Forum Replies Created
“For someone who claims to be a psychologist” – you’re at it again, gaslighting, BI. Same with the remark about “judging” Muslims and their beliefs in the Koran. You’re a weapons-grade gaslighter, which of course is a characteristic of psychopathy.
Reflecting recently on the inability to empathise, narcissism and psychopathy (no idea why, other than the comment of one poster to the film in the OP), I recalled an entertaining documentary on just that – see the link below.
It mostly explores the genetic aspects of psychopathy, and points out that – in contrast to the stereotype – not all psychopaths are likely to commit murder, especially if they were brought up in a stable environment during childhood.
Indeed, they often go on to succeed in business, and certain professions such as surgery, advertising, law and politics, because they are able to readily demonstrate the kind of behaviours which often facilitate progression in thoise fields – ruthlessness, coldness, a lack of empathy and so on.
As an example, you only have to look at he current front bench of government to see a few suspects, in contrast to the other parties which seem to be led by relatively normal, well-adjusted people, particularly the Greens – but that’s another story).
In contrast, professions like teaching, nursing and social work, are said to be not popular with psychopaths, because they require a high degree of empathy, and often require a more collaborative approach.
The doc. also shows some interesting representations of psychopathy in films / tv etc., plus interviews with those affected. If you’ve an hour to kill (pardon the pun) tonight or whenever, take a look.
I seriously pity you.
The only person you’re capable for feeling pity for BI, is yourself. Now go and get help.
On faith, I tend to think share a view similar to BRI’s. It does give comfort to many, and if someone has been brought up in a faith, it must be as difficult to shake off later in life as it would be for any of us non-believers to turn to God.
That said, the stuff BPG posts, if he really believes it, seems closer to ISIS than Christianity.
On the scientific debunking of religion, those who have faith aren’t really bothered by the dinosaurs argument, or the stones or bones or DNA or whatever. That’s why their beliefs are called faith and not science, ie, they don’t rely on a scientific perspective/method for ‘truths’ to be revealed to them. I know it’s a bizarre position, and it collapses completely when you interrogate and press most people about what they believe and why, and just ends up in an unpleasant argument. But, it’s a daft world we inhabit.
However, when it comes to indoctrinating young people with religious belief, I think kids should be allowed to make up their own minds. Respect others beliefs, yes, but they should make up their own minds about it. Filling kids up with religion at the kind of age when they’re ready to accept anything adults tell them is most certainly a bad idea. Let them find a faith for themselves, should they ever want to.
He is just an online avatar on here, and the internet causes people to act differently..
It’s a fair point BRI, I suppose online behaviour can be very different to in the real world, but in my experience people often conceal their worst instincts when face-to-face, and allow them free expression online, because it’s usually anonymous and without consequences.
Bi’s been the same for years. There’s plenty of evidence. ‘Dunning Kruger’ was just the tip of it. Consider the following battery of NPD characteristics from the Mayo link.
• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance.
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favours and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office.
I really couldn’t comment on the last point, but the rest are on show pretty much every week.
Accusing you of victimizing him is another classic example of his classic gaslighting, BRI.
Come off it, Heath, Gurnelista for one has made it very clear on numerous occasions that voting for Brexit was racist and I’d be very surprised if you haven’t thanked him for doing so in the past.
But Gurn didn’t say any such thing. It’s yet another example of gaslighting, and a way in which NPD finds expression. You’re seriously ill and need help, Bucksiron.
Classic case of NPD.
Those ‘others’ online are psychology students doing research for their dissertations.
It’s amazing isn’t it, the contortions the professedly religious can go through to justify hostility or indifference to the suffering of their fellow human beings.
Here’s a theory. There are some people with such strong, anti-social tendencies, they turn to religious or political creeds to justify them, and make them feel everything’s OK.
So, we have some angry people who turn to God and justify their feelings by quoting apparently relevant bits of the bible. And we have those with an innate narcissism and lack of empathy who embrace the far-right, because it seems to give justification to their feelings – as we see with BI’s comments above.
Why are some people like that? It’s often down to poor parenting and / or a troubled childhood. Sometimes it can be genetic. But whatever the causes, social media makes it worse by facilitating both the free expression of these feelings (which face-to-face conversation might not permit), and reinforcement of them when justifying their emotions to others, as we see above.
We also find it in politics, where until recently a ruthless, lying narcissist was in charge of the USA. If that’s what it takes to become president in a democracy, they think, then what can possibly be wrong?
The cure for all this? Hmmm, first, those affected have to want a cure. Just talking with someone neutral whom they trust may help. But, thanks to Tory cuts (!) it’s currently hard to find and can be expensive. Yet there’s enough evidence on this board alone that mental health is a very serious issue.
In fact Bucksiron’s billiousness over this tale of human compassion leads me to suspect he is a dwarf, because research shows that six out of seven dwarves aren’t Happy…
Symbols of national prestige – flags statues, yachts…. The Tory ‘red wall’ seats love it!
But, those northern towns are also among the poorest in the country, with large populations dependent on public services, the NHS, social care, mental health, disability, unemployment benefits and and so on. And, the Tory party really doesn’t like spending money on Tory voters.
Y…really enjoyed the Docherty era, so much flair in the team and didn’t cost the earth either, then we ended up with Sexton and the football was dire, bit like the last 3 seasons at Scunny…
Like all the big clubs, Man. United has become a global brand, and it feels too much like a corporate day out now, that’s if fans can get tickets. I haven’t seen them play live for years, nor particularly want to.
But the Man U teams of the 70s were some of the best to watch from that era, probably along with Forest and Liverpool. Tommy D was a marmite manager even among the players, but the teams he built at United were electrifying.
Sexton’s sides like those of SUFC now? Come on!
utd would probably have won the league if Docherty hadn’t been so stubborn and played Paddy in them games, and as history shows man utd were relegated in 73/74 not 74/75.
Aye, 73/74 when United were relegated – I might learn to type one of these days.
But I don’t think it was Tommy Doc’s stubborness which got Roche into the team. Stepney was 34, and TD probably thought – quite resonably – that early in the season was the best time to give Roche match practice, when the pressure was less.
In any case, one of the three games you mention was a League Cup game (v City when United lost 4-0). So, even if Stepney had played in the other two and United had won them both, they would have still been level on points with Liverpool at the end of the season, but United’s goal average would have remained inferior, barring a couple of 5-nils.
But, enough of this anoraky stuff – it was a great team United had back then, probably as good as pre-Munich. Plenty of old videos on youtube. Like this one… Would Stepney have stopped Kevin Keegan’s header?
I’ve provided indisputable evidence as to why the magnitude of man-made climate change/global warming remains totally open to question.
You’ve done bugger-all except come up with your usual concoction of exaggeration, dissembling and gaslighting!
It’s the same old same old – you’re too in love with your special interest BI, and that means you’ll never be able to argue cogently or coherently from a scientific perspective.
People like yourself take to social media with daft theories because it’s one of the few places they can sound off. Just imagine the reaction elsewhere – at home, at the office, in the pub or the gym… when someone starts up with a cranky theory about climate, religion or the middle east… people roll their eyes, look at the ceiling, tell them to shut up and jog on, or perhaps worse.
But, if they do it on social media, then briefly at least, they can get away with it, perhaps be taken seriously albeit briefly, and maybe even find like-minded folk who actually egg ‘em on!
It’s one of the saddest aspects of the www that it fuels pure daft thinking and behaviour, no matter how displaced.
Gotta go – I’ve wasted too much time on this ridiculous subject and poster already.
Unforgiving position goalkeeper to many clangers and your toast, always remember Docherty bringing in Paddy Roche in for Stepney at man u and ruining his career, won the first game but then let in 10 against Liverpool , Man city and Arsenal and was dropped for the rest of the season.
I don’t think it’s right to say those three games ruined Paddy’s career, AWG, he was at United for 9 years 73-82, first as understudy to Alex Stepney who retired in ’78, then Gary Bailey 78-87.
Roche didn’t play in the season they got relegated (1974-75), when the defence was like a sieve. Then, he only played a couple in Div. 2, aged 24 when the team was at the top of their game, and only a handful the season after, in the 1st Division (the games you mention).
But, in 1977/78 he played 23 games for United, and the jersey was his into the following season when Gary Bailey took over.
So overall, his career wasn’t ruined at United, or by the games you mention, but he was a bit error-prone.
United in the 70s – it’s my ‘special interest’ haha!
But you’re right about bringing in a keeper too early. It’s a position which depends a lot on confidence, and in a struggling team with a crap back line it can disappear quickly and make a bad defence even worse, as well as ruin a young lad’s development. I think that’s the risk with Watson.
As chairman of the 10% club, it’s clear that climate scepticism is BI’s ‘special interest’. As such, it means that we are not in the realms of rational scientific argument about climate, but more in the world of deeply held personal beliefs.
We see this in others. It could be beliefs about religion, politics, or space aliens, or even that the Queen is a lizard! The holder draws conclusions so manifestly bonkers that it would be silly to just say they are merely ‘wrong’.
The problem is that when arguing with these people, no amount of scientific evidence will be enough convince them otherwise. It’s like trying to convince a Christian fundamentalist about evolution – practically impossible.
That’s because, for such folk, any denial of their beliefs means the denial of the holder himself. They find the belief to be emotionally satisfying, comforting even. So, they are hermetically sealed to persuasion, and will shift ground, change the topic, claim things have been said which haven’t, evade, deny and gaslight, rather than change their minds and accept evidence to the contrary.
We see examples of this in BI’s last post – he says that because Koonin was in the Obama administration, it’s difficult to point the finger of political bias. I point out that Koonin was chosen by Obama precisely because his views were different to those of others, and this promoted good decision-making. Bi then says I’m claiming Koonin can’t be trusted – none of which is in my post.
Similarly with the analogy about safety. BI – you claim that I say the stat. of 97% is about probability. I never said any such thing. Check back now. I said if 97% of engineers said the plane was unsafe, would you be happy sending off the kids in it? That’s quite different to a 97% probability of an accident.
As someone who has difficulty comprehending even a short simple post on a football messageboard, I’d doubt your ability to analyse anything more complex than a league table. Or maybe a wooden one.
The thing is this – those with a special beliefs take disagreement over them as a personal affront – if you don’t agree with them, you’re agin’ them, and acrimony inevitably follows.
Sadly, you’re neither intelligent nor empathetic enough to realise this, which must make life uncomfortable.
It’s a strange thing, but that’s what we’re dealing with here.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“If there’s a reasonable chance some very bad things are going to happen, shouldn’t you take steps?”
That quote towards the end of the article sums it up well, and the answer is obvious.
As we’ve said before, if a plane had a suspected safety issue and 97% of aeronautical engineers agreed it was unsafe and likely to crash, would you be happy to wave your kids goodbye on it?
Substitute ‘plane’ for ‘climate’, and a diminishing 3% apparently still would. It’s a deranged attitude to risk which is not uncommon among sociopaths.
PS The author of this book was a former chief scientist at the BP oil co., and was recruited by Obama precisely because the latter didn’t want everyone in the room thinking the same exact same thing. He appointed a contrarian because he wanted discussion and debate, to promote strength and rigour in decision-making, not because he personally agreed with his views. A lesson those at the club need to learn.
Yet another who cannot understand what balance actually is.
So in Alcy’s dictionary:
‘Balance’ (noun, verb) = criticizing a party out of power for 11 years.
‘Balance’ (noun, verb) = criticizing EP (in power for 8 years) because nobody else does.
Come on mate, it’s getting dafter with every post!
Let’s see Alcy, you criticize Swann, not Lord Quibell, because EP is in charge and deserves it, even though others on here and elsewhere are critical too.
But, despite pensioner poverty, lamentable help for the disabled, and delays in treating the sick which you you and your wife have been directly affected by, you can’t criticize the Tories, apparently because others are critical too.
Instead, you allegedly ‘bring balance’ by criticizing a party which hasn’t seen power for 11 years!
That’s daft, isn’t it, old pal, you might as well blame Clement Atlee and Ernest Beverage for building up your expectations in the first place!
I put it to you that, despite the amount of sympathy and understanding which posters on here and the left in general show towards the predicament of people like yourself, your ‘omerta’ is because you are a biased, card-carrying Tory, quite unable to see beyond the blue fog which clouds your vision, objectivity and common sense.
Hence your sitting in silence where the party is concerned!
And that detracts from everything you’ve said about EP, Alcy.
But it’s not unusual – it’s a major problem in Britain today, that some folk are quite lacking in objectivity where politics is concerned, and commit electoral suicide by voting for a party which will cut, privatize or abolish all they need and rely on.
Objective and impartial?
I loathe all parties and all politicians equally.
When I TRIED to add balance to the decidedly left-biased arguments on this site, the lefties all cried.
Well I’ve never seen you slag off the Tories but you have complained about pensioner poverty, the NHS and disability – so why not chuck some dirt at those in charge of it?
Lefties crying? Those were tears of laughter!
Why talk about Labour? They aren’t in even power now so it’s a moot point. Plus, you don’t even have to vote for them!
It’s like saying ‘I don’t like Cox, but hey, what about Alan Knill, what did he ever do for us, or Mick Buxton, or Frank Barlow, or Alan Clarke…., or that Lord Quibell’! Completely irrelevant.
I agree with some of your comments about the club Alcy, but you’ve got to be objective and impartial in your criticism of other stuff as well. Failure to be so could lead others – not least club management – to think you’re just a victim of your own prejudices.
Come on Alcy, principles which are so high and firm in the case of SUFC, and so low and limp when it comes to the Tories!
You know very well that lying and ineptitude comes naturally to Johnson and others. Why not call them out on it, especially on pensioner poverty, like you do the club management?
Andy Burnham – combative and energetic.
Or-not’s favourite “drut”, so he must have a chance!
Should be in the running after the Manchester result.
Now, a long time ago in pre-history, an ex-girlfriend gave me a home-made tape featuring a Swedish band called the Creeps, a camp, funny, Scandi send-up of rock style, somewhere between the B52’s and British R&B as was. Listening to it again this week after years in storage it’s still a blast. Anyone who hasn’t heard them, or indeed, anyone who has, take for example this corny but uplifting chune…
Don’t read too much into the Hartlepool result.
Johnson will make the rich richer and poor poorer while the poor keep on voting for him because he’s on their side regarding flags, statues, gunboats to defend the fishermen, immigration and Brexit, etc.
And, most press back him up because a Tory government suits their billionaire tax-exiled owners too, with shouty, bite-sized headlines and comforting lies about people being under threat from non-existent enemies (like 50,000 Turks/gypsies/dragons ready to invade the country), and then promise to protect them.
What’s not clear is, if you’re honest and decent, why would you vote for someone who is neither? Hence my comment about the Tories being finished. Maybe it’s too easy to over-estimate the gullibity and intelligence of the British public.
I like the Irving Welch quote – if you’re doing alright, use your vote to help those who aren’t; and if you aren’t use your vote to help yourself. Personally, I’ll do alright under the Tories, but I’d like others to do better too – the elderly disabled, those on low or no pay and so on. But voting for a bunch of crooks, cuckholds and cxxxx just won’t cut it!
Immigrant muslims? British muslims?
How do you know?May 6, 2021 at 3:35 pm in reply to: Angry Doesn’t Get Close to How I Feel at the Moment #206380
It’s true Wharton did get criticism and even some abuse towards the end of his tenure, but it was nowhere near as sharp and sustained as the criticism which PS has attracted. That’s partly due to the consistently poor performances of the last few seasons, but also the raised expectations followed by deep disappointment, mixed in with a more provocative personal style. His actions have also led to a feeling that the club is belongs to him and him alone, rather than the fans.
Hence the grief, I think.
So what do you think the reason is, BA, and what’s the evidence?
Oh, and why are you suddenly so concerned about Swedish social problems?
BPG is a white, British, heterosexual, Christian man who somehow believes he is being persecuted, not his only belief with no evidence.
Yes, I expect if you inspected the membership of Islamic State, you’d find types just like BPG/BJ/BA among its ranks.
Whether or not the ‘pastor’ should have been arrested is open to question – we weren’t there, and don’t know his attitude towards the police, what was said and so on. That’s why, BPG, I said above that it ‘seems’ harsh. Maybe it was thoroughly deserved. We just don’t know, but certainly ridicule is preferable to censorship in teh case of this elderly eccentric.
Johnson marking his own homework – ridiculous.
Also Alcy, if you can be bothered to check, these people were rightly subject to due process of the law. Their wrongdoings have not been a passport to high office, unlike with the top Tories.
Come on man, if SUFC was run like the Tory party, what would you be saying, muhahaaa?
Come to think if it, perhaps it already is.
The arrest seems harsh. But he was later released without charge.
I see a comment online to the effect that “Perhaps the best way to deal with these elderly nutters standing on stepladders in public places shouting homophobic remarks…” (because that’s what he was doing, BPG) “….is to make fun of them, by loudly asking whether the unmarried Jesus was gay and took it up the backside.”
I tend to agree.May 4, 2021 at 6:16 pm in reply to: Angry Doesn’t Get Close to How I Feel at the Moment #206269
Pat, whenever I’ve offered an opinion about something your inevitable response has been “I said no such thing”, or “so and so said no such thing”. You do this regardless of the fact that I haven’t claimed you or anyone else “said” anything. You’ve then gone on to accuse me of lying. If anyone should be in any doubt just look at your comments above. Exactly the same as always.
In fact your de facto response to any and every opinion I’ve offered is to accuse me of being a liar. All because I referred to pies. Jeez, it’s like a junior school playground. In fact you could do to go back to junior school to understand that when someone offers an opinion about something it does not mean they’re claiming anyone “said” anything.
The whole post sounds like a bitchy letter from a divorcee to the ex-wife (or husband)!
Well you shouldn’t, BS. That’s part of the problem with the current government, they’ve normalized sleaze to the point where people like yourself aren’t bothered about it, at least while it’s happening in the Tories.
Once upon a time corruption and jerrymandering were very serious matters. At least in Labour, where Elliot Morley, Fiona Onasanya (traffic offences), Emily Thornberry (tweeting a photo) all resigned or were sacked.
We now see Tories not only staying in post but getting promoted, like Johnson, Cummings, Patel, Hancock, for much greater offences.
And yet you’re shrugging your shoulders over their lying and corruption. What have things come to, what’s made you like this, when you allow your country to be no better than some third-world banana republic?
BTW I hope your eye op goes well. My dad was in his 80s when he had a cataract removed, and it was surprisingly quick and trouble-free. He said it was great to see the world in 3D again.
It’s so important the elderly get the care they need – so why would anyone support a party that wants to cut, privatize or do away with state support altogether?
1 user thanked author for this post.