Reminds me of when I was in a bar with some friends and I selected a bunch of songs from the CD jukebox, including "Miserlou" from Pulp Fiction. There was a lull then "EVERYBODY BE COOL, THIS IS A ROBBERY!" from the diner scene with Tim Roth. They included it as the intro to Miserlou.

Startled the crap out of everybody, every single person looked towards the front door. It was pretty funny.

Back in high school my friend Dan became obsessed with the name "Papapolychronopolous". I don't know where he heard it; it was still a couple years before Adam Sandler put out "Steve Polychronopolous".

Anyway, flash forward several years. Everybody in the area used to congregate at the local diner until we came up with something to do; it was not uncommon for the entire place to be filled exclusively with the group of people I hung out with during later hours. I come walking out of the bathroom to find Dan and an unknown girl sitting at the closest booth. Dan puts a hand out to get my attention and says, "Yo, Carl, what's my real name?"

I matter-of-factly replied, "Papapolychronopolous" and continued back to my booth. To the girl, Dan says, "See?"

The look of astonishment on her face at that moment was amazing.

Honestly, I'd like to agree with this protest, but I just don't. Gee, I guess sometimes people just disagree. I can live with that.

I do think it's outrageous though, that anyone would even try to compare the discrimination and segregation of an entire RACE of people to a law that bans protesting (including dance) INSIDE the jefferson memorial. The fact that you equate this to black people not being allowed to eat with white people is saddening and laughable at the same time.

I'm not going to argue with you, mostly because I know it's pointless, and also because I don't appreciate that "nigger" bullshit being thrown in my face. The entire argument has been laid out very well by others on the video thread. If you want further discussion about this then take it over there. I'm not interested.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Yeah. Sorry to bring up that stuff dude. You just picked a poor position on this one.

Imagine it's 1962 and your participating in a peaceful sit-in at a diner.

Would you not being ruining the experience for all the white folk trying to eat?

Do you see how that's a shitty argument?


In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
I make a post here in disagreement to this "protest" and get told that I'm whiny because I don't like being called a nigger. Awesome. Welcome back to videosift burdy.

I have always liked the back ground noise produced from a diner/cafe, the murmurer of patrons, the kitchen sounds, clunking and clinking ceramics.

one could fall asleep too it.

@imstellar28 that was pretty much a straw man argument, like Peroxide said.
>> ^imstellar28:

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

I'd agree with the first two, for certain definitions of "corporations" -- specifically, rigidly hierarchical organizations dedicated to enriching shareholders above all else.

On the third, I think it's at least a first-pass attempt to propose some sort of alternative, but I think you've got to flesh out a lot more how people "vote with their dollar" when it comes to prison management. Do those who are to be imprisoned get to shop for the jail that suits their individual needs best?
>> ^imstellar28:
You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company.

I'm not sure why you're saying this as if it's at all contrary to what I believe. Maybe we're quibbling over semantics of what "privatization" means in this context, but to me, in this context, what governments are doing with Serco is the very definition of privatization.

As for Serco not being a private company, I don't think selling goods or services to a government makes a corporation a part of government. Serco doesn't have to turn its profits back over to the Treasury of any government, nor does one have to be elected to the position of Serco CEO. To me, that's the problem -- taxes are being siphoned off to make someone a profit, while accountability to the people is further diluted.

But I don't think selling goods and services to government automatically makes the company part of government. I don't think any of us begrudge Staples selling office supplies to the state legislature, or Ford selling cars to police departments, or AT&T selling telecomm services to the FBI.

>> ^imstellar28:
This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.
The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.


So close and yet so far. Yes, this is one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position (see above!).

However, the real question here isn't "what is the proper role of government" so much as "how do we create a better society for us to live in?"

One may subsequently argue that society will be better with "less" government, but the bottom line is that things like the military, prisons, transportation infrastructure, and schools are all going to exist, and they're all going to be largely controlled by people who aren't you. You can either a) set up a framework of expectations within society so that anyone controlling those things must do so for the good of the people or lose that control, b) set up a framework where a small number of individuals control those things, with their only obligation being to enrich themselves, or c) let those with the guns make the framework what they want.

And yes, I realize that there's more of an equilibrium between those three than a real choice, but I want to push the equilibrium as much towards option a) as I can...

@NetRunner

To boil it all down,

Facts:
Serco provides education, military, transportation, and prison infrastructure, among other things. 85% of their employees come from the public sector, and the majority of their revenue comes from taxed income.

Your position:
1. You want the government to provide (fund) the same services Serco does, so no problem (with Serco) here.
2. You also do not mind that the source of funding is taxed income, as opposed to voluntary consumerism.
3. The only thing you seem to care about is that they are a "private" company instead of a "public" company. As far as I can tell, they are only private in name. If it looks like a duck (performs "government" functions), walks like a duck (is staffed by government employees), and sounds like a duck (is funded by the government)..it's a freaking duck. The change you are proposing is merely semantics.

With the amount of business ties and lobbying they probably do, I seriously doubt putting them under Obama is going to make a lick of difference. BP, Shell, and Exxon already seem to have control over our military and I doubt Serco is any different. I'm guessing they are the same guys who bribe federal judges to send innocent kids to jail to fill their prisons.

On the contrary, my position is that:
1. Multinational corporations like Serco are almost always evil, and should probably not exist.
2. Forcing people to fund multi-billion dollar corporations is not the right way to build a better world.
3. People should be able to vote with their dollar, and keep their money in their own communities.

You are arguing against privatization, but Serco is not really a private company. Private companies are not funded by tax revenue. The Mom and Pop diner in your neighborhood, that is a private company. This is just one more way in which people get divided into two camps and waste their time arguing about things which are in reality the same position. Private vs. Public is irrelevant, it makes no difference in this situation as far as I can tell.

The real question here is what is the proper role of government, aka, what should the government be funding with taxpayer money.

I always liked this show, especially the episode where Mandy Patinkin takes over the diner kitchen for the "dead" cook.

All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers

Jewish ethical philosophy was existant before the Mycenaean age, let alone the Classical or Hellenistic. Christ was Jewish, and there is no record of him receiving secret ethical training from Greek philosophers. This statement is absurd prima facie.

But – as I said before – I never claimed that religions (the organizations) were perfect or ideal. I merely stated that they provide ethical training to people in an organized fashion, and that is beneficial to the concept of “making better people”. I even predicted your hostility (or at least its potential) because I know there are those who are hostile towards “churches” for a variety of reasons.

communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved

No one is saying that religion is the sole originator of societal good. I merely stated it is AN important source of societal good and should be fostered rather than treated with hostility. Or if “fostered” is impossible for some to whom religion is not acceptable, then it should at least be treated with deference rather than anger.

Of course there are lots of places people can do good things. However, it must be said that churches have one of the most organized and systematic approaches. For example - let’s say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. Cool – you’re ‘doing good’. But in what way does a soup kitchen train you to understand WHY you’re doing something? You are pouring soup. A monkey could do that. Just as important is the moral philosophy behind why you’re doing it. You do not get that sort of training from soup kitchens, book clubs, softball league, art house, chat groups, or even most actual charities. I participate in a lot of state & municipal groups, and not once have I ever received “moral training”. But every Sunday in church I get some.

Again – I’m not trying to tell you such things are not possible. Of course they are. However, church is just one of those places where “morality” is taught as a matter of necessity rather than as an incidental suggestion or inference. Isn’t that something we should be supporting rather than attacking?

You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.

If you go around the country and eat at a bunch of diners, you are then able to report certain facts about them without claiming that you are “speaking for all diners”. And thus it is here. You’re complaining about something that doesn’t matter here.

Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I’ve been in a lot of them, and I’d say your characterization is inaccurate. I would say that their first objective is teach a morality system, and that their second objective is to obtain converts to THEIR specific organization.

The first thing that happens when I sit down in any particular denomination is I get a belly-full of moral instruction. They talk about faith, good works, Christ, love, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan, and that sort of thing. If you keep showing up at their building, then they will start inquiring about whether or not you are a ‘member’ of their denomination. It is at THIS point that people like yourself & Enoch start parting ways with them.

And it is true that a lot of religions place more importance on being a ‘member’ than on learning the morality. Which is really too bad. I don’t disagree that this kind of “join us” pressure is distasteful. Ideally, religions would do nothing more than teach their morality beliefs and “invite” those who wish to join them at their own pleasure. Quite a lot of them do this. But there are those who are much more insistent, and it is a bad thing. Totally on your page in that regard. But I disagree when you say that their only purpose is to push a specific denomination. I’ve seen dozens of churches that have sermons, help people, teach gospel – and ask nothing in return.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization.

I disagree with your opinion that the purpose of a church is to foster unquestioning belief because I’ve seen otherwise. Many good religions encourage seeking and questioning – so your premise here is false.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

No, it’s a great example that has everything to do with what you’re saying. You just don’t like how effective it is, which is why you entirely ignored the substance of the argument.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good.

Of course not. I never said so. But religion does lead people to do good things. Even if you don’t agree with “religion”, isn’t that beneficial? Why stop it?

And in what way am I hassling you or your religion?

I didn’t say you were. If you’re feeling guilty on this point, then it is entirely from your own conscience that this is originating.

You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious

No. I never said that. Again, you’re using absolutes to imply meaning that does not exist. All I said is that churches teach morality, and that morality instruction is what a lot of people above said was necessary to “make better people”. I went on to suggest that such a thing should be encouraged, rather than treated with hostility. And I also predicted that some people would react hostilely to the suggestion. As usual, I was 100% correct. It is a burden to me sometimes to be so prescient, but such is my lot.

>> ^deathcow:

Is this from a single episode?


Absolutely:

Season 2, Episode 18: A Walsh Family Christmas
Original Air Date—19 December 1991
Steve arrives in Albuquerque, New Mexico and tracks down his grandfather, Al Brown, a diner owner. Al explains that his daughter gave up Steve because she was very young and wanted him to have a good home. He sadly reveals that Karen Brown died in a car accident many years ago. Steve leaves flowers at her grave, and convinces an eccentric Santa-like charter pilot to fly him home for Christmas. Back in California, Cindy is depressed about her first Christmas in Beverly Hills. She invites the kids' friends and their families for Christmas Eve dinner, but everyone has other plans. Brandon visits Emily in a psychiatric hospital, where she is doing very well. Meanwhile, Brenda begins work at an upscale clothing store. A mysterious old man steals a Santa Claus suit from Nat at the Peach Pit, and later shows up at the boutique store where Brenda works. She feels bad when her brass boss throws out the cheerful old man. After work, Brenda stops the police from harassing the old derelict wearing the Santa suite and invites him over for dinner, much to the wariness of Jim and Cindy. Also, Dylan goes to see his father in prison, and talks with the same Santa. Elsewhere, Kelly's mother, Jackie, is furious when David's father, Mel, backs out of Christmas Eve plans because his estranged wife asked him to come over with David. Samantha, Kelly, Jackie, Andrea, David, Mel, Donna, Dylan, and Steve all show up at the Walsh house for dinner and caroling. The old man in the Santa suite gives everyone presents and describes his lonely life: his children are grown and his wife died a year earlier. He thanks Brenda for her kindness and generosity, then mysteriously disappears as footsteps are heard on the roof.

They're calling into C-SPAN! They're infiltrating our lunch diner counters! Next thing you know they'll be breathing our air and running our country! Someone stop them before they start to think they have the rights of people who are 5/5ths of a person! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

>> ^callistan:
>>Genuinely disappointed with the ending.
Well the video cuts out 3 seconds before he makes it perfectly clear that he's lying to get the chick to sleep with him.
Oh, and it's weird, but the video appears to be "flipped" - when he's talking to Marshall, the lettering on the diner behind him is backwards.


I'm told people do that on Youtube to avoid copyrighted material scans.

>>Genuinely disappointed with the ending.

Well the video cuts out 3 seconds before he makes it perfectly clear that he's lying to get the chick to sleep with him.

Oh, and it's weird, but the video appears to be "flipped" - when he's talking to Marshall, the lettering on the diner behind him is backwards.

I'd counter-argue that all the piddly laws do almost nothing to your ability to effectively protest, you just have to be willing to go to jail. That's not necessarily new, and can actually be a very effective part of protest.

When the blacks staged sit-ins in the 60s, they did it knowing full well that they'd be arrested. I'd go so far as to suggest that they needed to get arrested to be effective. If they had just gone and hung around a diner for a couple hours and then went home, who would have noticed aside from those immediately present?

People are way too sensitive about arrest, particularly here on the sift. A lot of people seem to think that civil disobedience; breaking an unjust law; means that you shouldn't get arrested. It doesn't. You're still breaking the law and you should be arrested. Furthermore, getting arrested is crucial to drawing attention to what you protest. Fuck the permits and the laws about bullhorns and staying on the sidewalk. Organize a flashmob and get out there and, peacefully, break some laws. One night in jail, probably with all the people you were protesting with, isn't going to ruin your life. It'll probably be the most awesome slumber party ever.

After this incident, Uncle Sams Diner was never the same.

Also amusing, this little dig from a food review of the diner:

"My coworker Joe and I chose this restaurant for a special celebratory lunch in honor of all the success we've had in this tough economy. "Hey Joe," I said, "We've been living pretty large since January thanks to all our new friends in the banks and the defense business. I'm worried that the normal folks, you know, all those poor families losing their homes and jobs and such will start realizing that we've sold out on them. So let's do something typical, something normal Americans can relate to in order to distract them from the success we've had at a time when they all are suffering." So we called up our motorcade, just like typical Americans do when they go out to lunch, and headed out to Ray's Hell Burgers, a restaurant featuring the type of burgers typical Americans eat - you know, burgers with foie gras, truffle oil, normal burger toppings. We may have sold out, but our burger run in our limos for some foie gras proves that we're still in touch with the regular guy on the street, doesn't it?"