Your video, the inside scoop about seinfelds infamous soup nazi, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Holy shit, he is an actual soup nazi!

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, but why are you making a distinction in ownership between residential and commercial property? Why can't it just be property that's owned and therefore simply private?

That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

What is the basis for your argument that they should be considered the same? Do you think those social and legal conventions should change to reflect that sameness?
>> ^blankfist:
When you buy a good, it becomes your property and you own it. If you purchase groceries, do you believe you have sole ownership of it? Or should that also be considered privately owned public food and therefore not really owned by you? See? It's doublespeak.

I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But let's go with specific object ownership for a second. Let's say you buy a cucumber, and I come up and stab it with a needle, should the penalty be the same as if I'd done the same thing to your arm? I mean, in both cases I'm damaging your property, but the cucumber will never heal, whereas your arm will, probably very quickly.

In either case, the monetary value of the damages done are trivial.

Should the police treat assaults on property the same as assault on people's bodies? If so, why? If not, why not?
>> ^blankfist:
That isn't aggression. And it certainly isn't constraining freedom. If the local grocery store doesn't want me as a customer, then I have the choice to go elsewhere.

Then the cartoons are totally valid portrayals of the fucked up things libertarians believe. So Rosa Parks should have made sure to check if it was a private or public bus before getting mad about being asked to move to the back of it?

I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

This is the basic problem -- libertarians don't believe that "Civil Rights" are or should be rights.
>> ^blankfist:
He has limited my options, but so do places I cannot afford to eat at. Or what about private airports? Shit, why can't I walk on the tarmac of the Santa Monica Airport?! That's constraining my freedom, right?! Sigh.

Well, the Civil Rights Act doesn't forbid you "discriminating" for those reasons. You can still make service conditional on payment (or not), and you can still mark off "Employees only" sections of privately-owned public areas. Signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" are okay. So is kicking someone out for being a jerk to you, or even for taking too long to order, Soup Nazi style.

It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class, and giving people who've been subjected to that kind of discrimination legal means of recourse.

a few points to make:
---
The restaurant/pub owner/manager was dumb because of all the negative publicity. he/she will easily lose more than $16 worth of business. I blame the manager because if the service was shitty, then they didn't have enough staff (or people called off and no one was brought in as replacement), or that that groups particular waiter/waitress was being lazy because he/she knew that they *automatically* get a tip for parties of 6, so they focused on other tables.
if it was the manager who called the cops, then the owner should have stepped in (the next day or sooner) and dropped the charges before it goes to court, and give them free meals or something. even if it was a "contract" as in written on the menu or told in person, if they got shitty service, they shouldn't have to pay for it. The soup nazi might be funny on Seinfeld, but in real life, in most locations, he wouldn't stay in business.
---
In general, I think it is ok for a restaurant to add a "mandatory" gratuity (oxymoronic or not) to large groups because they are more difficult to handle. They take up more space, stay longer, and are louder than multiple smaller groups combined.
I'm also ok with it being called gratuity, as opposed to a "fee" because it removes ambiguity, such that people aren't tipped twice, and customers aren't asking about the "fee". p.s. The IRS definition for this is "autogratuity".
---
waiters and waitresses make less than minimum wage (usually $2-$3 hourly). for their federal taxes they have to report 100% of their tips to be legal. Employers are required to report all charged tips, and cash tips are estimated based on previous tax year filings for similarly situated employees (- 2%), at least monthly. (For example if all waitstaff made an average of 17% tips for the past year, the employer has to report 15% of gross sales for that employee to the IRS). If the waiter/waitress makes less than minimum wage with their combined $3/hour + tips, the employer must make up the difference to bring them to minimum wage for the hours worked. (But if they are that bad, they would probably get fired)
---
as a teenager, I worked as a busboy in a restaurant. maybe some larger chains are handled differently, but here it was up to the waitress to give the busboys (or busgirl) a portion of the tips they made (this is tipping-out, goes for bartenders as well as busboys). Since I knew the general price of everything on the menu, and also how many customers there were that night, I knew which waitresses were cheapskates and which ones tipped their busboys well. Guess which ones got priority?
---
I think it is a self-perpetuating cultural flaw in America that requires this tipping system. In several other parts of the world, family is more important, as well as dedication to employers. People works together as a team, and they take pride in their work. So, if a waiter does a good job, it makes the restaurant look good, and if they do a bad job, they feel ashamed. American culture rewards individual achievement so much more, that it leads toward apathetic employees and employers. Everyone is thinking of "how can I get ahead?" and so most employers don't care about employees, because there is no more loyalty. People switch jobs and companies much more frequently now than 50 years ago, or even 30 or 20 years ago. It comes down to money and individual gain.
So what's this have to do with tipping? If everyone automatically got tipped the same amount, then the waitperson would have little incentive to do a good job (or NOT do a shitty job, as exampled here). Whereas if they are rewarded based on performance, then they will consistently do a better job. If we switched to a system of "0% tips, raise menu prices, raise wages" then you'd have some good employees, but a whole lot who "don't give a shit" and do the bare minimum to not get fired, and overall quality of service would go down, but prices would stay the same.
Not tipping works in asia - because the staff take pride in their work, without the feeling of individual entitlement.
---
Lastly I'm surprised that no one linked to this video during this thread -
http://www.videosift.com/video/3rd-Rock-From-The-Sun-Tipping-Like-It-Should-Be
---
that is all, thanks for reading.

^ Honestly, you're a fucking moron if you can't tell the difference between the way liberals used Nazi references, and the way conservatives are currently talking about liberals being Nazis.

Liberals use it as hyperbole. You're a Nazi when you're oppressing people, usually by using arrests or threats of violence to suppress free speech. Remember the Soup Nazi? That's how we usually use Nazi references. We don't literally mean "be afraid of that person, they're going to kill everyone you love".

Conservatives are using it in an entirely different context. They literally mean that we're going to go around marking people, putting them in concentration camps, and putting them to death. They're saying our duly elected President is some sort of Manchurian Candidate, seeking to destroy our freedom, our babies, and apparently our grandparents too. He's going to force whites to pay slave reparations, he's going to outlaw Christian churches. He's going to take your guns.

This is incitement to riot at best, revolution at worst.

And for what? Campaign donations from big pharma and big oil?

Fuck these assholes, and anyone who dares draw some sort of false equivalence between what liberals have ever said or done and what these dipshits are doing.

It's a huge discredit to your intelligence that you don't see any difference here.

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
*promote this classic *1sttube moment

>> ^ant:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
A classic, there is no way this isn't here already is it?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Seinfeld-The-Soup-Nazi
I saw this actor at Video Games Live in L.A. last October. He said that line in front of the audience.


awesome, so we have both the best parts of the episode...woot!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
A classic, there is no way this isn't here already is it?


http://www.videosift.com/video/Seinfeld-The-Soup-Nazi

I saw this actor at Video Games Live in L.A. last October. He said that line in front of the audience.

So, did you go? If so, how was it?

In reply to this comment by JTZ:
Now I am not a big fan of Seinfeld, but the "Soup Nazi" ep. was great. I also love soup. This guy is awesome if it was all real(hopefully, pls don't be staged). I know where I am going this weekend for breakfast.

Now I am not a big fan of Seinfeld, but the "Soup Nazi" ep. was great. I also love soup. This guy is awesome if it was all real(hopefully, pls don't be staged). I know where I am going this weekend for breakfast.

Thanks for your opinions. I feel the same about the posted scene, but the trailer leaves a strange feeling in my gut somehow. Too much slapstick for my taste. Not sure I would watch it at the theater.

Here is the trailer for the film: Postal Trailer

There are a few more out there if you do a search for "postal movie" on YT.

Interesting fact: The guy that plays Osama is the same one that played the "Soup Nazi" on Seinfeld.

In reply to this comment by BoneyD:
I'm sorry Patriot, but I thought this was hilarious. Of course, it is in a bit of bad taste, but I think that's the point. You are allowed to (and should) laugh at this sort of scene without diluting your feelings for the actual tragedy. It was well timed and played on the common feeling of doubt that we all feel about our convictions.

We often hear stories of detectives and coroners using dark humour to deal with the horror they see. I think if we cant take a step back sometimes and look at the amusing side in things, then it's a steady road to depression.

Thanks for your opinions. I feel the same about the posted scene, but the trailer leaves a strange feeling in my gut somehow. Too much slapstick for my taste. Not sure I would watch it at the theater.

Here is the trailer for the film: Postal Trailer

There are a few more out there if you do a search for "postal movie" on YT.

Interesting fact: The guy that plays Osama is the same one that played the "Soup Nazi" on Seinfeld.

well... I was going idealistic in college in one particular class, where the prof gave us some particularly idiotic C++ code to use in a project, and ended up getting rather vocal about it. Several friends thought I looked like the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld, with my "No [C++] code for you [the prof]!", so they named me the Code Nazi.

It stuck for years in college, and now has the advantage of being unique, so I never have to worry about it being taken on any random site... ;

Soup Nazi?