2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 67 Next »

• 

  Jon September 11, 2012 at 23:24

  @technicolour – thanks, I’m with you.

  I should have explained why positive discrimination might be considered in itself a negative, and it’s why I think it can be useful but isn’t always the right solution. Whatever rebalancing mechanism is used to correct old discriminations, there will always be a section of people who take a reactionary line against it, in most cases because they feel that a fresh injustice has been perpetrated against them.

  Ultimately if positive discrimination works i.e. helps tip the balance of justice across gender/race/sexuality divides, then yes, that’s an advantage, I completely agree. But I do try to sympathise with people who get caught up in this process, since anyone around today didn’t cause the discriminatory imbalance in the first place 🙂

• 

  technicolour September 11, 2012 at 23:28

  Lastbluebell: very interesting; have been reading Stieg Larrson’s journalism; and noted what he said about the increasing right wing slant of Expressen. So it is as if in the UK the Daily Mail had run a hate piece: but the difference is that Swedish people are not laughing at Expressen as they are used to doing here at the Mail? And the other papers were scared off as a result? Is that right?

• 

  technicolour September 11, 2012 at 23:39

  Jon, I don’t think it’s about ‘positive discrimination’ but reality. And if the current system can’t accommodate reality then it will expire. I would prefer it not to, as I don’t want anyone to die, since life is always better, and I certainly selfishly don’t want it to take the rest of us with it…

• 

  Phil September 11, 2012 at 23:40

  @Technicolour

  Not sure if I fully understand what you are asking but I guess I was unsuccessfully parodying “all men are potential rapists”. I just had to wjkipedia Raymond Williams but I will wash up.

  I tend to see positive discrimination as a patronising gift. But that’s just the council estate talking now.

• 

  technicolour September 11, 2012 at 23:42

  anyway, this is so interesting, but have to go to bed! up with the (non gender specific) chickens..

• 

  technicolour September 11, 2012 at 23:43

  phil, no, it was funny!

• 

  technicolour September 11, 2012 at 23:47

  “I tend to see positive discrimination as a patronising gift. But that’s just the council estate talking now.”

  yep and hurrah.

  good night all. sweet dreams, what a lovely few people to come across.

• 

  Lastbluebell September 12, 2012 at 00:31

  @Technicolor, yes something like that, if I understand you correctly, (and I don’t have so much experiance reading the daily mail to be honest but I think I understand what you mean).

  If you notice someone you know buying one of the big tabloids in Sweden, (Expressen or Aftonbladet) many will be a little embarrassed, “oh I just buy it for the sports section you know…”, but we do continue to buy them, and read them (alot), and my subjective feeling is that we still take them much more seriously and trust them more then you do in England.

  But the crucial point is the issue, and all the insinuations and connections made, sexual/rape/gender/bullying/internet hate. The current climate in Sweden is such that I believe that when it was well made public like that, the other news media could not stand aside without risking to lose credibility, or be accused trying to hide/supress or downplay victims and potential abuse of the women because it was a famous person, or because he was an “idol” of the “left” etc.

  It is a very highly charged and extremly sensitive issue in Sweden.

• 

  Lastbluebell September 12, 2012 at 01:00

  @Technicolor,

  A thought just hit me, literally, but one way to maybe visualize it is if you picture a small rural village or town in the 16th centy, and someone suddenly turns around, shouts and points, a witch a witch…

  Maybe not always so important who shouted first, but that someone did…

• 

  evgueni September 12, 2012 at 01:51

  Michael, 8:07 pm
  “Unfortunately, if you have a quick look at Switzerland, you’ll find that direct democracy can be pretty nasty as well (minaret ban…) – my personal guess is that “direct democratic justice” would just lead to hanging burglars and torture of kidnappers, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.

  Thoughts?”

  My thought is this – why was the outcome of that particular referendum “nasty”? I know very little of the arguments put forward by For and Against campaigners – a process that is integral to referenda in Switzerland. Do you know more?

  ‘Nother thought – if this is the worst example of the effects of DD, then I’m all for it. The other kind, indirect, ‘representative’ democracy or ours – has a track record of delivering death to millions of innocents. Which one do you prefer?

  I think you are pessimistic. The Swiss have had DD for over 150 years. Plenty of time to find it main faults I would think. The other important aspect not to lose sight of is the legal constraints on the media in CH to present both sides of the argument in advance of referenda.

• 

  evgueni September 12, 2012 at 01:59

  Something else occured to me regarding feminism and feminists. Direct democracy is the ultimate solution since there can be no oppressed minority when it comes to simple gender politics 🙂 No need to explain to anyone why being in favour of equal oportunities does not imply expectation of equal outcomes. Just take a vote if you feel sufficiently strongly about it.

• 

  Adriana September 12, 2012 at 02:25

  A minor point but one which has stayed in my thoughts – how long do people normally keep used condoms?

• 

  JimmyGiro September 12, 2012 at 02:37

  The definition of ‘equal opportunity’ is: Eight men, black and white, placed on the level behind a straight line ready to run freely for one hundred metres after the sound of a shot.

  The definition of ‘equal outcomes’ is: Seven men, black and white, lined up for their racial arrogance at striving to be better than the average man, waiting to be shot.

• 

  evgueni September 12, 2012 at 02:42

  Jemand
  11 Sep, 5:28 pm
  “Jon, isn’t the problem inherently one of media ownership? Ownership based primarily on profit-motivated private shareholdings, with advertising revenues, cannot be reliably expected to discourage consumerism and increase altruism. Although, I’d prefer the media to focus on truth, knowledge and accountability. The ownership could be in the hands of the consumers themselves, each shareholding vote being equal, voting being voluntary. Maybe a news organisation can be divided into two independent parts – the business side that ensures viability and an editorial side that ensures quality of content. As it is, the MSM have simply become part of the establishment and without fundamental change to ownership and structure, it is unlikely to ever change.”

  Very well put. My thesis is that in order to function democracy needs two things of roughly equal importance – good information and popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is effectively delivered via direct democracy mechanisms tried and tested in Switzerland and increasingly adopted around the world most notably Uruguay, Venezuela but also Europe and USA at state level. The other part – information, is tricky because few realise that it is perhaps more important to know what your choices should be than to be able to make them for yourslelf. Jefferson is attributed the quote “I would rather live in a country without elections than in a country without newspapers”, evidently recognising the power of the news media of the day to shape politics whether democratic or otherwise. The reason I think information so important is because if we imagine making choices on the basis of zero information, the likelihood of making favourable choices would simply reflect the ratio of favourable to unfavourable choices in the mix (since only random selection is possible). However if the selection of choices that we are presented with excludes favourable ones largely or altogether then we may be continuously manipulated into making unfavourable choices, against our best interests. Clearly any talk of democracy is meaningless then but I believe this is largely where we are in the UK now.

• 

  CE September 12, 2012 at 03:21

  Hi Craig,

  A few thoughts;

  1) A Jury trial is by no means a guarantee of a fairer trial than a Judge led trial.
  2) The Birmingham Six? Don’t really see the relevance at all in this emotive comparison to the JA Case. Of Course people should campaign against unsafe or unsound court decisions reached with dodgy evidence, but because JA hot-footed it out of Sweden we’re not even getting the chance of decision being reached. Surely these matters should be given a chance to be settled in a court of law and not just the court of public opinion?
  3) If they even got that far, as I concur with your analysis that AA is lying.
  4) I would guess that she is lying not because of her Langley paymasters but in some form of hell hath no fury no revenge.
  5) None of this diminishes the extremely serious and separate allegations concerning SW.
  6) Maybe rape trials are held in more restricted conditions in an attempt to protect victims?
  7) The Useful Idiot tag could just as easily be applied to some of JA’s more sycophantic supporters who seem unable to remove the wikileaks tinted specs when judging his behaviour.

• 

  Jemand September 12, 2012 at 04:04

  @Jon

  Re media ownership, making better people

  It must have been discussed so many times before, how to successfully transform the existing paradigm of media ownership into one that delivers palpable improvements in public information. Compare Rupert Murdoch to the fictitious Citizen Kane (or the real Willy Hearst). We haven’t come very far in nearly 80 years, have we?

  To make progress on this, I really believe that corporations law needs to evolve to include a form of structure that I call consumer-oriented corporate ownership. This form of ownership can first be applied to services that have traditionally been state-run enterprises which are being increasingly sold off to profit-motivated entities. Instead of paying dividends to greedy private interests who have no interest in quality of service and other issues, the dividends can be paid as a discount on the price of the service. This kind of structure would suit large enterprises with monopolistic infrastructure and captive markets – eg energy, roads etc. and I think it can be applied to media without stifling competition.

  But as for altruism and improvements to human appreciation of each other, I think that’s like trying to teach appreciation of Jazz – some people just don’t get it.

  @Evgueni – thanks for the discussion. Yes, the quality and reliability of information is key to the realisation of democracy. Now when I look around, there is so much noise competing with signal on so many issues, it’s like feeling trapped in a Mandelbrot fractal. We can’t see the forrest for the trees for the forrest for the trees, ad infinitum.

• 

  Jemand September 12, 2012 at 05:43

  @Jon – Re feminism.

  Thanks for your discussion. I note that Technicolour has tried to drive a wedge between us, perhaps confident that you will sort me out for her entertainment.

  Clarification – The “one side” I referred to was women (vs men), not moderate vs radical feminist.

  The goodwill you have expressed is no different to mine. In fact, I pretty much share all your sentiments but none of your confidence. It’s funny how much we invest in the definition of a word like “feminism” to then see how that definition becomes the source of conflict rather than the issues that it is intended to represent. 

  Feminism has a dictionary definition, competing popular definitions and a personal definition that may or may not bear any resemblance to any of the former. But feminism is also a like a collection of animal species with a taxonomy of its own. It is no different, in that regard, to religion, political ideology or primates. Militant feminism vs Radical feminism, Trotskyism vs Stalinism, Catholicism vs Protestantism, Common chimp vs Bonobo. These are merely evolutionary groups within or adjacent to other groups.

  And all these abstract animals germinated from some primordial convergence of factors (amino acids, superstition, injustice), grew legs and teeth, became sentient, fought for survival and reproduction (proselytizing) and territorial domination. You can see this behaviour even in something as benign as a charity or local football club.

  JimmyGiro correctly identifies “waves” of feminism but this is simply an observation of a staggered linear evolution of feminism in his political analysis of the movement. I don’t share Jimmy’s apparent view that feminism was created as a disposable product of a larger political scheme, although I think it has and continues to be used by those with ulterior political agendas. Feminism clearly grew its own legs in the soup of injustice provided by a hostile social environment, scarce resources and a fundamental biological dichotomy. And then it evolved into the animal that exists today – fangs, claws and all. I hear the colourful ones are the most venomous.

  But Jon, why do you have to, or want to, call yourself a feminist? Is it a badge or a white flag to indicate you are a friend and not a foe? Why can’t you just be a humanist with an awareness of female justice issues – free to roam the trails of philosophy and explore the caverns of knowledge, beholden and answerable to none? Joining the ranks of feminism is like joining an army with a reputation for war crimes. I refuse to wear the uniform.

  Lastly, I didn’t want to rehash this subject because it has been done to death. Why should we have to drag out and read the whole story every time someone objects to a transient point? I’m not referring to you Jon, but to the usual “watchers” who jealously deconstruct our every comment looking for evidence of thought crimes and when they find one, point us out with an accusatory siren of abuse.

• 

  Observer September 12, 2012 at 06:08

  Technicolour, and others,

  While interpreting Jemand’s remarks above, bear in mind the following retort he addressed to another’s comment in a recent thread on IK/SW’s statement:

  “@Goran – it was the sauerkraut recipe your mother was taught by those handsome German officers she “entertained” during the years of Swedish collaboration during the war. Now if you could just post that delicious recipe, I’d appreciate it.”

  And compare with another more balanced comment by AAMNV on the same matter:

  “Goran Rudling appeared suddenly on this site and ruffled a few feathers. Not only was he brandishing disturbing facts he was abrasive and used words like ‘liar’ and ‘flee’ – which to most of us seemed excessive. Well – I think he would have got a fairer hearing with a milder, softer tone but it’s up to him. He was never abusive and he was ready to explain (if not retract) his language.”

  How ready he was not just to be abusive but also draw in his mother. You can see where he stands on women.

• 

  Phil September 12, 2012 at 07:25

  @Observer

  You are selectively quoting like a politically correct copper. Jermand has a funny, wicked streak. We could quote other comments from the same thread and say we know where he stands on Chines circus performers and Led Zeppelin.

• 

  John Goss September 12, 2012 at 07:34

  Lastbluebell, who are the chief powermongers behind Expressen and Aftonbladet? In this country our press and other media outlets are fed soundbites from Reuters and other suck teats and much of the real news comes through the blogosphere on sites like this one of Craig Murray’s.

• 

  Phil September 12, 2012 at 07:45

  Jermand:
  “I really believe that corporations law needs to evolve to include a form of structure that I call consumer-oriented corporate ownership.”

  Evolution of corporate law will only lead to more of what we have. Power corrupts. It is irresistible. So take away the temptation. The worker owned business is a better model, both productively and socially.

  http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=worker+owned+success

• 

  Michael September 12, 2012 at 08:05

  Evgueni:

  1) Switzerland has not had direct democracy for more than 150 years – the referendum process for laws adopted by parliament exists since 1874, the popular initiative to amend the constitution since 1891. But that’s just for the record 😉

  2) As a Swiss citizen, who has followed Swiss politics rather closely for many years (albeit sometimes from abroad), let me assure you that the discussions in advance of referendum or initiative ballots are much less factual than one would hope. (I’m not saying parliamentary democracies are necessarily better at this, I’m just saying that direct democracy is far from paradise as well).

  3) I don’t know where you got the idea from that media in Switzerland are required by law to present both pro and contra arguments. That only holds true for the state radio and TV channels (i.e. our BBC equivalent), though certainly not for the other media, including all newspapers. On the contrary, some of our weekly newspapers are famous for very partisan approaches to all voting campaigns, try “Weltwoche” for (very) right-wing commentary or “WoZ” (“Wochenzeitung”) for (very) left-wing commentary.

  4) The problem in Switzerland is not unlike that in the UK. In the UK, Parliament says “we are sovereign” and therefore happily overrules or ignores court rulings (“prisoner voting” comes to mind…). In Switzerland, probably the majority of politicians and certainly the majority of the people thinks “the electorate is sovereign” and therefore free to overrule court rulings. That becomes very problematic then, when the electorate passes laws which are in conflict with fundamental rights and international law.

• 

  Phil September 12, 2012 at 08:08

  @evgueni

  The occasional referendum is not direct democracy. Switzerland is a place of apparent contradiction. Yes, political power is somewhat decentralised and yes the people are trusted with guns. I remember my shock when I first saw a gun cupboard! However, the tax system insanely favours the supremely wealthy. And their finance sector rivals the city of london in it’s readiness to make money from the misery and murder of others.

• 

  Jemand September 12, 2012 at 08:42

  @Observer – Yo mama’s so fat that when she sits around the house, she sits A R O U N D the house!

  @Phil – thanks for delivering the ol’ one-two uppercut for me.

  Re worker ownership. Hasn’t this been done before in different countries? What’s the outcome? With workers as shareholders, they still want a profit as the difference between the production costs and selling price. They also want job security. So the quality of the product/service ends up suffering. I take the view as a consumer that we invented shoe factories because we wanted good shoes at a fair price. Not jobs for people or a cash cow for the greedy.

  Even workers want good shoes. But currently, we have reasonable shoes at a cheap price made by very poor workers enriching wealthy scumbags who drive mercedes benzs on pot-holed roads. If we let those poor workers take over, they will give themselves a pay rise and start making crap shoes for the same selling price. Costs go up and internal disputes lead to problems. Then they go on strike against their own company.The business owner can flee to another poor country and start up operations there. He’s called “mobile capital”. It’s a perk of being obscenely wealthy while poor workers are stuck in a their geographical economic prison.

  Why can’t we, the shoe buyer (we are workers too), vote for a management team that delivers good shoes at a fair price under working conditions that are reasonable? I know it’s easy to draft a utopian model with the plasticity of words. But we are all consumers and we are sick of bad service, bad products and high prices. Can this be a possible solution?

• 

  craig Post author September 12, 2012 at 08:46

  Adriana

  It is a very good point. Keeping a used condom for 10 or 12 days is very weird, especially as we are being urged by Ardin’s apologists to believe she had not psychologically realised she had been “assaulted”. So if she did keep the genuine condom, why?

• 

  Robbie September 12, 2012 at 08:52

  That’s yet another discrpancy to add to my wallchart! 🙂

• 

  Jemand September 12, 2012 at 08:59

  Now because of this feminism issue, I have been down-classed to “awaiting moderation”. I don’t think I’ve thrown a punch here yet that wasn’t in reply to a spit in my face.

  Thanks.

• 

  craig Post author September 12, 2012 at 09:02

  Jemand

  It is an automatic filter. We don’t always know what triggers it, but usually it’s too many links. It is not sensitive to feminism as far as I know! Mods get people out of moderation several times per day.

• 

  John Goss September 12, 2012 at 09:04

  In the dark days and nights when I used to fumble about with condoms I disposed of the used ones as quickly as possible in a proper manner, that is, I tied a knot at the open end and discarded the package in a waste bin. Oh, that others were so considerate! But to keep one as a trophy. Why would anyone?

• 

  Jemand September 12, 2012 at 09:11

  @Craig – Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 67 Next »

Comments are closed.