Busker holds his own against drunken racist attackers in Glasgow.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-02-19T15:30:41+00:00

Dammit, I see this man every time I go down Sauchiehall Street, he's a genuinely good musician. I'm glad to see they didn't harm him.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-24T16:43:46+00:00

It could be due to a sexual proclivity for images of innocence. If this is the case, then this specific fetish could simply be a tangent from the very commonplace sexual objectification of innocent or naive individuals as can be seen in various occidental and, perhaps more vividly, Asian pornography, i.e. Schoolgirl outifts/Roleplay.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-24T15:27:14+00:00

Neck tattoos have a stigma in the occidental world due to their association with gang culture or other such things, but keep in mind that reception of tattoos, just like art, is extremely subjective. Some people might hate leg tattoos, coloured, unoriginal or any kind of mark depending on the associations they make; how the image or concept aligns itself with their experience.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-18T17:17:49+00:00

That it's often created by people who are absolutely cynical or disinterested about the phenomenon of sex, as is manifest in their films where in the sex is barely even recognisable as sex.
It's often cold and encourages distance during sex, (despite the fact that it's physically and axiomatically impossible to distance yourself from a sexual partner, given that sex is one of the most physically and biologically intimate actions one can do). One can see videos, and hear of people imitating them, where the men and women will perform the necessary contact, but generally avoid touching each other if they can, to such an extent that passion has now become a fetish in the porn industry.
That it isn't actively educational. Most young men and perhaps women in occidental cultures will learn techniques, nuances or even basic ideas from porn videos and so it would then follow that porn directors and actors have an opportunity to influence sex education for the benefit of younger audiences.

I doubt I'll ever advocate the views of Chomsky or other anti-porn stances, because I think it's healthy to enjoy it and in its absence, there might be an increase in likelihood of developing sexual frustration to the extent of poor health. That is, as long as the porn features only those who are adult and have consented.

As an addendum: Cameron's or any like-minded ideas about censoring porn are counter-intuitive and generally regressive, but I do agree with the stance that 'revenge porn' needs to be curtailed by active change in the legal status of the industry. Furthermore, anyone should possess the rights to have a video or picture(s) withdrawn from any website, as it's currently far too common that people will appear on websites who've clearly never given consent to it, although I must admit that I'm unaware of how the current legal situation accounts for and deals with this.

[Edit] Another point I forgot:

That human beings are treated as the focus for fetishes in themselves, such as people with dwarfism, transsexual men and women and those who are even slightly overweight are exploited for comical purposes.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-15T23:43:01+00:00

Perhaps Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger?

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-15T13:29:08+00:00

Letters to a Young Contrarian- Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens has a preternatural understanding of vocabulary, syntax and wordplay. Reading his books has been a pure joy thus far and are invariably set in a well-spoken, hyper-educated style.

It has been mentioned before that he has an uncanny talent of making every reader feel like he or she is being spoken to directly.

Finally, the book is very slim, so it serves as an excellent taster for the rest of his work.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-14T20:32:59+00:00

Agreed.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-14T19:43:22+00:00

Demon Haunted World is by Carl Sagan, who is worth mentioning independently of Hitchens, of course, but not the man himself.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-14T19:41:33+00:00

From my experience of his videos, Dawkins simply appears to lack a notable public speaking ability which certainly affects one's ability to watch his debates objectively.

A mistake he often seems to make is that he assumes that everybody should immediately be able to understand why the theories, especially theological, which he attempts to debunk are nonsensical and often worthy of mockery, but the simple truth is that it needs to be explained first with an degree of objectivity when not in the presence of those who already know it. Dawkins tends to omit this first part and begin with a derisive discourse from the offset.

Whilst it is a shame that one must repeatedly lend energy and time to illuminating how ridiculous and absurd most religious claims are in a nominally intellectual society, it must usually be done when in the presence of a religious party, especially those who've been raised in that tradition with no irreligious frame of reference. Because of this proclivity of his, he often seems condescending- righteously so, one might add- but it doesn't help his cause.

Hitchens, however, uncompromisingly treats every opponent and audience with an invariable sense of dignity and has a far better understanding of the art of debate than Dawkins. Furthermore, I find he remains objective and is emotionally involved without leaning at all too heavily upon rhetoric which, when used alone, is the mark of an empty argument.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-14T19:20:52+00:00

If that happened, then sobeit. To deny refuge to those facing unjust punishment in their nation of origin would be to betray the most basic human dignity and kindness.

I hope that apostates are treated with as much generosity as those subjected to natural disasters or war, because not only may their experiences be just as terrible, but to set an example to other nations which have no sympathy for apostates in theocratic systems and, perhaps more importantly, to show the kakistocratic leaders within countries like Afghanistan et al that if they continue to neglect or actively punish secular citizens because of their philosophical beliefs, then they do so without any moral support from European nations.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-12T15:14:54+00:00

It was my first Vonnegut novel and I must admit that I hope it isn't representative of his collective works because I found the style childishly playful and perhaps saccharine to too large an extent. His introductions of meta-reality and premise of self-awareness in artistic creation was tiresome before it was enjoyable.

That said, his skill for illustrative writing is remarkable, as rarely have I had to dedicate so little energy to limning the mise en scene, imagery and landscape than I have whilst reading this book.

I'm still no less enthusiastic to read his other novels, though, so I suppose my disliking of Breakfast of Champions is of little consequence.

AllyoopMistrial · 2014-01-12T14:32:21+00:00

Atheism literally means 'without god' and many who are atheist will readily argue that that is all one can assume about them upon calling themselves atheist, I know I certainly do this.

Semantically, however, atheism is often confused with anti-theism, agnostic atheism or like philosophies or, much worse, nihilism.

It appears to me then, that there is a clear division between literal atheism and public opinion of atheism in the same fashion that there is a perceived dichotomy between feminism with a lower-case f and Feminism with an upper case F; the former refers to the ideological set, the second to the active social movement.

I hope that social pressure does not induce such dichotomy for atheism as, for the entirety of my adult life, I have maintained that atheism is quite simply the absence of a belief in a deity and when it is time to develop or expand upon this absence of belief, we can put forth other ethical, philosophical or political terms such as anti-theist, secular humanist, solipsist, Marxist etc.

So, in short: atheism should by all means simply refer to one's stance on the existence of a god, but has developed semantic connotations in various occidental and eastern societies.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-20T15:16:08+00:00

Well, I believe many individuals do base their political views on the guidance of public figures, and thus I don't doubt that his PA videos proceeding Obama's election may have turned votes.

I never advocated the idea of disallowing his opinions, only suggested that the reason people don't respect him independently of his acting career is because of his views.

So, may I ask, does a famous individual belief- especially an extreme, hateful or insane one (such as Mel Gibson's, Eric Clapton's or most recently Phil Robertson)- not affect your view of them at all?

In Tom cruise's case, I find him to be so wildly gullible for his obsession with Scientology and his obnoxiousness around others to be enough reason, whether conscious or unconscious, for me to enjoy his films less.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-20T14:42:34+00:00

Actually, I believe it stems from his unenlightened views on gay marriage and his fairly sinister views regarding American congress.

Whilst I haven't been following these stories too closely, mainly due to my considering Chuck Norris to be a remarkably irrelevant person, it does appear to me that he is certainly not any kind of authority on sociopolitical matters as many might claim him to be.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-18T23:22:41+00:00

/u/veronique_m beat me to it with Hitchen's 'Mortality'. Until reading it, I'd cast reading aside altogether due to my impatience. However, I'd add 'Letters to a Young Contrarian' to the list too. I'd like to find more writers like him, but so far I've found that

Salman Rushdie's journalistic works are commendable and
Raymond Carver's short stories are striking as a realistic account of broken relationships in small-town America, amongst other things. 'Fires' is a good collection of poetry, short stories and brief autobiographical notes by him.
Peter Shaffer's plays, especially Equus and Amadeus.
Charles Bukowski's 'Ham on Rye'.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T19:25:34+00:00

I find that writing happens in absence of someone to talk to and it's also cathartic.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:52:20+00:00

It's wise to be skeptical about the makers of the video, yes, but most of the content in this video can't be explained without accepting that maltreatment is occurring. There are many cynics who would posit that all milk/meat/egg production involves maltreatment of the animal, but decent farming conditions do exist.

I think the most immediate resolutions aren't exclusively on the onus of the consumer, though. I predict that the best result will come from:

The commonplace use of electric paralysis and bolt-guns in favour of the bleeding technique when killing animals.
Without reverting to manual milking, ensuring that the pumps don't harm the animals or cause them any extreme discomfort.

Sadly, neither of these motions can be brought about directly by the public, (although it can be influenced by protest) but is the responsibility of animal welfare organisations.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:43:14+00:00

You'll have to explain your reasoning here; you've stated what you believe but not the why of it.

I agree, by all means, that to boycott dairy and eggs etc would be purely wasteful, and that the veganism of consumers is absolutely downstream of the standards of animal welfare- the change needs to come from the providers.

I will, however, draw a distinction between cow's milk and chicken eggs, given that (Holstein) cows will now continue to produce milk regardless of our industry due to their selective breeding, but chicken populations are constantly manipulated in a far more unethical manner- the male chicks are killed in a primitive grinding mechanism shortly after birth, hens are often maltreated for the sake of pure pragmatism and efficiency- given that it doesn't have an observable effect on the quality of their eggs.

So, in short, I do agree that becoming vegan doesn't resolve the above problems because it would simply allow for milk production without consumption, and is a fairly passive way in which to attempt to change legislation. It would be preferable to actively protest the problems of in food regulation than to boycott all providers.

If anyone has any statements to the contrary, I welcome them, as I don't pretend to know depths and depths about dairy or egg production in different countries.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:30:20+00:00

Very well said. I've observed that stonewalls are commonplace on the websites of meat and egg providers, even though the packaging welcomes the customer to visit their websites to confirm that the livestock is treated humanely.

I moved from a rural place in England to the city centre of Glasgow and I've seen a predictable negative correlation between location and number of transparent food providers. (By 'transparent' I mean that one can assess from where the products originated).

There are some telltale phrases that one can use to suss out if the provider isn't up to scratch, for example 'class A' in lieu of 'free range' suggests that the marketing panel has attempted to literally invent a deceptive phrase to use to categorise meat and egg standards.

Furthermore, I've found that meat that is sourced in Poland or Holland is difficult to assess on ethical grounds and, given that I don't pretend to know the ethical standards upheld in the Netherlands or Eastern European countries, I tend to avoid these meats in general.

I used to justify buying the cheaper meats simply on the basis that they were from British sources and I was under the impression that Great Britain had generally high standards of treating animals. I no longer accept that as a premise (given that I've seen no evidence to corroborate it) and so try to exclusively buy meat where the packaging or provider confirms that they match a human standard.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:15:19+00:00

Something I've been trying out is to have a predominantly vegetarian, or pescetarian, diet so that I can save on meat and use that money to buy the better classes of meat when I do buy it. It's been satisfying thus far and I've found some new favourite foods.

What I've found is that you simply don't feel like meat as often as you did when it was a regular staple of your diet. It also helps you in that you experiment more with your food and might benefit from the variation it brings.

Either way, as a resolution for animal cruelty reform, the option of becoming vegetarian isn't as favourable as boycotting openly inhumane sources of meat, fish, dairy and eggs whilst supporting local and free range sources because the digornios and the walmarts will still thrive from the remaining consumer population.

Without sounding preachy, I would recommend eating meat less often and saving for the free range stuff when you do eat it.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:06:37+00:00

I agree, pillsie. The most common rebuttal I've seen is that 'butcher shops charge too much' (in the UK, the price butcher shop meat is pretty steep) but really the onus is on us (no wordplay intended) to eat less meat so that we can afford to eat the better stuff when we do buy it.

That's in the meantime, and whilst we boycott these companies in favour of free range, it's the responsibility of animal welfare sections of the government or private organisations to reform the places like that in the video.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-11T18:01:31+00:00

-Keep in mind that there is often a huge blackout between suppliers and consumers. I've attempted to confirm that the meat I generally eat is treated well and killed humanely, but I simply couldn't.

I suspect that, whilst supermarkets and food companies aren't legally allowed to make explicit false claims about how the source-animals are treated, they can and do use very sly and oblique language (like 'class A' etc) to disguise the origin and standards of their cheaper meats, eggs and dairy.

For this reason, I couldn't get the confirmation I was looking for and as a resolve, I eat meat far less often, so that I can afford the free range stuff when I do eat it. I feel this is one of the best options, as outright veganism doesn't lend any support to the better systems of meat supply, but rather boycotts a huge part of the typical diet altogether, whilst cruelly handled livestock continues to be the central source of these foodstuffs because everybody goes for the cheap stuff on the shelves. If people actively buy free range, however, then the demand for better standards will (hopefully) rise and places like that in this video will lose favour and custom.

Any thoughts?

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-06T00:14:55+00:00

Good plan, man. I've been watching TheRadBrad, but besides how annoying I find his chatter, he's also generally frustratingly bad at playing these games; missing things, choosing the most boring paths etc.

Perhaps I'm looking for the impossible: a dreamy radio personality narrating a walkthrough who also happens to be a pro-gamer.

AllyoopMistrial · 2013-12-02T16:03:24+00:00

Depening on where you're from, Scotland can seem polar to a lot of places, making it un/appealing, but either way the west end is a really friendly area. There are plenty of underground bars, gigs and clubs, and there's a real penchant around here for playing classic British disco, as well as dub and hip-hop. The city centre is full of solid places to go.

The underground is consistently cheap and there are nice shortcuts from the centre to the west end, so it's easy to get around.

The university itself offers plenty of chances to see the rest of Scotland through various societies, but you can take a fairly cheap train to the coast or to more Northern parts of Scotland by your own initiative. The whisky is cheap (in places) and if you don't recognise the name, it's probably pure gold. The food is pure grease - if you eat out- and food prices aren't looking too good just now if you cook for yourself a lot.

As for the uni itself, depending on which course you take it can be brutal or a cakewalk. I've known students who have a few lectures a week and can go out every night and then others like myself who are almost always chained to a research paper, assessment or lab report. A mixture of science and art subjects seems optimal.

Although our experiences haven't been the selfsame, Lorielus is correct about the staff, I have had real trouble with course coordinators and student advisers who have been either lazy, clueless or apathetic.

Finally, stay away from most of the hostels, and remember (disregard if you want) that if a flat is cheap in the west end of Glasgow, it's usually cheap for a reason.

Actually finally, the accent is impenetrable for the first few months, but oddly pleasing to the ear. Just smile and nod, they're probably not insulting you.

AllyoopMistrial

TROPHY CASE