most fun part of writing is the part where you don’t write

Not immediately, after seeing the announcement from Greens LGBTQIA+ and that learning there are trans women in roles reserved for women in Greens and seeing some other comments from trans members of Green. Infact initially when I first read it my opinion was much more towards believing her.

In any case none of the above proves this didn’t happen due to transphobia. There could still be a group of people in Greens who are transphobic and acted on their own initiative and lied about her behaviour to get her suspended. Still does not mean she was suspended because of a party policy against trans woman in woman only roles. It means there are lying transphobic pieces of shit in the party that needs to be rooted out.

We don’t have to answer the question of whether it was a strike

This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?

You have conceded that she used force,

Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove. I wouldn’t even consider it a lunge, so as it stands, it is a very hard sell for reasonable grounds for suspecting harm. Nevermind proportionality aspect of kicking the woman who may or may not have tries to push you. And this is something you have been glossing over.

If you can’t conclusively prove she was harmless

At this point we are acting only on suspicion. I don’t think one can conclusively prove that she was initially trying to be harmful either. But lets assume that he really suspected that she meant physical harm and pushed her. At that point, until she gets up and tries to attack (assuming that was her intention to start with), the threat is assumed to be paused. Otherwise what is the difference between one kick and ten kicks? What you defend suggests he should be able to kick her as long as she tries to get up which is open to abuse. So kicking at that point is considered retaliation and it is your duty to retreat if you are in a public space and not your home.

she stood up and began striking him in the face.

From what I see, she never striked him. The point where you claim she is striking him on the face is only her getting up and extending her arms. It might be anything from trying to strike him on the face to an angry push. Pushing someone that you think is trying to push you? Yes reasonable. But for anything more than that, It does not seem to even provide enough evidence for a reasonable belief of anything more than a shove.

Which initial attack? She was getting up and probably using arms as balance. Why would you extend out your arms in a wide angle if you are trying to attack? There are myriad ways to attack from that position including a punch or going for the throat or taking something from the table and throwing it, none of which she seems to do. You can at this point only speculate that she was trying to attack not really prove it.

On a second look it is also not super clear if she was using arms as balance as she was moving towards him at the same time. It is still not clear what was her physical intensions though. Maybe she would just push him because she got angry? I think nevertheless kicking someone without the clear intention of equivalent physical harm can not be justified.

Wait I thought someone in anthropic made some progress on this using Claude which was then leaked to openAI and then they mustered all their resources to do it faster and did it before.

https://x.com/konstiwohlwend/status/2097235335034056835

If she did not get suspended due to being trans but yet now doing this in an attempt to damage the reputation of the Green party, then she is an incredibly selfish person. This, especially considering the UK is literally fighting against a looming Trump style fascism.

But at this point it seems not possible to understand whether if she was or not and we have to wait for the Green party to release some evidence regarding this or exonerate her and investigate other people who got her suspended.

eh I think people should only be reminded about what happened with his promises of lower grocery prices and how much richer the billionaires, including himself, got since he took office

what does the S, E, M in STEM stand for?

uh-oh this will really trigger Trump’s size complex

he wasn’t this concerned with tariffs increasing prices. probably was convinced to remove the tariffs warning after someone told him he would get double paid eventually.

There is no such concept as STEM bros. Science community has its own problems but being generally anologous to tech bros or fintech bros is not it. Being very strongly curiousity driven, they may indeed be oblivious to how something fucks up other parts of the society but that is very far removed from trying to abuse technology to gain billions. Not that there isn’t an intersection, there is, but not big enough to warrant a generalization. In any case if the issue is billionaires fucking up research for money, they will more often be on your side against the billionaires then not (open science movement was one such reaction). But they would rather free AI from billionaire domination then reject it out right.

“understated”

Not the same kid but some more context about how he views his children

St. Clair first met Twitter owner Elon Musk on X, formerly known as Twitter, in 2023 and began exchanging direct messages with him.[4][3] She gave birth to Musk’s son in 2024.[11] Musk was not on the child’s birth certificate and had been unresponsive to St. Clair’s messages despite previously acknowledging paternity in writing. Musk met their son on September 21, 2024, and spent two hours with him, followed by one hour the next day, then met him again for 30 minutes on November 30, 2024, and continued texting St. Clair thereafter.[4]

some of his kids actually turned out to be quite based. I guess that is why he wants to keep trying until he reaches one as obnoxious as himself.

He has to generate 3000 kids to have a reasonable chance of having atleast one child that does not hate his guts and is not an absolute tool at the same time. Hence why a legion.

St. Clair first met Twitter owner Elon Musk on X, formerly known as Twitter, in 2023 and began exchanging direct messages with him.[4][3] She gave birth to Musk’s son in 2024.[11] Musk was not on the child’s birth certificate and had been unresponsive to St. Clair’s messages despite previously acknowledging paternity in writing. Musk met their son on September 21, 2024, and spent two hours with him, followed by one hour the next day, then met him again for 30 minutes on November 30, 2024, and continued texting St. Clair thereafter.

Father and mother of the year

accountablity? none. consequences? none (maybe a slap on the wrist at most).

Trump…