>> ^Drachen_Jager:

The Bible mentions the evils of leavened bread more often than it mentions the evils of homosexuality.


Time to break out our bibles and picket the bread factories. All this time we thought 911 was the fault of homosexuals, when really it was our leavening process. The evils of man working under Satan's gaze knows no bounds!

The American dream is the status quo masquarade..peace and safety, bread and circuses, white picket fences and well manicured lawns, 2.5 kids and keeping up with the joneses. It's go to school, get married, get some kids, get some stuff, pay your taxes, retire, remenisce about the good ole days, get old, become irrelevent and die. It's the leading cause of death in America, this saccurine delusion about meaning and purpose..yes we can't.

>> ^acidSpine:
Yes I know my enemies. They're the teachers who taught me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams

>> ^spoco2:


Why bother, let her and her kind wither and die. There really is a point where you have to just let them be... ignore them. Sure take issue and battle with them in their pickets etc. But don't try to convert them.


Completely agree. This is how you beat them

*sigh*... Why even bother with these guys?

Why even bother?

There is no arguing with their insanity. I fully understand the belief that you can win them over with logic, because they are so obviously, screamingly wrong. I get it, I get the wish to set them straight, give them some argument that makes them go... 'oh... darn, you got me, that makes perfect sense'.

But these disgusting people just have no ability to listen at all, they just keep spouting shit with never listening at all, ever. She is a disgusting, horrible, sad, angry person.

Why bother, let her and her kind wither and die. There really is a point where you have to just let them be... ignore them. Sure take issue and battle with them in their pickets etc. But don't try to convert them.

Let them believe in their absolute drivvle, let them.

Have pity for their sad and angry lives, but don't let them rob you of time and energy.


And yes, it's hilarious that they use iPhones, that they have a website, that they use all the trappings of our scientific world and yet somehow try to say it's evil.

I wouldn't call it funny, but you can see them trying to ignore their personal pain. It's sad to me.

Strangely, they seem to be such attention-whores. They appear to love it. I'm not sure picketing them back is the best way to respond. Complete silence and lack of attention would be a useful response.

Lastly, the daughter who escaped was so insightful about the whole experience. The follow-up after the father dies will be incredible.

>> ^Yogi:

It's soo funny to watch them not react genuinely to their loses of people in their flock. When Louis brings it up then go up into their heads and they react in a very wooden, school'd manner in order to report what they're supposed to.

@NetRunner: You might want to include the uploader's description of the different colours in the video description:

"The colors are Red: resulting in death, Orange: major injuries, damage, arrests, Yellow: minor injuries, etc. Green: Peaceful...the number of pickets is the size, 1: Under 100, 2: 100-1000 3: 1000-10000 4. 10K - 100K, 5. Over 100K."

First of all, I hope that driver will be found and fully prosecuted for their violent temper tantrum assault. Why didn't the bike riders just pull over to one lane and let traffic pass? If you're going to protest in that inconsiderate fashion, you would think they would be organized/prepared to allow people to pass. Other wise you are just going to alienate those who are indifferent, and could end up resenting Critical Mass come elections and budget cutting season. Bike lane maintenance is a very excusable cut. So one would think winning over the public might be a good overall idea.

After reading up on Critical Mass, they really should find a more efficient way to get their message across. While I see a random protest sign in this video their message remains clouded. Ever heard of the billboard effect? It seems like their message isn't getting out, unless you consider random acts of violence like this to be getting the message out. Ever hear of picketing city hall, after all that's where the decisions they're protesting originate.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I have no desire to support them or fight for their right to exist, for three reasons. 1. I don't know enough about what's happening in Wisconsin and why. 2. In the end, I'd be supporting a group that uses legislation to support protectionism. 3. Their salary is paid by theft.

Ahh, so your commitment to basic human rights only extends to a) things you care about enough to read about (and apparently you don't care enough about human rights to read up on a major news story that happens to be centered on human rights), b) groups of people who share your political philosophy, and c) don't work on Wall Street.

>> ^blankfist:
If it's by forcing them to give under threat of violence (threat of police intervention, threat of imprisonment, etc.), then I'm afraid I will never support that.
You cannot legislate morality. Because your morality may not be my own, and coercing me into funding something I disagree with morally is universally evil.


Fine then. I plan on helping myself to your car here in a few minutes. I assume you'll defend me against the people who've "legislated morality" and are threatening police intervention and the threat of imprisonment against my doing so, seeing how that's universally evil.

Oh wait, I already forgot that first half -- I only get my rights defended by blankfist if I don't support a group whose politics you disagree with. Guess my rights are forfeit!

>> ^blankfist:

Don't mistake my regard for unions, or any group for that matter, to mean I'd be in favor of legislating them out of existence.

Then lend your voice in support of them fighting for their right to exist now, rather than mostly talking about your dislike for them.

>> ^blankfist:
I agree we have a moral duty as humans to take care of one another.

I believe you. That's why I keep thinking you and I have common ground upon which we should be able to build some sort of broad agreement on policy.

I just think you're almost universally focused on defending the right for people to resolutely and violently reject that moral duty to take care of others, rather than trying to persuade people to do more to live up to it.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, it has nothing to do with free speech or the right to assemble! I'm not arguing they can't lobby their politicians. Or that you can't lobby yours to shoot pastafarians. You can do and say whatever you wish. My biggest problem in this scenario is government coercion. Can't you see that? Have I not been clear for the past four years on VideoSift? Do we need to make a public service announcement that blankfist has an issue with government?
The problem in this scenario is government. In case that wasn't clear, I'll repeat it. The problem is government.
But I can also condemn those in the union for using government to do bad things. Just like how we both condemn George W. Bush for using government to do bad things when he was president (remember that?). Are we saying we don't think Bush has the right to free speech? No. Are we saying him, Cheney and Rumsfield don't have the right to free assembly? No.


So you are ready to join the protesters who're opposing these bills that remove collective bargaining rights from public sector unions? Or at least, voice support for their cause?

I hear that you don't see eye to eye with unions in all things, but that's not the question today. The question today is whether those unions get to exist at all.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

That is true about almost every argument you and I have.

>> ^blankfist:
Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.
That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together.

I agree with all of that.

>> ^blankfist:
The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

I'm not so sure they'll always prevail. We'll never have a perfectly egalitarian society, where no man ever rises above another, and I don't think we should. But monarchy and oligarchy should be able to be killed off, or at least sent into long periods of remission. To quote that guy who ran for President in 2008, and then disappeared, no one can stop millions of people calling for change. Just ask Ben Ali, and Hosni Mubarak, maybe even King George III.

My cure for creeping oligarchism is to push for changes in social norms to promote egalitarianism. I want people to realize that nobody's intrinsically superior or inferior to anyone else, that they are their brother's keeper, that we're all in this life together, we're only really different on the outside, etc., etc., etc.

I push for increased deference to basic human dignity and fairness for everyone. When I think I can get away with it, I say we should all love one another, and make sure to forgive people as often as possible.

In terms of politics, this translates into social justice. Not because I have any particular desire to compel people to do things they don't want to, but to at least put forward the notion that it's as wrong to let a homeless man starve as it is to kill someone in cold blood, and that if government can do things to stop the latter, it should also do things to stop the former.

If people would treat people who act purely on self-interest as being morally wrong instead of morally neutral (or even morally virtuous!), then things, big things, would change.

Anyways, I agree with you on protectionism being bad, and I agree all your examples are things that shouldn't be happening. I still don't think eliminating unions does anyone any kind of good, and I think it's antithetical to both of our belief systems, for the reasons I said.

>> ^blankfist:

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

So you believe it's unfair.

What does that mean as far as their rights are concerned? Are you opposed to letting them have the right to engage in political speech and assembly, because you don't think what they advocate is fair?

Are you opposed to letting them have the right to collectively bargain, because you disagree with their politics?

>> ^blankfist:
Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.


But it does. I'm allowed to lobby congress to pass a law that requires pastafarians to be shot on sight. I'm allowed to lobby congress to nuke France. I'm definitely allowed to lobby congress to tighten worker safety laws, or pass comprehensive health care reform.

You're allowed to lobby against me on that if you like, or write a blog post about how my "Pastafarian Elimination Act" is blatantly unconstitutional.

What you're not allowed to do, as a libertarian (or liberal), is support the government taking away my other rights because you don't like what I'm saying politically. You shouldn't be advocating that the state revoke liberals' rights to own a gun, their right to not incriminate themselves, their right to habeas corpus, or their right to engage in collective bargaining agreements, no matter what they say or do.

So here's my point, straight up: you shouldn't be supporting the government taking away unions' collective bargaining rights as punishment for them exercising their right to free speech in ways you disagree with. At least, not as long as you hold yourself to be someone who believes that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights.

>> ^NetRunner:

Now we're getting somewhere. So what does the right to freedom of speech entitle unions to? The ability to say whatever they want to their government, or is it somehow confined only to some subset of things you approve of?


Remember, I'm coming from a position of voluntary interactions instead of coercive force. Before you take us down a hypothetical rabbit hole, let me add to that statement and say, I believe force is justifiable when seeking protection from an imminent injurious action or redressing the victim of an injurious action*. Fair enough?

I don't think force is justified when manipulating industries. That is to say, I do not agree with using the violent apparatus of government to tip the playing field in any one group's favor whether that be unions or corporations or individuals.

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.

>> ^blankfist:

Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:
That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

Well, it's that dual meaning that made me ask you to define what you meant by pressure. Exercising your right to free speech and assembly can rightfully be called "applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favor".

You made it sound like unions are okay with you...unless they exercise their rights to free speech or assembly.
>> ^blankfist:
I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends.

Now we're getting somewhere. So what does the right to freedom of speech entitle unions to? The ability to say whatever they want to their government, or is it somehow confined only to some subset of things you approve of?

>> ^NetRunner:

Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?


Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:

That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends. If they want to assemble and try to apply pressure to their employer through nonviolent persuasion, that's one thing. But when people use government to restrict industries, it always results in protectionism which is bad.