Comments by "Helen Trope" (@heliotropezzz333) on "Triggernometry" channel.

Not seriously. It was meant to be a joke (not a very good one).
3
He always knows what he's against. He never explains what he's for.
3
@Horizon301. Well that's the whole debate isn't it? Personally I don't find such humour funny but I can understand she didn't mean any harm to anyone in real life. At the same time I can understand that real harm might occur because it can plant an idea in someone's mind, so if you thought about it, you wouldn't want to risk that. Comedians often say things off the top of their heads without thinking too much of the consequences. There's a lot of this sort of humour now. It seems popular and the BBC encouraged it by calling their show 'Heresy' and saying the idea was to push the boundaries of comedy but where do you draw the line? On reflection she admits it wasn't good to have said it.
2
@Drabbo If you're seriously suggesting people commit a violent act to harm others, that's hate speech. If it's a joke it's not intended to be taken seriously. The problem is that some people don't know the difference, and the fear is that people could take the joke seriously.
2
I have in the past worked part time as a civil servant in a fast moving work area. The team members had their own areas of responsibility but would cover for each other where cases were urgent or team members were on leave. I would always leave an audit trail to where things stood in my area as I ended my part week and an email to colleagues to cover any important or outstanding decisions that needed to be communicated to them. It worked and is workable. I also worked in a geographically distant location to the rest of the team. In terms of long distance communication there was not only zoom for team meetings, I would sometimes physically travel by train to them, but also there's a lot of telephone and email interaction, and there was a system whereby several colleagues could be connected to the same telephone call. I don't think Rory's perceived problems are insurmountable. It requires some flexibility and good use of technology that's all. Rory's view that AI will get the economy going doesn't explain the mechanism whereby that will help people. Big corporations may use it AI to cut costs and generate more profit but they often don't pay much tax and with AI causing more job losses, how is the benefit of such technology to be fairly shared so as to not leave people behind economically?
1
Hitchens is a silly person.
1
And she's not a real blonde.
1
@susanpaulk7258 She is talking about trans people not being real men or women. It's just a little joke about her hair - not funny really.
1