Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Otis]

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

I think it’s more about when you start explicitly saying things are right/centre/left they ban people rather than the hotness of takes. You can say absolutely anything political (everything is political after all) but as soon as you start saying certain opinions are of a certain place on the political spectrum, you get banned, regardless of how fiery the post was or wasn’t

 

It’s a strange system. All it does is cause the political chat to spill out into other threads anyway.

I don't agree with your politics, but you're spot on. 

I'm too banned from GC for comments that didn't break any rules, yet similar/worse comments are made every day without consequences. 

[Corky]

5 hours ago, Stadt said:

If you blindly get angry about Man City's 115 alleged charges you're slow.

 

They mostly relate to not reporting payment to players when FFP rules were completely different to almost a decade ago. They cheated and they should be punished but they've had their house in order for years now.

 

FFP rules are bollocks and I'm in favour of clubs delegitimising the whole thing. Our club are the only ones stupid enough to not circumvent the rules or stick within them.

In fairness to the casual observer, the media don't help with their "verdict imminent" stuff when it clearly isn't. It is a complex and lengthy case, as you say.

 

There is definitely a boredom factor at play. The whole FFP/ PSR subject is tedious. Going to sound very old fashioned but we didn't get into football for this.

[Nalis]

Can one of you disgruntled banned people take it to the forum support section please? Haven't had an entertaining outburst in a while.

Edited 23 May 2025 by Nalis

[Dr The Singh]

AI will probably run the country better than any party in the next 10 years

[jgtuk]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

I think I’m banned from General News; I don’t have a reply option anymore anyway. I assume I’d have to contact the mods to change that?

Good luck with that, I didn’t even get a reply.

[Dr The Singh]

Banned users should pay to come back

[The Year Of The Fox]

I’m also banned from GC after a Brexit disagreement 

 

It didn’t even get nasty 🤣

[Sampson]

14 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

AI will probably run the country better than any party in the next 10 years

I think AI can probably make better decisions in running a country’s economy than humans, but it can also take out the humanity of the decision making process and it allows humans to remove responsibility from the decision making process, which is why the concept scares me.

 

An AI cant really take into account human life and suffering and I can easily see a future where it’s given a decision making process but that process has no thought on the consequences of how it will affect people’s livelihoods or it will brutally say, not care about thousands of people dying if this saves some money in the budget.

 

It also has a scary amount of legal creep potentially associated with it. I can’t remember which user said it but someone here said a few months ago - they can easily see some Grenfall style disaster in which the legal defence it was the algorithm who told us to do this, not a human at fault and then adjusts the algorithm through some public outcry. That’s how we’ve ended up with loads of crappy laws - because extreme emotional examples were used to create laws or reinterpret or enforce old laws no one had cared about in decades. With AI there are much scarier consequences to all that process to me.

Edited 24 May 2025 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I think AI can probably make better decisions in running a country’s economy than humans, but it can also take out the humanity of the decision making process and it allows humans to remove responsibility from the decision making process, which is why the concept scares me.

 

An AI cant really take into account human life and suffering and I can easily see a future where it’s given a decision making process but that process has no thought on the consequences of how it will affect people’s livelihoods or it will brutally say, not care about thousands of people dying if this saves some money in the budget.

 

It also has a scary amount of legal creep potentially associated with it. I can’t remember which user said it but someone here said a few months ago - they can easily see some Grenfall style disaster in which the legal defence it was the algorithm who told us to do this, not a human at fault and then adjusts the algorithm through some public outcry. That’s how we’ve ended up with loads of crappy laws - because extreme emotional examples were used to create laws or reinterpret or enforce old laws no one had cared about in decades. With AI there are much scarier consequences to all that process to me.

And all of this plays into the argument that our tech development in general is proceeding far, far faster than our ethical understanding of how it can be utilised.

 

Which does have the possibility to have some very, very scary outcomes.

[grobyfox1990]

16 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

AI will probably run the country better than any party in the next 10 years

There's a lot of pointless admin in running a state, like getting legislation through, which will help.

But we are essentially seeing how a basic AI model does to run a country with the DOGE bro's in the USA. The bro's can't equate value and spend hence they have spectacularly failed in their mission. Obvs the DOGE bro's are still model 1.0 

[Trav Le Bleu]

20 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

AI will probably run the country better than any party in the next 10 years

AI will only ever be as good as the people it learns from.

[Jon the Hat]

15 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

AI will only ever be as good as the people it learns from.

The problem being as the internet fills up with AI generated information (a fair chunk of which is not accurate at the moment), someone will have to prevent it learning from itself with the resultant drop in quality of output.  I think we will soon see paying a premium for quality "human certified" information the norm, because there will be so much crap out there we won't know what to believe.

[Jimothy]

Rocky is a terrible film.

 

The pacing is awful. Starts with a 3 minute fight, followed by 45 minutes of Rocky walking the streets mumbling at people. Supposedly to set up the character. A couple of training montages and then the big fight that start barely 15 minutes before the film ends. The dialogue feels like its been written by someone who's never held a conversation in their life before. The romance with Adrian felt forced and extremely creepy. But also her change of character once entering the relationship wasn't believable. She lost the specs and became a whole new person.

 

The sound editing is pants. Especially the scene where Paulie loses it with the baseball bat. The fight itself at the end it shocking. The punches don't even look close to real, it's hard to tell if the punch was meant to have landed or not, unless it's the ones that knocked someone down, but the were still obviously fake.

 

The acting is awful too. Stallone has never been great, can barely hear what he say half the time, and Burt Young as Paulie is terrible. Astonishing that they both get Oscar nominations. 

 

Maybe it was seen as ground breaking in 1976, but I've seen films from that era that are miles better and it really not aged well.

 

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Rocky is a terrible film.

 

The pacing is awful. Starts with a 3 minute fight, followed by 45 minutes of Rocky walking the streets mumbling at people. Supposedly to set up the character. A couple of training montages and then the big fight that start barely 15 minutes before the film ends. The dialogue feels like its been written by someone who's never held a conversation in their life before. The romance with Adrian felt forced and extremely creepy. But also her change of character once entering the relationship wasn't believable. She lost the specs and became a whole new person.

 

The sound editing is pants. Especially the scene where Paulie loses it with the baseball bat. The fight itself at the end it shocking. The punches don't even look close to real, it's hard to tell if the punch was meant to have landed or not, unless it's the ones that knocked someone down, but the were still obviously fake.

 

The acting is awful too. Stallone has never been great, can barely hear what he say half the time, and Burt Young as Paulie is terrible. Astonishing that they both get Oscar nominations. 

 

Maybe it was seen as ground breaking in 1976, but I've seen films from that era that are miles better and it really not aged well.

 

Agreed. I watched it a few years ago and it's really dull, especially the beginning as you mentioned. 

 

I didn't like the Adrian romance either. Seemed like she really wasn't interested and was forced to change and put up with it because of fear she wouldn't get another man. 

[jgtuk]

On 24/05/2025 at 15:00, Trav Le Bleu said:

AI will only ever be as good as the people it learns from.

 

[Izzy]

40 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Rocky is a terrible film.

 

The pacing is awful. Starts with a 3 minute fight, followed by 45 minutes of Rocky walking the streets mumbling at people. Supposedly to set up the character. A couple of training montages and then the big fight that start barely 15 minutes before the film ends. The dialogue feels like its been written by someone who's never held a conversation in their life before. The romance with Adrian felt forced and extremely creepy. But also her change of character once entering the relationship wasn't believable. She lost the specs and became a whole new person.

 

The sound editing is pants. Especially the scene where Paulie loses it with the baseball bat. The fight itself at the end it shocking. The punches don't even look close to real, it's hard to tell if the punch was meant to have landed or not, unless it's the ones that knocked someone down, but the were still obviously fake.

 

The acting is awful too. Stallone has never been great, can barely hear what he say half the time, and Burt Young as Paulie is terrible. Astonishing that they both get Oscar nominations. 

 

Maybe it was seen as ground breaking in 1976, but I've seen films from that era that are miles better and it really not aged well.

 

Rocky IV on the other hand...

 

[Jimothy]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Rocky IV on the other hand...

 

Is it worth carrying on then? I've never had the desire to after watching the 1st one 

[Izzy]

22 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Is it worth carrying on then? I've never had the desire to after watching the 1st one 

If you didn't enjoy the original mate then yeah, I wouldn't waste your time on the others. You'll only get more frustrated at the story lines, crap acting, and OTT/fake fight scenes 

 

Rocky IV does have the all time greatest training montage and soundtrack though 

 

 

 

Edited 3 June 2025 by Izzy

[Tommy G]

What is the reasoning for a whole month of Pride? Without going full on GB News I’m genuinely intrigued, what is the history behind this? There are generally days to celebrate something - fathers, mothers, remembrance, valentines, guy fawkes you get the picture. 
 

I discussed this one of my childhood mates who’s happily married with his husband and adopted son - and they said it’s a load of virtue signalling bollocks - so curious how well it’s supported in the gay community? 
 

 

[Sly]

I find Starwars about as exciting as watching paint dry. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

What is the reasoning for a whole month of Pride? Without going full on GB News I’m genuinely intrigued, what is the history behind this? There are generally days to celebrate something - fathers, mothers, remembrance, valentines, guy fawkes you get the picture. 
 

I discussed this one of my childhood mates who’s happily married with his husband and adopted son - and they said it’s a load of virtue signalling bollocks - so curious how well it’s supported in the gay community? 

Seems to me what started as a celebration for the community has indeed turned into a celebration of the community which is now used by companies to show how wonderful they are so they don't look out of place with modern society and hence put off potential employees.  So yes certainly an element of virtue signalling.  I think though if done right and with the community it can genuinely help your employees feel more welcome in their workplace, and that is important.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Tommy G said:

What is the reasoning for a whole month of Pride? Without going full on GB News I’m genuinely intrigued, what is the history behind this? There are generally days to celebrate something - fathers, mothers, remembrance, valentines, guy fawkes you get the picture. 
 

I discussed this one of my childhood mates who’s happily married with his husband and adopted son - and they said it’s a load of virtue signalling bollocks - so curious how well it’s supported in the gay community? 
 

 

 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Seems to me what started as a celebration for the community has indeed turned into a celebration of the community which is now used by companies to show how wonderful they are so they don't look out of place with modern society and hence put off potential employees.  So yes certainly an element of virtue signalling.  I think though if done right and with the community it can genuinely help your employees feel more welcome in their workplace, and that is important.

Jon has it about right from one perspective, but also...

 

71 countries still criminalise LGBT relationships. 11 of them carry a potential death penalty for it. And that's just the criminally institutionalised discrimination, the everyday civil discrimination where LGBT folks have trouble obtaining healthcare, housing and work without being discriminated against is much more prevalent in many more places. Hell, the "gay panic" defence is still a viable defence for killing someone in some places. A prominent gay actor was shot dead for simply being that way in the US the other day (see the cvnts thread), and the case of Brianna Ghey shows such hate crimes happen in the UK too  (thankfully, not as often).

Progress is being made compared even to a decade or two ago, but there's still a way to go and yes, the discrimination is still rife even if a lot of folks either can't see it or pretend not to.

Of course, if we're talking about the UK only then the issues aren't as bad as the majority of other places, but this discourse and Pride itself has never been just about one country. 

 

WRT it being a whole month rather than a day, I think that can be put down as the matter still being ongoing and requiring of attention as rights for LGBT people are still apparently a matter of debate for much, much more people than the other groups mentioned here. 

[Durnerz]

I’ve finally got round to trying Dubai pistachio chocolate and I love it. 

[ealingfox]

The criticism and abuse of Rachel Reeves has been wildly disproportionate. 

[kenny]

16 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

The criticism and abuse of Rachel Reeves has been wildly disproportionate. 

She has spent loads of cash today. Not sure what there is to moan about.