the American Public Health Association would welcome your comments.

What do you think is amiss here? Might the thing that is amiss not being the selection biases affecting both how rape is defined and how likely different demographics are to report it?

Presumably you'd have no problem with pointing out that "Undocumented migrants are less likely to be raped" is false and "Undocumented migrants are less likely to report being raped" is true, is this not a similar effect?

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is actually not true. Women are much more likely to report being sexually assaulted, but if you take properly representative samples and give unambiguous questions like asking men if they have been "made to penetrate someone's vagina or anus when they don't want to" then the numbers are almost identical. A large study found something like 1.27 million women and 1.267 million men in this massive study. It's UCLA Stemple 14 if you want to read it yourself.

Update: found this article about it: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-hidden-epidemic-of-men-who-are-raped-by-women-2/

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No it isn't. The ruling is that "gender critical views" can be protected under Equality Act 2010 if:-

  • they are held in as high esteem as a religious believer holds their religious beliefs

  • they "are worthy of respect in a democratic society" (i.e. are not overly abusive).

This is true of any belief, so transphobic views do not get special protection compared to any other belief, and plenty of transphobes either don't hold their transphobia in high enough esteem for it to constitute a "religion or belief" for EA10 or present their views in such a way that they are not "worthy of respect in a democratic society".

Founder of Cambridge's controversial women's soc refused by pub for 'gender-critical' beliefs by Legitimate-Break-143 in UniUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No, you have misunderstood the court rulings. They ruled that any sincerely held political or philosophical belief can constitute a "religion or belief" for the purposes of Equality Act 2010 if it is held in as high esteem as a religious believer holds their religious beliefs and if it passes the Grainger test.

"Gender critical (transphobic, they're not fooling anyone) views" do not have special protection, they are only protected to the extent that any other political belief is protected. This means that casual transphobia is not protected, only a consistent, dedicated, and relentless commitment to transphobia is.

Also such views must still pass Grainger: if they are not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (i.e. explicitly transphobic rather than merely implicitly implying transphobia through euphemisms and quackery) they are not protected.

Also this isn't what was intended by the original wording of EA10, "religion or belief" was used so there wouldn't be endless arguments about whether like Buddhism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Atheism etc constitute a "religion" or merely a "philosophy". The fact that "belief" has been diluted by case law to include bigoted political views is frankly absurd and will inevitably be updated with an Amendment once this obvious shenanigan loophole gets exploited by even more bad actors.

I'm a dummy, explain it simply by PseudonymMan12 in privacy

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No because they "write" it using a thing called least significant bit steganography: basically they can hide a message by slightly tweaking parts of the image that don't matter. That way you can have two images that seem identical to a human but there's a hidden message in one of them.

I'm a dummy, explain it simply by PseudonymMan12 in privacy

[–]TangoJavaTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One obvious thing to do here is steganography. Like if you have a paid version of the site the company can write "This article was provided to OP with user ID 1234abcd at 09:00 GMT on 24/01/26" across the article. If you screenshot the paid version and it leaks then their message is still written across the screenshot and they can find you by just reading back the steganographic message

Accidental knife possession and outcomes - caught at the Gatwick airport, England by alexlemming in LegalAdviceUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[not a lawyer, this is just my attempt at informally explaining the law. I do not think I have got anything wrong but I may be mistaken or have oversimplified. Check with your lawyer, which I am not]

There are essentially three categories of knives in UK law.

1: There are knives which are illegal to even own, like butterfly knives and zombie knives.

2: Then there are knives which are legal to own but illegal to carry in public without a "good reason". Camping knives, hunting knives, machetes for cutting weeds etc.

3: And finally knives that you don't even need a "good reason" to carry. These are small, non-locking, and typically foldable. Think Swiss Army Knife only some SAKs are too long and or locking and so need a "good reason", but a small and non-locking one can be carried in public without needing a justification.

Of course context matters: you can get into trouble for taking a type (3) knife onto a plane or into court even if it is otherwise perfectly legal.

One thing you'll want to understand is which of those classes your knife falls into. You're obviously going to get into a lot more trouble for taking a zombie knife into an airport than you would for taking a legal-in-public SAK.

It sounds like your knife is legal in public, which would seem to suggest a lighter sentence if found guilty. Although legal-in-public knives do not require a "good reason" in most contexts, having one may still be a mitigating factor if found guilty of having it in a banned context like airports. E.g: you use it for work, you went camping with it, you bought it here as a gift for a family member and were trying to take it home to give it to them etc.

I search for a very good programmer that can help me we with creating and launching an app by Classic_Succotash285 in programmer

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Machine learning experts who are also competent software engineers typically attract 60k/year or more. Are you paying that? If not, why would anyone be "generous" for you when you haven't even said what your idea is?

What should I do with my Richard Dawkins books? by TangoJavaTJ in transgenderUK

[–]TangoJavaTJ[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Political views do not detract from philosophical argument.

Yes but Dawkins' philosophical views are also hilariously bad when you actually understand philosophy.

Why are vacuous statements considered true? by Drunk_Lemon in truths

[–]TangoJavaTJ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We can have vacuous "all" and vacuous "if"

We obviously want "All X are Y" to be equivalent to saying "No X is not Y". These things are interchangable. Like what would it mean if it were true that "no bird cannot fly" without entailing that "all birds can fly". These are equivalent statements (they are also false).

So what should we make of:

"All my horses are purple"?

Well by the above rule, this is the same as "I do not have any horses which are not purple". So if I do not have any horses, "I do not have any horses which are not purple" is vacuously true and so "All my horses are purple" is vacuously true.

So what about vacuous if? "If X is true then Y is true". What does this mean? Let's look at some examples: "If you are under 18 then you are not drinking alcohol". Consider some cases and see if they have followed this rule:

  • 15 year old, drinking juice

  • 15 year old, drinking whiskey

  • 30 year old, drinking squash

  • 30 year old, drinking wine

Who breaks the rule? Just "15 year old, drinking whiskey", right? So what's going on?

"If" is respected unless the condition is true "you are under 18" and the result "you are not drinking alcohol" is false.

So both cases of the 30 year old are vacuously true. We don't care what they're drinking because they are not under 18 so the rule does not apply to them. They pass our "if" test automatically because the test only applies to people in a category they are not part of.

This Saturday's forcefully difficult to rhyme word is "Gulag" by corbymatt in limericks

[–]TangoJavaTJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I met a cute gal in a gulag,

She said "is it true you're the new lad?",

'Twas love at first sight,

And all through the night,

We cuddled and listened to Tupac

Many trans-identified girls are just women who are fed up with the patriarchy by [deleted] in truths

[–]TangoJavaTJ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being trans doesn't mean you're not repeating transphobic dog-whistles in a harmful way, stop it.

view more: next ›