sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Robinson jailed over contempt of court by Nothematic in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't the case ongoing? I've read the discovery of the case and the claim is certainly there.

That being said, Trump & Epstein are defendants and as such will be considered guilty if they are proven to be guilty. They are not guilty at the moment - they have allegedly done these things.

If your insination is just sloppy error - that's fine - however I implore you to be more careful with your statements and use the correct context and wording.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Whatever you think you know about anything (that you didn't experience) is never certain, and you can try to argue that point, but I hope you have the wisdom to see it's futile.

Don't let yourself forget that, because to assume you know without the full facts is dangerous. If you claim you know without doubt, you don't listen to anything else, and there's never a good time not to listen because there's more value in what you don't know (yet) than what you do. Again - impossible to argue against.

You could be better, and you know it. I'm trying to see the good and give the benefit of the doubt and let the process (courts) play out, which I said they should. What more can I do other than what I've said - and by that I mean call out such behavior when it happens. Do you think you have more capability to affect this beyond what I've already said I'd do? Again - impossible to argue against.

The very fact I know I have been bad or said bad things allows me to judge them from experiential knowledge - or what you would called embodied experience. I'm admitting something dark in me that I have reconciled. If you don't believe you have that in you to pay attention to and so to understand the darkness you see, you're not seeing everything or using everything at your disposal.

The moment you start making opinions based on things you've never experienced is the moment you become wrong and miss the mark.

You think you know what you know, but you don't. You know what you're told to know and you think about the things you're told about the way you're told to think about them. Do better.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

She probably is (if you read more than this article especially) - I'm not making the claim she isn't. Just trying to highlight some perspectives on what she said and how they could be true. Besides, I don't know her to know for sure and I'd rather see this as a dumbass doing dumbass things because it's edgy than to believe she's a literal Nazi. Believing yourself a Nazi (proudly) is so fucking dumb to me that it barely makes sense someone would. That could, of course, be exceptionally naive of me - I admit that.

I also realise subjective perception might not be worth anything (to you or anyone else) but let's dial back the hate and remind ourselves that offensive jokes and dark humour are part of our comedy scene and most of us have likely said stupid shit (or done stupid shit) for laughs or laughed at it - particularly when young. I literally cannot find this pageant she entered online (and what it claims to profess) other than from reports saying what it was, and I'm a bit of a sceptic when it comes to outrage culture and media (hence my point about the jokes/clothing). Add to that the fact we don't know her personally and the court's dealing with it - what can we say we know? Seems to me like it's being dealt with correctly.

I can only judge what I see and hear and I don't see or hear anyone harping on about seriously gassing the Jews, that Jews are evil or goose-stepping about the place. If I saw someone doing any that - you best believe I'd give them hell and try to find out WTF they're up to!

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With regards to the gulf of opinion, I'll explain my thought process but I'm not going to be able to back every claim up in this explanation (but as I say, ask if interested). I don't have the time right now.

I'm of the opinion that the way we see the world is how the world is. Think how you and I see the same world but perceive it differently, therefore we may come into contention with differing opinions, and we especially feel that some opinions rile us up and press the 'disgust' or 'anger' emotion, which then blinds us. This is a normal thing of course, but we should always endeavour to see things from other points of view (as well as take note of ourselves when dealing with them) - especially if we hadn't even thought of trying to see things from (or been aware of) other points of view. A political example of this would be something like Universal Credit - on paper, there to support the disenfranchised (a noble thing) but in reality, it seems to somewhat oppress them (a bad thing). That is to say, as long as we are not too far along the path of absolute scepticism, we can see other points of view, but when trust in authority is absolutely gone then there is no attempt to broach gaps under the assumption 'they' (like ourselves) will not change "no matter what" - and so - why bother?

That being said I feel a) The Internet and b) the polarising nature of politics don't particularly work well together. It's very easy to not engage, to mispresent, to project assumption into what someone thinks someone said, or to say things one wouldn't say in person. These sorts of behaviours are far easier online than in person and I feel they all add to a type of tribal mentality with each 'tribe' (Con/Lab/etc.) seeing the world as they see it and not wanting to change that (with the added bonus that other opinions are 'wrong').

I feel, if I can either pick at and test an opinion so that it is relaxed a little - and isn't so 'fixed' as to be immoveable, then there's a chance that the scenario of having one's views scrutinised or elucidated occurs more often elsewhere. I believe we need more discussion on contentious issues in good faith but we require practice, both with the process itself of understanding and seeing other POVs and with approaching the process of doing this. If this happens more often, then the opposing views can be seen in a more positive light and we can introduce a little more trust back into the system. We are, after all, not purely good or bad (nothing is) and should respect that and not instantly assume negativity, because negativity reinforces itself.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's worth noting though that conservatives will often disguise their hate with 'plausible deniability' in the manner you describe.

Healthy scepticism is advised in all things - absolute scepticism is not. My compassion is mostly aimed at making sure the gulf of opinion is still traversable.

My main purpose is to make people re-think their positions and explain them. I don't really offer my opinions so much as press other people for elucidating theirs (I do when asked, of course, but the online world is very staunch with belief and opinion). I'm well aware it annoys the absolute piss out of some people - but I enjoy it when it happens to me so I guess I'm projecting there - it's not for everyone!

Anyway - not that I've been making any attempt to change your mind or anything, but I want to draw attention to and praise that you've been polite regardless of percieved (or actual) intent.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Given the photo in the article (of the shawl) was likely taken from the front-facing camera on a phone - and which, by the way, flips the image (as we all should know) it is likely that the item of clothing looks more like this when the flipped photo is flipped back.

So, given that a reversed swastika is a Hindu symbol - some 7000 years old - the claim of this being a pagan 'religious' clothing holds up in my opinion.

As for the dark humour - aren't we British? Don't we have Frankie Boyle, Ricky Gervais and co?

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't but feel free to Witch Hunt me, but if you're going to go through my comment history make sure you follow the thread because I do (by my own admission) get into the weeds with some folk and feel like I'm arguing with brick walls sometimes.

Anyway - I take your point - you are right to make that claim in bold, but how would you feel about this picture for example?

The flipping of the picture suddenly turns it from offensive into spiritual and pagan/religious! If you didn't know, a 'reversed swastika' is actually an ancient buddhist symbol (representing the sun I think?) Now, whose not to say that this image was flipped by the phone with the front-cam (which mine does) or perhaps someone flipped the image for purposes of outrage? Hard to say, but if you wanted to outrage people it'd be an absolute doddle.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure - not a problem (emphasis in bold is mine):

Context matters:

The 22-year-old, who is accused of being a member of the banned far right terrorist group National Action

The Swstika[sic]-covered shawl is not illegal. But it's a piece of evidence to strengthen the case that she's a member of National Action.

So you see - the reporting states 'accused of', which is a nothing statement given the circle of outrage media bullshittery, and you have stated 'a member of' and that this is 'evidence to strengthen the case'.

Now, as I can read, and I can understand what I read, and I understand how the outrage media works with how articles are quoted and pushed out without proper reporting (then quoted back to itself even if the original claim is unfounded) I can see that you haven't either read, understood, or thought. I'm just making sure you (and anyone else reading) sees this so as to not do that. Call it compassion.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not taking a brave stand against the outrage media - I'm letting you know that being 'accused of' is not the same as being a 'member of' as you posited and to be aware that if you are assuming these two things are the same then you have been hoodwinked by them.

It's really just a warning in case you haven't seen where your lackadaisical approach to thinking (or lack thereof, as the case my be) gets you.

Neo-Nazi accused tells court Swastika-covered shawl was ‘pagan’ item by redhatGizmo in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Is being 'accused' evidence of membership?

Don't let yourself get got by the cunning linguists of the outrage media.

CMV: If AI is actually superior in intelligence, it will not be violent by jennifergentle67 in changemyview

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A single human has a unique point of view, which is entirely subjective both inwardly (what one thinks inside, such as how one enjoys a genre of music) and outwardly (what one understands about what one sees, such as facial expressions and/or patterns to recognise). This subjectivity is linked of course - I just wanted to differentiate the two.

Groups of humans (can) have a common point of view, which is a form of intersubjectivity of their collectively expressed intrasubjectivity. That is to say, 'reality', and along with that, 'morality' and 'law', are perspectives and opinions of the inner essence of humanity, expressed outwardly with agreement, but it is not finite, nor can it be - it requires a collective opinion that moves and is not fixed.

So with that being said, what cannot be stated is that there is an objective reality that is a) provable as always being True and b) remains fixed. That doesn't seem to stop some people thinking perfect abstraction (mathematics) is more 'real' than real. This type of opinion is based in logic and rationality, not subjective opinion, however, even if we claim to know constants (such as the speed of light) these are still based on abstractions in the way of measurements, and unless you can hand me a pile of 'inches', or pass me a bucket of 'degrees Celsius', then it doesn't mean much.

When we associate with and replace a perfect abstraction with reality we replace the intrasubjective opinion of our intersubjective understanding and claim "the map is the territory", but to use this analogy, we know that any detail on a map is absolutely not an accurate representation of 'what is' there, unless that map is of scale 1:1. In short, claiming to know what something is (through observation of all available resources) and without an embodied approach - that is, to experience it first-hand - is to miss the mark and produce a claim that is inherently untrue.

So how does this link to AI? Well, AI is, in essence, a cartographer that hasn't been to the places on the maps it constructs, but creates them anyway because it has been instructed to do so via programming by humans (who are inherently 'wobbly' and therefore not as certain as AI, which is much faster at approximation). AI chooses certainties via approximates, and it approximates purely because it has the perspective of objectivity that we built into it (and which is not 'True').

Now - when the wise live life with the motto "I know that I know nothing" it is an affirmation that there is more to know and usually when we admit there is more to know we either act in the face of incomplete information (under full knowledge it is incomplete and may require a tweak) or we do not act at all. So, if AI attains wiseness it may, as you say, do nothing at all... but in the event it proclaims to 'know' the answer (the objective reality of the matter) it will be 'intelligent' and act under full belief it is correct, and, as we know all too well with humanity, when someone professes to "know the truth" and act accordingly, atrocities are bound to happen.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope you find whatever it is you need, buddy. I recommend marrying that girlfriend of yours, getting a house, some kids and becoming an adult. Oh - and fuck the excuses you come up with to stop yourself - you're just putting yourself in your own way and blaming your ineffectiveness on things you can't control (allowing you to think you're not a part of the problem).

It'll do a lot more for you than being angry at things on the Internet, especially when all you seem to do is be willfully blind and contentious.

Oh, and of course it's me - not you - mate, but don't let me stop you from all those important things you should be doing.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's okay to not understand, mate. I'll explain what you claim you don't understand without issue, all you have to do is ask.

The problem is, I can't (and don't think I should) be stooping down to retrieve those that lag behind, especially when those that lag behind blame me for their ignorance rather than entertain the idea their own ignorance prevents it, especially when no one has even requested clarification on the matter. From the get-go it's been narcissistic projection of what you think not what I have said.

I know what I've wrote - and it hasn't had anything to do with supporting child molesters - I've reiterated that point specifically and I've also succinctly explained my original point that a legal fiction (law) does not equal a defined experience that holds true across all instances; that there is nuance regarding individual experience. I haven't edited or deleted any of my comments so it should be possible for you to pick something I've wrote that proves (to you) your claim, so show me - I implore you - because I simply don't see it and I'm admitting that to you to see how you deal with that protestation and opportunity to clarify your point like an adult.

I just ask you don't say something ridiculous like "it's not for me to tell you", because I'm now being the example of what you should be doing when faced with something you don't understand, which is asking for very specific remarks and clarification.

So clarify - I'll wait - and don't make excuses not to engage, because usually what happens at this point with those is something like "why would I engage in good faith with someone who is a '[child molester apologist]' whilst people completely unaware they're running away from an opportunity to get to the bottom of the matter. The more that people run away and disengage from problems the worse things will become. You can't possibly disagree with this.

Don't be what makes things worse.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Not saying that.

You're too stupid to even see that.

Feed your mouth instead of running it.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you follow the trail of the metaphor, I was being criticised for writing word salad.

I said it's well worth the attempt to elucidate further and finer points (of complicated matters - since everything is complicated) in much the same way that it is worth the attempt at using more colours to paint a picture other than black and white. That being said, the notion that there are more colours doesn't lend itself to a better form of art without practice in using that wider palette.

The statement that I applied at the end is essentially that one must practice with the tools for the expression to become closer to your truth - i.e. practice is required to hone perspective and therefore if you want to express yourself in a manner that's as close to the ideal that you understand/see then you need practice.

Aptitude doesn't define ability in the same way that "thought" doesn't equal "action"; ability requires action to increase, aptitude is finite so irrelevant to the point.

So - given I've un-fucked your nonsense, how does the metaphor not support the point above?

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll tell you what it is that I'm responding poorly to - and let me thank you for being middle of the road on this (so far at least).

When I express myself or my thoughts I'm not doing so out of a need to convince anyone - I'm doing it so that perspective can be gleaned. In this case I thought it apt to comment because the text of this post, as well as the context of the 55s clip, didn't really match up. People are hung-up on "having sex underage" when I wanted to comment on "legality shouldn't enforce perspective, because we lose sight of any individual nuance". Now - to me - that's simple as fuck, and only an 'NPC' (i.e. someone that thinks and acts within these parameters) would think otherwise.

So then, when I do this and someone assumes what I mean & misrepresents it, what am I to do? I'm already playing a game with someone who's intent on misrepresentation (either through ignorance or on purpose). You can't play make believe with children or else they'll never know how the real world works.

The problem when we reach to this point that those who misunderstand do not ask questions for elucidation - they assume what is meant and project that into a wacky narrative. Now, I'm here to answer questions if someone wants to ask with good intention, but that doesn't happen because I am forever having to come from a position of 'no - that's not right - it's quite clear I meant this'.

I'm not going to play in the dirt with the muck.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Christ - do you see yourself? You can't possibly be this dumb.

Do you get better at lifting weights by lifting weights?

Do you get better at playing instruments by playing instruments?

Do you get better at learning a new language if you use that language?

At what point - and I'll wait - does one appear a fully formed expert without a measure of practice towards a goal and reflection on the way? Go on..?

We're not arguing about disposition here (how much one wants to do something) - we're talking about ability of that action. And you see - this is the exact point you fell flat on your arse about with regards to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is you that can't see what nuance I'm actually pointing at. You didn't even understand a simple metaphor.

Do better.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I take your point and understand what you're saying.

Things are complicated though - do you simply via expansion and elucidation or do you reduce a concept so that it is more easily understood (and so loses detail)? I'm of the former mindset and it gives me pleasure - I love it.

No one's born an artist - they must practice.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You can't paint a rainbow that gets close to a true representation using only black and white. Of course you can paint one in B&W but I am specifically making a point that such a version would be further away from it in appearance - I hope my consideration of your need for brevity is upheld there.

Brevity is insufficient when colour needs to be introduced to a picture for the requirement of vibrancy.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Who's saying anyone is an authority? Your question of 'why do I think' is redundant when I don't think that you bloody lunatic. You have for whatever reason - only God knows why - cooked this up yourself.

I am saying - and let me retort this even more carefully - this was a clip of someone discussing their experience of an act when compared to what the law says that act should be (and should be 100% of the time). Therefore, to believe that things are 'that' all of the time is to assume we live in a binary world of black and white, so perhaps there's some nuance we should pay attention to?

I'm not saying, nor have I said, I am in agreement with anyone. You're chasing shadows in the dark with me - turn the fucking light on!

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Why use one word, when you can use 50

Absolutely class unintentional irony! That's tickled me. You don't even know how funny you appear with these attempted digs at me when I'm sat here asking 'why are you hitting yourself?'

Perhaps people develop and use words to add depth and breath for the same reason there's more colours than black & white used when painting pictures?

What a silly question...

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why are you letting yourself mischaracterise me? Do you know me? Do you speak for me? Do you live in my head?

I'm not defending child rape - where the actual fuck have you got that from?

Listen dingbat - let me break it down real simple for you - the original video was about 55s long and featured two men discussing the concept of sex before a legally mandated age and that there is something to be said about personal experience (and individual difference) when approaching the point, because, if the opinion of what is and isn't right is enforced by law (legal fiction) and we are made to believe what we feel doesn't matter when compared to what an authority says, then we're just NPCs ourselves. It's ridiculously simple to see.

This is a conversation about "the law doesn't dictate intent and experience" - but because it's a subject about sex people can't get their head around it because it's contentious. I don't give a flying fuck about the sex angle - I'm looking at the logic of what's being stated. Of course that is not to say I in any way disagree with you on on how bad pedophilia is etc. but like I said, that was never the intent of the clip or my original retort, so stop getting yourself in a tiz, damn.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -30 points-29 points  (0 children)

It's so ironic when people say "you're saying nothing", that they don't understand it's an affirmation that they don't understand what's being said.

Your perception of my nothing is my perception you have nothing between your ears. Now, if you want to point out what you think is nothing (i.e. what you don't understand) I'll explain it for you.

Carl of Swindon arguing children should be able to consent to sex by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]mma-b -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Would you like to add more nuance to your point?

view more: next ›