Here’s one: since men are larger and headboard than women, we need more food just to stay alive! A few hundred extra calories a day over a lifetime, the cost must be substantial — almost certainly greater than the cost of tampons.
Between tampons/pads, bras, thinner/less quality clothing for as much or more $$$, and socially pressured skincare/makeup/hair product, the overall cost I would guess would be equivalent or more than the nutrition for a few hundred calories per day. There are a lot of factors forcing or pressuring women to spend more money or recieve social reprimand, lowered job prospects, etc. (As in the article! Keeping girls in school!)
Men also get pressured in other ways, but very rarely are they directly monetary/consumptive the way women are in my opinion.
If you've grown up with the pressure you don't notice it because it's there all the time. It's just normal. It's really easy to say "look how much the other gender caves to societal pressure" because you don't notice it when you do it.
How much more is a man making in salary compared to a woman doing the same job? In any country? You can't compare the small ammount of less food needed in calories compared to the large difference in salary for a man, the extra food does not warrant the difference.
You as a man can choose not to east as much as you need. You grow a bit less and need less food. A woman can't choose not to leave the house 5 days per month if she want's to keep a job. Yes, we can keep arguing over this but I though we were done with this already 50 years ago. I'm a bit surpriced to see it to be honest. We talked about this in school when I was 12, 30+ years ago. (Sweden)
Last year one county here started with free menstruation protection for 12-23 year olds [0] (swedish...) Apparently Scotland was first in the world 2017 [1]
That cannot be the logical follow-through. A collapsing society can do its best to recover - a nuked and destroyed, murdered wasteland cannot.
Climate-precipitated societal collapse is surely preferable to all over a large-scale nuclear war that is suggested to have been unilaterally invoked, tantamount to murder of billions and multiple genocides. That kind of 'solution' has no place in reasonable discourse about climate change mitigation or adaptation.
This actually seems like great news for journalists. The fact that this is the only charge implies that prosecutors have decided that wikileaks’ core activity of publishing classified information obtained by others was actually legal.
The fact that assisting someone to break into a DoD computer turns out to be illegal probably shouldn’t surprise anyone. If someone asked for your help breaking into a DoD computer would you say “oh sure, that sounds like a perfectly legal thing that can’t possibly get me into trouble”?
I wouldn't underestimate the US. They could be laying this nice, comfy-looking trap to ease the extradition process from UK. Then once on US soil, the real charges are unveiled.
If EU law is applied, no. If American law control, probably yes. This is a contract between an american and an EU organization so there will be a fight over which law controls the contract. Due to the split between the various US states, American contracts normally have some language stating which jurisdiction's laws should be used to interpret the contract. If this was a stock licensing deal from the estate it probably names a US state.
We don’t push back on the process, we push back on the principle.
The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is and isn’t.
The “process” probably has no more flaws than any other process designed and implemented by mortals, it just goes to demonstrate why the whole censor-the-internet idea is wrong.
I'm old enough to remember when conservative pundits would pose similar challenges when discussing which forms of contemporary music needed to be outlawed. So where I stand is that I've learned to associate anyone offering the fire in a crowded theater argument as another advocate of the prevailing moral panic.
Well, then let's take your favorite other-example! My point is not to relitigate the "fire" standard or any individual case, but to point out that
The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is and isn’t.
those agencies already exist! So, in order to execute GP's preferences, what agencies shall be eliminated? I find that tends to focus the debate and reveal the parts that are based in reality and those that aren't.
Perhaps I should stay away from recognizable cases or be sure they aren't lightning rods, knowing that people are going to get hung up on the specific example. It's hard to do that, though.
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument was created by advocates of the prevailing moral panic, in fact. The panic in question was anti-war and anti-draft propaganda by socialist parties in the USA during WW1, and the phrase originated in a Supreme Court ruling that said that it's legal for the federal government to imprison people for speaking such horrible things.
It never ceases to amaze me how common this trope remains in defense of censorship, given that it was designed as a slippery slope.
Depends on how false false is. If someone actually believes there to be a fire that's one thing. If someone is clearly doing it with intent to cause harm to others, then that's a crime and they should be charged with such; after the fact.
I'm against installing verbal filters on everyone just in case someone might shout 'fire' in a crowded place with intent to cause harm.
If someone actually believes there to be a fire that's one thing
You don't have to wonder, there are long defined and continuously refined standards in operation. But it's irrelevant to the thread, so we don't need to detail them here.
I'm not a lawyer but am pretty sure it would fall under any number of other laws if someone was to get hurt or you caused a disruption. There doesn't need to be a separate law protecting you from someone saying something you find objectionable.
- disturbing the peace ( if nobody got hurt )
- causing bodily harm by criminal negligence
- inciting to riot
This has always struck me as a weird sort of edge case, because the hypothetical situation is pretty disconnected from all the other situations where people might seek restrictions on free speech that it doesn’t really matter which way I go.
If I say that yes, I suppose we can carve out some sort of exception for people who directly cause harm to life and limb by falsely proclaiming the existence of immediate dangers in crowded areas, then this doesn’t seem like a slippery slope — I am not forced to then admit we should also start censoring anything else outside that very narrow category.
If, on the other hand, I say that free speech should apply even to those shouting fire in a crowded theatre, am I worried that this is going to suddenly become a major danger? Are psychopathic pranksters going to start causing fatal stampedes at every opening night? No, because it’s not something that actually happens; anyone shouting fire in a crowded theatre would probably just get shushed and escorted out by ushers; at worst they’d provoke an orderly evacuation through the plentiful emergency exits that theatres tend to have nowadays.
So I guess I’ll go for the second option — refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation.
There are other small and well established edge-case restrictions on free speech I am willing to accept, mind you, eg market manipulation or giving false statements to police. But I don’t see the classic fire-in-theatre one as being relevant to anything.
> This has always struck me as a weird sort of edge case,
Actually, it's not if you look at it a different way. We have Free Speech in the U.S.A., but there are many instances where it's illegal (and rightly so) to lie. You can't lie about your finances to the IRS. You can't lie in court when under oath. You can't ruin someone's reputation by lying about him (i.e., slander or libel).
And you can't lie about there being a fire in a theater.
There are other small and well established edge-case restrictions on free speech I am willing to accept, mind you, eg market manipulation or giving false statements to police. But I don’t see the classic fire-in-theatre one as being relevant to anything.
This contradicts the point you were making before, which I was responding to, where no agency is qualified to establish limits, so I guess this part of the thread is over.
HOWEVER
refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation
You're still hung up on theaters, not to mention a whole whack of cherry-picked hyper-specific scenarios. Look into the Hillsborough Disaster some time. Or here's an on-point example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster ...would that be no fault of anybody in the free-speech society you are advocating? Maybe pulling a fire alarm would have to be established as a form of speech first, but I bet that could be done.
> This contradicts the point you were making before
No it doesn't, you don't need an agency butting in case-by-case to have specific exclusions.
> Hillsborough Disaster
Too many people, bad management of the crowd, how is this relevant to speech at all?
> Italian Hall disaster
I think it's fair to blame the design of the building and overcrowding here. Blaming the person that yelled fire is good for vengeance but not very good for safety and accident-prevention.
If the “happiness/satisfaction” metric is rubbish though, then all the correlations are fairly meaningless, and are of interest only to the extent that they do or do not back up one’s own political opinions.
Applying this scale cross-culturally, you just wind up measuring some weird convolution between actual subjective well-being and some kind of “what range of values is it culturally acceptable to answer this personal question about my wellbeing from a stranger with?” effect.
Based on your argument though, the sensible way to do it would be to offer asylum predicated on some kind of IQ test to ensure that we’re getting all the Caucher Bitkars our there and not wasting too many resources on lesser intellects.
Indeed, what would really make sense is for developed countries to be actively working to apply IQ tests to every third-world shanty town out there, and actively paying high-scoring individuals to immigrate.
In the real world this kind of thing is generally considered somehow to be in bad taste, so most developed countries go about it in a rather more roundabout way. Still, any country which actively started recruiting would find themselves with a huge advantage (at least when it comes to Fields Medals).
