Lol they don’t care, they don’t follow precedent, that is one of the major reasons they are winning so decisively.

Most likely what the minor did to need to be physically restrained is covered by privacy laws.

This is an inaccurate account of the incident down to the year even. https://planeandpilotmag.com/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/ It was not due to the high speed of the aircraft so much as the terminal velocity of the bullets vs the plane in a powered dive.

Tell me you’ve never been a professional driver without telling me.

It was specifically a contrast on the colonizer mindset that was common both in culture and literature at the time. Showing a bunch of useless british aristocrats coming to “savage lands” and rather than taming the land they were shown that without their wealth and power and being taken care of by competent natives and labourers they became the savages they claimed to be inherently divinely better than.

I do not believe for a second that the two things are objectively equal, saying they’re the same kind of thing doesn’t make them the same thing. Just because you are claiming to not be able to tell the difference between two kinds of “hateful speech” does not mean there isn’t an objective difference. This is the same kind of nonsense free speech absolutism argument you see ad nauseum online, that you either can’t have consequences for any kind of speech or live with consequences for all kinds of speech. It’s nonsense and usually isn’t even in good faith.

I both dislike the book and dislike this comic for missing the actual point of the book, which is not in fact, haha, this is what would actually happen and it’s just a group of random kids. It was specifically portraying british aristocratic children to criticize the colonizer mindset while discussing larger issues of human nature and civility and structure vs chaos.

There is a difference between a political commentator who makes their living spreading rhetoric that is hateful to the countries government and is travelling with the intention of spreading that rhetoric directly and some random travelling for leisure who said some shit on social media that was hateful to the countries government. There is also something to be said for if the rhetoric is actually causing measurable harm to large numbers of people vs if the rhetoric maybe hurt a handful of peoples feelings or seemed embarrassing to the administration.

No but we can make them significantly less effective, less rapid and less legitimate.