News should not propose solutions. News is meant to inform. Something happened? The news tells you what happened, and maybe some context of why it matters.

Solutions should come from community leaders, ballot initiatives, elected officials, proposed legislation, et al. Some rando is trying to do, or succeeded in doing, something to solve a problem? That's what you hear about on the news, and maybe some context on strengths, criticisms, and people's responses.

The clickbait and for profit shit is a problem with the news. The lack of solutions is something to criticize politicians, lobbyists, industry leaders, and others for.

It's because the lap is an illusion. It's not fundamental to the body, it's a description of configuration.

Like, the 'seat'. It's only the 'seat' when sitting, but your ass exists the whole time.

No relation.

Yep. Some speech is recognized as hurtful and subsequently regulated.

>Do we assume Zeus does or doesn't exist? IMHO, law should assume that he does not. Which means, absent proof, the speech did nothing. Except perhaps offend someone.

Whether or not a deity will exist, their followers do. Speaking to them is what I'm referring to.

>Therefore, we can only and should only punish action.

Yet, Manson is rightly in jail.

>Policing speech is the same as policing thought, no matter how disgusting or dangerous that speech is - history and philosophy have proven time and again that doing so is not a good idea.

And yet we recognize speech as a crime. Threatening someone, slander, libel, bribery, and conspiracy are all comes. Intellectual property laws are government backed censorship on the grounds that people can call 'dibs' on some speech.

> The milgram experiment does highlight a weakness, and that is why it is up to culture to fight it, not law.

And we have historical examples of cultures failing in this and lawfully committing genocide until others intervene. Law can provide an additional barrier to inhibit such cultural shifts.

I recognize that it is difficult to define where the line is crossed, but the notion that all speech should be limitless does not align with significant portions of philosophy or law.

Did you commit violence? No.

Did you commit harm? Probably not. The subject and context matters here.

Did you commit a crime? Assuming that's the whole of it, no.

More to consider,

Are you clergy of Zeus? Are you speaking to devotees of Zeus? Is part of the faith that this person, or people like them, pose an existential threat? What's the audience for your message?

In the Milgram Experiment, the whole incentive was nothing but words. And to the best of their knowledge, at least 28% of people were prepared to inflict fatal voltages, as high as 91%, 61% on average in the US. On nothing but words.

Knowing this, if someone were holding the clipboard when the 'learner' is actually being electrocuted by the 'teacher', does their contribution only being words absolve them? Would they commit violence? Would they cause harm? Would it be a crime?

That violence and speech aren't equivalent doesn't determine whether they can cause harm. And, some speech does cause direct harm.

I'm not arguing to say that speech, violence, and harm are equivalent, but it'd be incorrect to assert that speech doesn't cause harm.

There's a whole host of people that think that there's nothing wrong with being tolerant of everyone, possibly seeing it as a virtue, and that being intolerant of intolerant people is comparable to being intolerant of anybody else. For your formulation, they think only the leading - is the problem and that it is wholely problematic.

Seems that crowd is voting more than others.

Seems you upset some folks.

It's not 'ok'.

I don't think it's referring to hurt feelings, but to speech that causes or leads to harm. i.e. threatening someone is hurtful, whether it's done respectfully or not. And, whistle blowing on toxic chemical dumping is helping people, whether it's done respectfully or not.

There's still going to be some point where people argue whether or not particular speech is hurtful, but I don't think it's as sensitive as you're suggesting.

Video ordering is weird to handle correctly. Too much verification is annoying. Too little and you're swamped with bullshit you didn't want.

In a negative trust kinda sense, sure. There's all manner of spy craft people can use on partners. That's not exactly a good thing.

The command history isn't a secret.