Aceticon

joined 8 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Aceticon 5 points 2 weeks ago

People at the peak Dunning-Kruger point of intelligence - just above average intelligent enough to feel they're "above" most people but not enough to properly understand the full nature of intelligence and its limits.

[–] Aceticon 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's my impression that people tend to be more attracted to the unusual, so if you've grown up surrounded by big booty latinas, they're not as appealing as otherwise.

[–] Aceticon 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

As far as I can tell, most people out there have expectations about high IQ people which are straight out of Hollywood films and wholly unrealistic, so best just leave then with whatever de facto impression of brightness they have about you than mention a number and trigger the "Mental Superman" expectations.

Also going around parading your IQ falls straight into the rule "the more a person brags about some great personal quality, the less strong it is" - if you're really that bright, brave, strong, beautiful, confident and so on, there is no need to mention it since it's generally obvious to others.

[–] Aceticon 6 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe he has huge hairy balls?!

[–] Aceticon 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I seriously suspect they're a psyops to help dissipate people's righteous anger - people are pissed of a something, sign a meaningless petition on something like change.org, get their "I've done something" psychological kick and, having satisfied their need to do something, don't actually go ahead and do anything effective.

Defusing the anger against injustices of the very people who tend to be more aware of what's going on and more concerned about it, before it turns into action or even causes civil society movements to rise from the bottom up, is a pretty useful mechanism for established powers in those countries which peddle the illusion of freedom to their citizenry.

[–] Aceticon 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Look up the psychology of using "but" - in that sentence structure you were justifying the former with the latter, hence why felt the need to emphasized that those two things are separate and one does not justify the other.

As for cyclists being or not reckless lawbreakers, my experience of almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and about 5 cities is that most are not. However there are a few cunts out there spreading a bad impression on the general population about the rest of us by being reckless, so I am totally in favor that those cunts get cracked-down on hard, even if they're not as dangerous as equally reckless drivers because they're not riding anywhere near the same weight of metal at anywhere near the same speed - simple Physics dictates that a reckless cyclist is much less likely to kill somebody than a reckless driver.

Besides, cyclists who couldn't care less about endangering others behave exactly the same behind the wheel of a car and at least in the West most cyclists are also drivers (and we're all pedestrians too) so in general, that kind of person needs to be convinced to behave differently.

This isn't the fucking "thin blue line" and frankly any moron supporting those cunts just because "we're all cyclists" needs to sit down and have a really hard think about what they're actually achieving with it.

[–] Aceticon 1 points 2 weeks ago

Fair enough.

This article, however, is about New York, were none of that applies.

[–] Aceticon 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

There is no justification for putting others in danger ~~but then~~. It has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.

Fixed it for ya.

There is no justification to put others in danger, period. That applies as much to drivers as to cyclists.

The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.

I've cycled in places like London, back when few people did it and the cycling infrastructure was basically non-existent and what little there was, were mostly tiny lanes painted blue on the side of the road with no actual safety from the cars and which tended to have cars parked on top.

People still didn't cycle on the sidewalk there back then, even in places without cycling lanes.

The sidewalk is not a place for cyclists: it's filled with people who don't expect cyclists and fragile and highly unpredictable pedestrians like children and dogs.

[–] Aceticon -1 points 2 weeks ago

In my experience cyclists are more likely to run red-lights in pedestrian crossings than in junctions and intersections, so they're not endangering themselves, they're endangering pedestrians.

[–] Aceticon 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I've commuted by bicycle regularly for almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and whenever I bought a new bicycle (well, I usually got them used), I would always make sure to have a forward and a back facing light as well as a bell.

The lights are almost self-explanatory, as you pointed out, but the bell is for the kind of pedestrians who don't properly look to both sides before crossing a road (they rely on hearing and peripheral vision, both of which don't work with bicycles which are silent and have a far narrower profile than a car), as well as drivers who will do the same in intersections (these are people who literally don't turn their heads fully to look at possible incoming traffic but instead only turn it just enough to have the intersecting road on the corner of their eye) - they're to warn then when I notice they're not looking suspect they might be about to just cross in front of me.

My ass has been saved multiple times by keeping a weary eye on people on sidewalks that looked like they were about to turn and cross the street and warning them of my presence with the bell.

Also works well in places were the cycle path and the footpath are shared (like often in Berlin) to notify pedestrians that you're coming to avoid situations were they do sudden moves to the side without looking.

Even in places with proper infrastructure (like The Netherlands), it pays to be defensive in your cycling, but that's even more the case in places like Berlin (were the infrastructures is mainly decent and people are used to cyclists, but sometimes it's kinda crap) and more so in places with almost no cycling infrastructure like London.

[–] Aceticon 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

I've regularly commuted by bicycle for almost 2 decade in 3 different countries.

I'm sorry but if you're cycling (or using an e-bike) on the sidewalk you deserved to get punished for it. Same if you cross a red-light when pedestrians are crossing. (I'm so so about crossing a red-light when there are no traffic or pedestrians crossing: I won't do it myself but if you're not endangering others it's no big deal in my book if other cyclists do it).

Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.

[–] Aceticon 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Big Brother states (which the UK is certainly headed towards)

When the Snowden Revelations came out, the UK had even more civil society surveillance than the US.

As a consequence of those revelations, in the US some of the surveillance was walked back, whilst in the UK the Government just passed a law that retroactively made the whole thing legal, issued a bunch of D-Notices (the UK system of Press Censorship) to shut up the Press, got the Editor of the newspaper that brought it out in the UK (The Guardian) kicked out, and the Press there never talked about it again.

Also, let's not forget the UK has the biggest number of surveillance cameras per-capita in the World.

Oh, and they have a special and separate Surveillance Tribunal (the Investigatory Powers Tribunal) were the lawyers for the side other than the State are not allowed to be present in certain sessions, see certain evidence or even get informed of the final judgement unless their side wins.

They easily have the most extreme regime of Civil Society Surveillance in Europe, and in the World are probably second only to the likes of North Korea and China.

Britain is well beyond merely "headed towards" Big Brother and has been for at least a decade.

view more: ‹ prev next ›