"The law is there so people aren't disturbed in a public place, not to mention that those that DID protest, did so without a permit."

-Shepppard

I've long thought it incongruous that protesters should obtain a permit. Actually, the word incongruity fails to convey the de-clawed nature of a permitted protest. Protest without the threat of disruption is part of the Disneyfication of opposition politics.

You know what my permit to protest is? The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's deeply disturbing for me to see protesters corralled into "Designated Protest Zones" (also referred to as Free Speech Zones), which is a truly bone-chilling Orwellian concept.

(Trolling experiment completed: genuine comments from here on out)

When I put this in *lies, I wasn't doing it for fun.

Friedman was in on the coup from day one. He and his Chicago Boys drafted the economic edicts (in a document known as 'The Brick") before the coup even took place.

You don't have to take my word for in. Read it for yourself here:

wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile#Background

Friedman was absolutely an advisor to Pinochet, and if you want to know what Friedman meant by "Shock Treatment", he was talking about the brutal torture and murder of anyone willing to stand in his way.

This Orwellian bullshit excuse for a documentary should be downvoted into oblivion.

If you want a perspective on this issue that doesn't come from the Milton Friedman appreciation society, here you go: http://videosift.com/video/USA-commits-911-attrocities-on-Chile

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, why do you think giving people more freedoms is trading for a system with no freedoms of any kind?

Because you're not "giving people more freedoms", you're talking about removing the institution that defends our freedom.

>> ^blankfist:
Right now, hypothetically if you made slavery legal, do you think slavery would come rushing back to the US? I'd venture to say no, because the world's opinion on slavery has changed, as it does and will do for everything we collectively see as bad.

Well "everyone" agrees that murder is wrong, but still people do it all the time. And frankly, I think there's less consensus on the idea that slavery is wrong than on murder being wrong.

It probably wouldn't come "rushing" back though. Our oligarchs have studied history well enough to know that they'd need to go through a slow roll out of such a thing, accompanied by some Orwellian rebranding.

My guess is that they'd start by expanding prison labor, and reinstituting the practice of sending people to jail if they default on their debts. Then they'd just continue the kind of right-wing dehumanization of poor people and criminals we see today. They'd probably couple it with how selling off prison labor contracts to private businesses will help them with the state budget or allow a new round of high-income tax cuts, but then I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing a Republican governor of some state when I say that already.

It's only one more step to go from selling a "prison labor contract" where the prisoner goes back to a state-run cell each night, to being allowed to be kept in bondage by the owner of his contract in a privately owned cell.

Then, voila! Slavery is back in the USA.

Alternatively, just abolish minimum wage, outlaw union organization, and crush what's left of small business with anti-competitive business practices, and come up with some snappy new name for "indentured servitude" like "work-equity debt reconstruction", and you're 80% of the way there.

>> ^blankfist:
Government is a necessary evil in the processes of human evolution, but an evil nonetheless.


Eh. I know this is one of your favorites, but it's a bit Manichean, don't you think?

People are ultimately the ones who make the moral decisions. Even then, I don't really believe in "evil" people, so much as people who do things that are morally wrong.

What's the NRA slogan, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Well, governments don't commit evil acts, people do.

@blankfist and I have no interest in "repealing" government, either incrementally or in one fell swoop, because like I said to Genji, I believe that a) it's impossible to abolish what you think of as government, and b) if you somehow did abolish liberal democracy you'd realize you'd actually traded a legal system in which you were pretty free for one where you essentially have no freedom of any kind.

I don't even really care about taking away power from the "two party system" per se, since that's just the natural consequence of first past the post voting. What unites them is the influence of money. The wealthy pull all the strings now, and they have no interest in either of our conceptions of freedom.

Getting rid of the state, while somehow insisting that the right to property conveys absolute unfettered authority over property, just cuts out the middle man for them. It eliminates the last vestiges of the idea that the people with power are obligated to respect the rights of the people without power. In effect, it wouldn't really abolish government at all, it'd just return us to monarchy or feudalism, but now with Orwellian names like "libertarianism" or "voluntaryism".

You'd be free because no one could tax you! Though they can still raise your rent, cut your wages, make anything a "condition of employment" or even a "condition of purchase", and they can use any anti-competitive business practice in the book to squash start-ups that don't play ball with the oligarchy.

Plus, if they do decide to use violence to compel you to do things, who's going to stop them? Random bystanders? The private security forces you hired?

I guess if you got a bunch of people together to pool resources, and raised an army that would defend a certain region from the predation of outsiders, and established some sort of legal justice system for the people who lived within that region's borders, I mean, maybe that might let people have some freedom...

It's true, taking the toy away won't stop kids from wanting Mc'Ds but it may cause McDs to think about a few more healthier choices to the kid's menu so they can get the toys back into play!

These sorts of items are already on their menu. But come on - this is a fast food restaurant. By definition, fast food is crap for the system. In order to make food that passes health inspections you have to process the bejeezus out of it. The dream of restaurants that serve "fresh from the garden" healthy food is unrealistic given our regulatory requirements, legal environment, and population logistics. If you want healthy food, then don't freaking eat at a fast food joint. Duh.

But that's all beside the point. It isn't the government's job to tell people what to eat, or force restaurants to adhere to some Orwellian/Huxleyan vision of centrally controlled food intake. It is not your right, or the government's right to rig the game so as to coerce people into behaving in ways that you approve. I eat like a bird, and only eat out once a month or so. That's a personal choice. I'll make it on my own, thank you kindly. If I want my kid to eat right, then I'll feed them healthy food myself and I don't need some city or agency blackjacking restaurants to do it for me.

>> ^pmkierst:

Wow, YT calling fox biased. Glass houses, all that.


Not so much calling them biased as much as calling them big fat liars. It's okay to have a perspective, and to express that perspective. What's not okay is to try to misrepresent yourself as something you're not.

Fox claims that they report the news without a political slant, when in reality they're engaged in an Orwellian attempt to distort the facts, misrepresent history, and even try to alter the very language we use, all to advance their political agenda.

That's way, way past mere "bias", that's propaganda.

Get bent. THis isn't some fascist regime. Freedom to travel is not a "privilege" and it scares me that Orwellian nutjobs like yourself promote these ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

I'll look up the US Code that specifically deals with air travel. Ask yourself this then, since you think it's a driver's license. Why not restrict felons? Why not restrict non-citizens from flying? Why not make it that you have to be over 40 to fly? Hmm? Why don't we do these things if it is just like driving, you fucking lunatic.

fck off you idiot. The Constitution guarantees your right to interstate commerce. And in fact, there is USC explicitly enumerating your right to travel and access to air travel. (Imagine if they said blacks could fly, it is a privilege after all, not a right... as you say)

You really are stupid.

Also this isn't like "driving" because you are a passenger. Yes, having a pilot's license is a "privilege" not a right... just like having a state issue you a license to drive. Get a fucking clue moron.... Way to carry water for some Orwellian/fascist nonsense.

>> ^CaveBear:

dead


Well, ain't that a load of Orwellian horseshit.

Fixed embed to AP's version. We'll see if YouTube says that violates some mysterious policy.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^shuac:
I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?

Don't be one of those guys, man.
Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.
They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.
You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.
Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.


Bogus. UK is just as free as the USA, if not freer, with the exception of libel laws and traffic cameras. And you're not goinh to move to any other european country just because of the few percent Muslim minority that has emigrated there? Racist.

>> ^shuac:

I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?


Don't be one of those guys, man.

Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.

They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.

You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.

Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally agree that "preemptive self-defense" is some hardcore Orwellian bullshit. Amazing how much of the religious Right get behind the idea. Jesus said turn the other cheek, not "stab that guy in the belly because he looks like he might hurt me".
>> ^SDGundamX:

Well, I thought he was suggesting in the video that initiating violence is wrong but defending yourself is okay. Very few pacifists are absolute pacifists in that they believe no violence should ever be done--not even in self-defense.
The response that most people have to the idea of pacifism (as seen in the posts for this vid) is that sometimes violence is justified. Maybe sometimes, like in immediate self-defense, it is. The problem I have with that standpoint though is that in practice often people are far to quick to resort to violence and to use extremely flaky logic to justify their actions. Take the invasion of Iraq: that was couched as a defensive action. In order to protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack, the U.S. would make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
I suppose that personally I feel that violence is only justified in extreme cases. And, when violence is justified, it should never be glorified because invariably, resorting to violence is going to sow the seeds of future violence. World War II is generally seen as a "justified war" from the viewpoint of Americans, for instance, but that war inadvertently planted the seeds of the Cold War, the Middle East conflict, and Vietnam conflict even as it was stamping out the flames of Fascism in Europe.
What is really important is stopping that cycle of violence--eradicating the roots of violence so that people don't ever feel the need to use violence to get what they want. To that end, I can get behind the idea expressed in the beginning of this vid that we should strive to create a world in which we don't initiate violence but still be free to defend ourselves if attacked. That's a start at the very least.
>> ^dannym3141:
You're right. My pacifist sister talks about great tragedies performed by people and said "they should have stopped him before all the killing and war began!" - but if you ask her how to stop a person who doesn't want to listen to kind words, she has no answer. A fully pacifist world might be ok, but if one single person decided not to be, you're boned.

Reminds me of... not is ... it shares a general concept but not the motivation to create obediance.

Here, the language takes away the context of human idioms, emotion, and cultural norms embedded in the words replacing it with dry descriptions and simplified adverbs. e.g. Lips, eyes, smile, waiter, food, drink, menus, mirrors, tears, man, woman. Smiling or crying means something. Lip uplifting or dripping salt liquid is an empty description.

Living with such a language would limit the ability to think and behave emotively as a human... there just wouldn't be a word for it any more.>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^raverman:
Awesome Post! Steampunk style poetry... reminds me of Orwellian "Newspeak".

It's more like the opposite of Newspeak. Newspeak was a parred down vocabulary, simplifying sentence structure, omitting alternative words, and emphasizing simplistic concatenations such as "doublethink", as well as shortened concatenations such as "minitrue" (Ministry of Truth). It's also important to note that in order to truly speak and understand Newspeak you must have a specific understanding of each word, for no single word is intended to be used in any other way than it's original meaning, eliminating poetics.
This video, on the other hand, is a string of modern expressions filled with stiff latinate words for comedic (and poetic) effect. There are too many thoughts associated with each word to be even remotely considered for ingsoc's Oceania.

>> ^raverman:

Awesome Post! Steampunk style poetry... reminds me of Orwellian "Newspeak".


It's more like the opposite of Newspeak. Newspeak was a parred down vocabulary, simplifying sentence structure, omitting alternative words, and emphasizing simplistic concatenations such as "doublethink", as well as shortened concatenations such as "minitrue" (Ministry of Truth). It's also important to note that in order to truly speak and understand Newspeak you must have a specific understanding of each word, for no single word is intended to be used in any other way than it's original meaning, eliminating poetics.

This video, on the other hand, is a string of modern expressions filled with stiff latinate words for comedic (and poetic) effect. There are too many thoughts associated with each word to be even remotely considered for ingsoc's Oceania.

Awesome Post! Steampunk style poetry... reminds me of Orwellian "Newspeak".