u/non_burglar

This thinking is so dangerous... Help others when they need it, it makes the world better.

The problem with NOT helping a racist jerk in distress:

1. Not all USA residents are racist jerks.

2. Racism and being a jerk are generally learned behaviours, not innate.

3. How do you tell a racist jerk from a non-racist, non-jerk?

4. Sometimes being a good example encourages a person to not be a racist jerk.

5. A racist jerk might help you one day.

6. Etc

The lesson is that we're all people.

They aren't "doubling down", this follows that very testimony from Dr. Lee.

Whether nurse Letby was responsible or not, the hospital allowed the deaths to continue, despite multiple nurses and doctors bringing their concerns to management.

Copyright protects attribution for the purposes of gain from reproduction, sale, adaptation and presentation. All of the cases of licensing likeness currently upheld are in place to protect gain (or prevent use for gain) from that likeness.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine people will find creative ways to make money on such a huge and presently mostly untapped resource. Especially from vulnerable people.

It shouldn't be.

This kind of reframing of the words (by Denmark, not you) has led in the past to the abuse of what something is called to reshape slavery in modern times.

On the surface, this seems like a great idea: give the people autonomy on their likeness and its use.

What if you're in debt? Sell your likeness? Should companies be allowed to lure ppl with commercials about making money by selling their likeness? Should we create laws about extortion and coercion that include forcibly making someone give up their likeness? Short-term likeness "rental farms"? What if the terms of the likeness are a different financial mechanism like a reverse mortgage or a lease? International laws agree on all these terms?

We also collectively determined that slavery is illegal, but it still happens by exactly manipulating the mechanisms to get at the resource: come work in the Arab Emirates. Come to Canada, send money back to your family. If you pay me $5k, I will get you out of this hellhole to a country where you can have a job, money, freedom... But you have to spend 6 weeks in a shipping container and give us 6 months of work when you get there.

The only way to make a person's likeness an inviolable right is to make it an inviolable right... *With no monetary value*.

This is going to lead to folks licensing their features for money.

Yeah, I get your meaning. I forgot to acknowledge that.

I'm not doing that.

Staying quiet because it will make daddy angry to talk about it is still abuse.

Toddlers also have to learn object permanence and that the world will still talk about toys, even if they don't have any. People will bring the annexation threats up, because it was top of mind and, quite frankly, scary for us for a few months.

And we're allowed to do that.

If Trump can be laughed at by literally the entire UN in 2018, he can withstand some talk of what he himself brought about.

Despite the jokes and fitting comparisons, Donald Trump is not a child, he is an adult, and must (not should) face the ramifications of his words and actions.

"It was just a prank, guys."

Thank you.

This is exactly the root of separation of church and state. This. Exact. Situation.

That is not the title of the linked article.

Also, I would speculate that this isn't "World News", but what do I know.

It's Morbin time.

Myanmar hasn't been known as "Burma" since 1989....

The treaties, as they stand, are no longer acceptable arbitration mechanisms by which the world operates politically. They were initially made in extremely bad faith, taking advantage of people who had never bargained with Europeans before.

This is a contentious and complicated issue and the Crown, behind which the Canadian Federal government shields itself from having to negotiate new indigenous agreements, is happy to remain a Commonwealth country for the time being. If the time came to become independent, these agreements would likely require some considerable rework to be taken seriously.

The king of England is the head of state, and automatically inherits citizenship through that position.

That's largely correct, and this demonstration is mostly symbolic as well.

The treaties with indigenous peoples of Canada are administered by an arm of the federal government, but the treaty agreements themselves are technically between the indigenous peoples and the crown, hence the address to King Charles.

You are missing the context of Maori culture being alive and well in NZ, in NZ Parliament and that the haka was a response to the erosion of Maori rights... In NZ.

No one was harmed by the haka.

Before you go calling folks disingenuous, you may want to get more background information.