works well... tempting to act on the misperception but then you cross a line.

one time i was riding in a shiny white crown vic, tinted windows, lamplight etc... was owned by a dumbass but his friend was driving. we were in Portland off of MLK and he says "watch this", grins, and WHIPS AROUND super fast... sending all the people "chillin on the block" scattering... then we parked and got mexican food.

was probably not a good idea but damn i was 19 and i laughed. the guy who drove it would wear a button up blue shirt and cop glasses and point at people. some laughed.

the end.

Good job at attacking me and not my actual statement BTW.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

The police is more likely to be a threat so if you don't want citizens to carry guns then we have to get rid of armed officers too. I don't want anyone to have a gun but if you read what I said you might have noticed that I specified that gun rights are important in the situation we are in where known criminals in the police like the officer doing the detaining in this video are allowed to carry guns.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

>> ^swedishfriend:

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.



You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.

Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.

Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.

The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...

I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

>> ^criticalthud:

uggg. everything was not GREAT in the past. utter bullshit. we are just repeating the same mistake today.
this generation is a direct product of the past generations.


Ya, that is kind of the old man syndrome, things were great, then the kids fucked it up...with their text messaging and their carbonated soda water! I do hold that there are a lot of great things about america, we just don't shine on the hill as much because the world is a smaller place now...you can see glimmers and dust all the more easy...and all over the world. China has manned space flight, we just retired our space program (basically)...but we can do nearly anything on the internet, and China can't even get a full google result that isn't tampered with. There are lots of great and shit things about most every country in the world in the first world, and it has been like that for a long time. More countries come into the first world all the time, that the pool of comparison gets larger and larger.

Most of the commentary he gave was just a bunch of talking point non-sense, just as the arguments for "American greatness" are the same. Greatness starts with people, not nations, and we do have a lot of great people in our present, and our past (and great in different ways, some in science, some in social justice...From Einstein to MLK). It is to them we owe greatly, and not all of them were born here...what would our sciences' look like today without the infusion of German minds after WW2? What strikes me about the future is that great people + the internet can have ramifications that ripple farther than ever before in history. You might see great people and research sweeping across the world instead of just enriching the host nation. That is the promises I see in the what I deem the second information age.

Maybe I'm just speaking out of my ass, but I think it's unfair to loop Ganghi in with these other two. As far as I know, Ganghi was not a child molester, although he did experiment with chastity or whatever the hell he called it; he slept with girls in his bed, even his own grandniece. Fucked up that may be, but it is not sexual abuse, and it was for a small portion of his life, until his family basically told him that it was creepy. And it wasn't for decades, it was for a few years in his seventies. And in the 1940's, 70 was old as fuck. Someone could've probably stopped it a lot sooner.

Of course, I could be wrong, I could be blinded by the myth. I don't think so, but it's certainly possible. Either way, the above coupled with the fact that he might have been a little racist just does not equate with torturing people to death, or with consigning a third of the population of Africa for the last twenty years to die from AIDS.

Even if Gandhi was as fucked up as this pic claims, his way of approaching a situation with non-violence was absolutely a positive contribution to humanity. I doubt that we would've had the civil rights reforms here in America when we did without Gandhi's work.

Shit, even MLK was an adulterer. The first mistake is assuming that anyone is perfect. And the second is thinking that anyone's contributions to humanity are worthless because they also had serious problems.

The demoralization is amazing if you study it. The fact that the 1960s is considered the "Time of Troubles" or that people believe you need specific Heroic people such as MLK Jr to fight your battles for you is an astounding victory for those in power.

This is why I support the Occupy Movement...because it didn't do much but it did show that people can get mad and are still mad and will exert pressure if they have to. That was definitely felt and carefully watched as you could tell by how it was treated in the media and by the more brainwashed of our society.

Okay, plug up that giant asshole you call a mouth for like two seconds and try to pick on up [sic] the NUANCES of these next few statements.

Why? Why would one situation be wrong, and the other right?

Why would "institutional" discrimination be wrong, but institutional discrimination done by a privately owned institution be right?

Either way it's the "public" police who'd be applying violence to uphold these edicts.

And BTW, didn't you say not more than a handful of comments ago that we're actually not past this, and that you think these sorts of bigoted institutions would come back if they were legal?
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.
[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]
However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.
He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.
AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Okay, plug up your bleeding heart for like two seconds and try to pick on up the NUANCES of these next few statements.

If MLK was arrested in a PUBLIC park, for no other justification than loitering [i'm sure he was].. that's Institutionalized Discrimination and is wrong. Society should never revert to that way of being.

[This is your main concern and the issue you feel I'm avoiding, correct?]

However, since MLK was arrested in a PRIVATE establishment, for loitering and possible harassment.. It's right.

He was infringing upon the natural rights of narrow-minded racist to segregate themselves within their own little box of hate.

AGAIN, THIS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED BEYOND THE IDEA OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Meaning, we don't need a fuckin' law to tell us it's immoral.
E.G. "Good thing the 13th Amendment will never be repelled. Otherwise, all my black friends would have to be slaves again"

[Luckily for us, those Yankees made an amendment. Now we only have wage, sex, prison and sweatshop slavery to contend with! Go Liberal Democrats!!]

I feel i've been very honest about the implications of a Ron Paul presidency.
I agree that some groups will seek to reestablish institutionalized discrimination under the guise of property rights [which I never intentionally advocated for this entire discussion].

Again, not the point!

The entire point of Ron Paul becoming president is to reshape the political landscape!

You know, into one where our tiny individual voices actually make a significant difference.

I'll put this argument in the simplest terms I can:

p1 - @NetRunner wants to see political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

p2 - A Ron Paul Presidency would enable political change thru the act of voting and unimpeded democracy/consensus.

C - @NetRunner should advocate for a Ron Paul Presidency.

Shit, late for work.
kthanksbai

Which point of mine did you actually respond to? Isn't turnabout fair play?

Look at that picture of MLK getting arrested and tell me, what's the bigger injustice? That such a thing ever happened, or that we let that guy convince us to stop doing it?

Ron Paul is solidly in the latter camp. Are you?

You tried to reframe the issue so the latter camp sounds justified, but I don't think you've really accepted what that entails. It means you condone, defend, and synonymize with "liberty" the practice of arresting people whose only crime was being black in a public place owned by a bigot.

Those are your choices -- stand up and directly defend the righteousness of arresting MLK for being black in public, or stay in that small, inflexible box you've climbed into, and avoid having a real conversation with me.

Well, there is another option, you can actually change your mind, and stop eating the Soylent Green.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

You're as inflexible as Quantumushroom.
...
Also, thanks for ignoring every the point I made

Yeah, that's a good point. But I think the issues these kids are discussing are current issues and policy. In that context MLK, slavery, and Tiannamen would be out of bounds. The China of 1989 is not the China of today. >> ^njjh201:

So (jokes about dumb American kids aside) American kids of a similar age wouldn't have some ideas about slavery and who MLK was? American kids of similar intelligence to these certainly would.
And if they didn't they could Google him.
I guess these girls can just Google Tiannenmen if they don't know about it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Heh. I thought the obligation of the police bit was rhetoric.

Nope, it was an attempt to get you to remember something, anything, about the era that led to the Civil Rights Act.

It means going back to a time where this happens anytime one of those "out-groups" shows their face in the wrong place.

You're going to have to explain to me why that's justice, and why that's freedom, because it looks to me like violent oppression and a criminal deprivation of liberty.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You're always talking about how we can harness the power of voting & democratic systems to eventually overcome things; and you're almost guaranteed to make actual progress thru those means if Paul were POTUS.

Paul is antithetical to "progress." His vision of a perfect society is an America where we unwind everything that's happened in the last 100 years. Possibly more, depending on how seriously you take his position on the Civil War.

There are a couple issues where, purely by accident, Paul agrees with me. I want the war in Afghanistan to end because I think it's stupid, not because I think America should never get involved in international politics. I want the drug war to end because it's a terrible way to solve the problem with substance abuse -- universal healthcare would be a lot better. Paul is just as mad about the drug war as he is about the FDA (or the EPA, for that matter).

Ron Paul stands in steadfast opposition to everything I care about. Even on the issues where we seem to agree, we turn out to be miles apart when you get down to the details.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So why are you letting a little thing like Gasp a Racist Conservative Republican, stop you from acting in your own best interest.
[Since you're neither black nor gay. I think you'll be okay either way, @NetRunner]

To quote MLK, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Even if all I cared about was my own ass, the "freedom" to discriminate against black or gay people would also mean people have the freedom to discriminate against whites, or men, or straight people, or liberals, or atheists, or gamers.

The protections against discrimination protect me as much as it does any given out-group.

Listen, I'm not super anal about this type of stuff, as long as a sincere attempt is made to adhere to the guidelines.

What I am trying to avoid is defining Africans by what others have done to them, rather than what they have themselves done. I think this may be a little subtle, but it's an important line.

So a vid about people wantonly murdering african americans would not quality. A vid about african american(s) fighting against racism would qualify.

I would accept the MLK video, given his unquestionable social/cultural impact.Edit: Also the MLK vid would qualify under history and politics of the african diaspora.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^longde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora>> ^NetRunner:
Just out of curiosity, who are "diaspora members" in this context?


So a video extolling the contributions of African-Americans to America's history would be appropriate for Africa, but a video of, say, MLK talking about the nature of the bigotry aimed at African-Americans is not?
Or maybe the latter would go in both Africa and equality?
Just trying to think ahead to the kinds of cases that will wind up coming before the Siftpreme Court.

>> ^longde:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora>> ^NetRunner:
Just out of curiosity, who are "diaspora members" in this context?



So a video extolling the contributions of African-Americans to America's history would be appropriate for *Africa, but a video of, say, MLK talking about the nature of the bigotry aimed at African-Americans is not?

Or maybe the latter would go in both Africa and equality?

Just trying to think ahead to the kinds of cases that will wind up coming before the Siftpreme Court.

>> ^darkrowan:
Yeah.... the MLK jokes where, how do you say, flat?


Maybe using the Carbonite angle would've led to better jokes.