WOKE and proud of it....

[attofishpi]

I don't know that it suits me, but howzabout being serious? Look at what the axes say: x - Conviction Rate Relative to Danish Origin. y - Nation of Origin. So, what we can gather from the graph is that the Nation of Origin with highest Conviction Rate Relative to Danish Origin is Kuwait.
Now, I confess that I cannot tell from the graph whether the Nation of Origin with the greatest incidence of violent crime is Kuwait. I can say with no fear of contradiction that I would be surprised if that were the case.

Well, that's what the graph says Will.

No it doesn't.

Wot graph in your dimension are u looking at?


..this one is the QUEST_ION?

Denmark: VIOLENT crimes..(RELATIVE to POPULATION)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Poor me. It shouldn't surprise you by now to appreciate that there are different interpretations. Certainly that my intellectual processes are corrupt is one possibility. It might also be that it is your intellectual processes that are corrupt; who knows Gus?

Surely there are different interpretations. But right there is the issue, no? That it is possible that our will interpose itself so that we fail to see what is actually happening, and will-to-see something else.

The desire of our will determines that, to maintain an illusion (self-deception), we double-down on absurd stories. We authorize cognitive dissonance. We invest in it.

Now, what are the reasons? Let’s examine your willed stance toward IC. Since you cannot bear his belief in some areas, you seem to imply that his reasoning and interpretation in other areas must be corrupt. (You conflate this as belief). Yet that does not follow. But what was the point under discussion? You’ve lost track of it and escaped into the burrows of a deceiving rabbit.

The point is that the MSM — these systems through which information, perspective and outline are presented to us — have become unrecognizably corrupted.

And there you have a statement of fact (admittedly an assertion) and not merely •an interpretation•.

What you’ve done though, overall, is to obscure the entire issue. Who the fuck knows what significant truth you wish to defend?

It might also be that it is your intellectual processes that are corrupt; who knows Gus?

Here and among your peers it does not look good for you, Wilbur! So double-down on your obfuscations to save face.

You see how this works?

[attofishpi]

Dare I suggest that many of the intelligent people of the forum that have wised up to what is being dictated to them via Mainstream Media - that being a British patriot is AKIN to being """racist"""

- ARE IN FACT - going to place their vote somewhere that their forefathers that gave their lives for this country would be at least be proud of


Dear MainStreamMedia,

I live in a small town in the Netherlands where during WW2, many innocent British soldiers and pilots lost their lives,fighting for the freedom of my country, but also for the freedom of Europe. Every year these people are still remembered at the many monuments in the Netherlands with heart-warming speeches .Because of these very brave,mostly young men,(and many more who lost their lives in WW2)we were born in freedom.And everyone in Europe said:"NEVER AGAIN"!Our ancestors worked hard to rebuild Europe, for the future of themselves, their children and their grandchildren.

Almost 80 years later, our freedom is threatened again. And people in Europe say: "NOT AGAIN,NEVER AGAIN"!Yesterday,the people of the United Kingdom said:"NOT AGAIN,NEVER AGAIN,ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"!

And look what happens. You,MSM, continue to portray these people as the far right while the real( extreme and dangerous) enemy is openly marching through our European cities, week after week,after week.With flags that are not ours,with slogans that give you goosebumps.

What I saw yesterday(many! thanks to Tommy Robinson, Paul Thorpe,Mahyar Tousi,ShadyShae and many,many more) were people who are deeply concerned about the future of their country,about the future of their children and grandchildren. Who are concerned about the future of Europe, our freedom, our Christian values.

How (fakking*)dare you portray these people as far right.How (fakking*) dare you!?!?!

These people are fair and more than right about what happens in the UK and in Europe.

An incredible amount of respect for the people who walked the rally yesterday, a deep bow to all of you!

Sincerely, Lexie


..oh yes because U R ALL MSM people - Lexie above is talking about the 1st June March in London that >10K peaceful Brits got reported as "FAR RIGHT THUGS"



- 27th July is the next one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am firmly of the opinion that you are a bloviating halfwit who is too self congratulatory to appreciate what a confirmation of Dunning-Kruger you are.

I cried in the bathroom for a solid hour yesterday when I read this! You cruel, heartless man!

The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability.

You are conning yourself, Wilbur. It is really that simple.

Please talk about how the basic assertion — MSM corruption because of the intrusion of power-politics and power-economics (along with conflicting ideological positions) — is due to an overestimation of reasoning abilities. (Or WTF are you talking about?)

You are going off-track, brother. Turn back while you still can!

[attofishpi]

We've been talking about how MSM report things..

Let's have a hypothetical...let's say the below was reversed, here at a crucial time in a British election:-


Let's say a candidate for Nigel Farage stated "MY FAVOURITE DRINK IS BLACK MAN'S TEARS"..



THAT..would be all over BBC news etc..they would hunt this story to the MAX!

So.

Why the double standard


Why isn't this called out as racism?

Labour Party candidate for Clacton - Jovan Nepaul - stating his favourite drink is "WHITE MAN'S TEARS"



What a RACIST - perhaps even a BLACK SUPREMACIST ..dare i suggest..

[Will Bouwman]

Well, that's what the graph says Will.

No it doesn't.

Wot graph in your dimension are u looking at?

Have a look at the numbers on the x axis. Notice that Denmark, in black, is exactly on 1.0. That's because it is the baseline to which all other figures are relative. It does not mean, as you seem to believe, that one Danish person committed a violent crime in Denmark between 2010 and 2021. To be fair, it isn't just you who doesn't know how to read a graph:
"The most astonishing thing is that coming in number 43 on violent crime convictions over that decade in Denmark are Danish born nationals."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpwYGX3KmMY
Either Nigel Farage doesn't know his arse from his elbow, or he is deliberately misrepresenting information. Of course, in the spirit of the current conversation, other interpretations are available.

[Will Bouwman]

I think it's in the interest of somebody who cares about the truth to find out the truth...and if he doesn't care about it, he has no responsibility at all. Take your pick, I guess.

You still don't get it. As I said to Alexis Jacobi, I am not disputing facts. Again, exactly the same facts can be interpreted differently. You are confusing truth with interpretation.

No, I'm quite clear on how it is. A fair "interpreter" is going to realize he's being lied to by the major media. An indoctrinated person is going to resist that to the point of total irrationality. One can reason with the first sort, but is only ever wasting time with the second. So I just point you to the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions, because you've got the wits to see it.

You're contradicting yourself. In your previous post, you congratulated yourself precisely for not doing that:

You seem resistant to all the explanations and evidence others have offered. I feel quite glad now that I was judicious enough not to invest my time in a similar exercise of providing the proof...

When a supposed "journalist" or "media outlet" prints one story one day, and its opposite sometime later, you don't need to be any genius to see exactly what's happened. Either he didn't check his facts in the first place, in which case he was a bad journalist, or he lied in the first place and had to eat his lie when the truth became too evident. Either way, that's not a person or source to be trusted.

Check it for yourself.

Why can you not cite an actual article and an actual subsequent retraction?

[Will Bouwman]

Poor me. It shouldn't surprise you by now to appreciate that there are different interpretations. Certainly that my intellectual processes are corrupt is one possibility. It might also be that it is your intellectual processes that are corrupt; who knows Gus?

Surely there are different interpretations. But right there is the issue, no? That it is possible that our will interpose itself so that we fail to see what is actually happening, and will-to-see something else.

By Jove, I think he's got it.

Now, what are the reasons? Let’s examine your willed stance toward IC. Since you cannot bear his belief in some areas, you seem to imply that his reasoning and interpretation in other areas must be corrupt.

Or maybe not.

What you’ve done though, overall, is to obscure the entire issue. Who the fuck knows what significant truth you wish to defend?

Definitely not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: Surely there are different interpretations. But right there is the issue, no? That it is possible that our will interpose itself so that we fail to see what is actually happening, and will-to-see something else.

Boneman: By Jove, I think he's got it.

Bravo! We have established that self-deception, and false-views (interpretations) purveyed as genuine truths and realities is an obstacle to any person’s ability to arrive at accurate perceptions.

None of that, m’boy, indicates that it isn’t possible to know what is true.

And we can refer to each example (from IC’s list) and arrive at non-fanciful determinations that are not mere interpretations.

Put another way: if you assert that you, Ibn-Wilbur al-Boneman, cannot arrive at any determinations about what is true, and you cannot do so not because your mind whirls with unreal fantasies & projections that have captured you, then I suggest you are lost in this world.

[Will Bouwman]

And we can refer to each example (from IC’s list) and arrive at non-fanciful determinations that are not mere interpretations.

Great, let's do it! Off you go.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It has already been done. I have done it.

You remain stuck. For that reason I said:

Put another way: if you assert that you, Ibn-Wilbur al-Boneman, cannot arrive at any determinations about what is true, and you cannot do so not because your mind whirls with unreal fantasies & projections that have captured you, then I suggest you are lost in this world.

The next step is yours, Al-Boneman.

[attofishpi]

No it doesn't.

Wot graph in your dimension are u looking at?

Have a look at the numbers on the x axis. Notice that Denmark, in black, is exactly on 1.0. That's because it is the baseline to which all other figures are relative. It does not mean, as you seem to believe, that one Danish person committed a violent crime in Denmark between 2010 and 2021. To be fair, it isn't just you who doesn't know how to read a graph:

[SWEARING DELETED]

Suggesting I don't know how to read a GRAPH.

OOOooooooo it takes great intellect to comprehend that Muslims from M.E. and Africa DONT commit crimes that the GRAPH is portraying!!

"The most astonishing thing is that coming in number 43 on violent crime convictions over that decade in Denmark are Danish born nationals."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpwYGX3KmMY
Either Nigel Farage doesn't know his arse from his elbow, or he is deliberately misrepresenting information. Of course, in the spirit of the current conversation, other interpretations are available.

WOT?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NqBbUxN5Bg

[Will Bouwman]

It has already been done.

Where are the citations of "Leftist" legacy media articles? I've seen a lot of bluster and links to other news outlets. I keep getting told it will be easy for me to discover for myself, but I have not found the actual material you and Immanuel Can think is staring me in the face. Show me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No thanks, Al-Boneman. I could suggest that you focus just on the Smollett case. Talk about how different interpretations are possible and what they might have been.

You will have to do some work here, child.

[Will Bouwman]

No thanks...

You mean you can't.