Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin

[David Barrett]

Okay, so to confirm, you are unwilling to make a decision as to what you
believe, and you have no idea if any of your beliefs on criminal mediation
have any global precedent -- and the closest you can point to are mostly
unnamed "small nations" in the midst of civil war?

I really would love to learn about your beliefs, but it sounds like you
don't actually know them, are unable to defend them, and aren't very
interested in having them in the first place. That makes any discussion
very difficult.

It seems like you are in a situation where you are very suspicious and
skeptical of people who are taking real world actions to make the world a
better place, and deal with it's many problems, and you would prefer to
criticize from the sidelines despite having no better ideas, or any actual
interest in participating constructively.

I hope someday you decide to jump into the pool as a real world
participant, because then you might not feel so helpless, scared, angry,
and sad.

If you ever do, the first step of that means deciding what you believe. It
is hard work, it requires research and sustained thought, as well as
willingness to challenge your own assumptions, and opening yourself up to
criticism.

But if you do it, you might realize that the people out there doing hard
work are well motivated, and making reasonably good decisions, in complex
situations that had constraints and opportunities that you weren't open to
seeing before.

It might make you more comfortable that the world is not full of people
trying to exploit and harm, but actually just make the world a better
place. Not everyone who defends modern society is a malware delivering
cop.  Some people are just trying to take care of their neighbors, local
and global. And we could use your help, if you are ever willing to offer it.

Turn off Twitter and this stupid mailing list and go for a walk. Get a
cappuccino, and taste how delicious it is. Listen to some kids play on the
playground, listen to the wind in the trees.  Someday I hope you'll realize
that we live in a paradise that our ancestors could truly never imagine,
and I hope you'll start to enjoy the product of their very hard work.

Yes there were horrible sacrifices and sins paid they get us where we are.
Yes we need to make things right, and yes it's questionable if we ever
could.

But the world is not all doom and gloom, though if that's all you want to
see that's all you will.

Good luck to you. Thanks for this conversation.

David

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:11 AM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm starting to notice how dangerous this list is.  The awareness may be
> temporary.
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 10:01 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at expensify.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:56 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:48 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at expensify.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an
>>>> ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I formed an opinion on that, now.  It's not the one you say I have.
>>>
>>
>> Ok just to confirm, does that mean you *do* support Sweden prosecuting
>> Assange for sexual assault, irrespective of whatever happens with the US?
>> (I'm sorry, the double negative was confusing me.)
>>
>
> Double negative?
>
> I abstain regarding the decision.  Others are better equipped to make it
> than me.  What's important is the circumstances in which the situation
> developed, and I'd personally like to focus on those.
>
>
>> [Meditation for criminal cases] is actually
>>>
>>
> I think autocorrect altered our conversation.  _Mediation_, not
> _meditation_.  Although if you were to take meditation in the "study and
> deliberate hard" way ("let me meditate on this exam question") it could
> likely help.
>
> available, just not in all the legal systems.
>>>
>>
>> To my knowledge, no nation uses meditation as you describe for criminal
>> trials (eg, murder).  Are you saying that some do?  Can
>>
>
> I vaguely recall that some small areas.  I don't have links.
>
> you point me to which you are modeling your recommendation on so I can
>> learn more?
>>
>
> Ask somebody familiar with transformative restorative justice for.
> They'll know more than me.
>
> I pasted you two audio snippets, the first one was from a war between
> multiple factions in Nigeria.  I don't think they're still doing it, but I
> don't really know.
>
> Some of my information was from the discipline of Convergent Facilitation,
> others from Nonviolent Communication.
>
> I'm sorry, I've been abused regarding this topic and wasn't prepared for
> your probing questions.  Maybe another thread?
>
>
>> This is again a situation where [out current system] is usually better
>>> than [nothing], but [nothing] is better in cases of very frivolous or
>>> mis-ordered accusations.
>>>
>>
>> Ok!  This helps me understand your position!  You argree that our justice
>> system is "usually" better than nothing, right?  This is important so I
>> just really want to double confirm before I build on this.
>>
>
> Where nothing is complete inaction, yes.
>
> Actual communication would be far better.
>
> But punk has a point that the justice system can also cause great
> injustice.
>
> I might need a couple days to recharge.  Maybe I should take better note
> when things get all debatey.  I'm honestly not trying to disagree with you;
> this seems a pretty inefficient way to come to shared terms.
>
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> David
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12439 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210706/ef6e566c/attachment.txt>