|
One more "fuck the police" from page 8 and onward is going to have an all expense paid weekend to E-Disneyland. It adds nothing to the discussion and as such please refrain from making such posts in this topic and the boards in general. |
Canada13431 Posts
On May 30 2011 06:46 billyX333 wrote:
im beginning to think it was staged. the guy's account is "adamvstheman" thats pretty much the only tell I need as to what type of content hes gonna post but just watch a couple of the videos. Hes trying to compare schools to prison in multiple videos. this guy's whole gimmick is opposing authority.
actually from a theoretical position (dramaturgical, institutional, foucauldian) the school is a complete institution just like the prison so I wouldn't write off his perspective just because of that comparison.
|
i would get a lawyer and sue. i am pretty sure the police have to tell you what your being charged with if you ask them. it looks like they are being arrested for being happy and dancing. another reason why i feel America is messed. i dont blame the officers because they are just doing as they were told(most likely) then again they might have just done it because they hate happy people?
maybe the government officials are tired of everyone being happy except for them? i hate all government officials anyway because they talk about less spending and shit yet they raise their paychecks while people can't even find jobs? they are just selfish liars and personally i think they should all be thrown in jail because their is no just politician. their all dirty.
|
On May 30 2011 06:51 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 06:46 billyX333 wrote:
im beginning to think it was staged. the guy's account is "adamvstheman" thats pretty much the only tell I need as to what type of content hes gonna post but just watch a couple of the videos. Hes trying to compare schools to prison in multiple videos. this guy's whole gimmick is opposing authority. actually from a theoretical position (dramaturgical, institutional, foucauldian) the school is a complete institution just like the prison so I wouldn't write off his perspective just because of that comparison.
He dedicates multiple full length videos to this bs comparison. If your primary basis for this school vs prison comparison is the fact that both are institutions that the government forces us into then i'm going to go ahead and disregard most of this guy's opinions.
most lesser developed countries consider going to school an incredible privilege and are grateful just to attend while americans who are "imprisoned" in the school system are trying to compare their schooling to being locked up behind bars in a filthy prison, sleeping on steel beds, being beaten by wardens and being surrounded by thugs who threaten your life on a daily basis? sounds like a pretty gross comparison and if he feels a need to use it to prove his point then i'll exercise my freedom to completely ignore this guy forever
|
Funny video. They pretty much had it coming.
|
On May 30 2011 00:30 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 30 2011 00:17 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:10 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 30 2011 00:05 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job." More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them MK9 is not banned in Australia now. But if the citizens played it illegally, you would have complained that the law was unjust. I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying that the logic of "it's a silly activity anyway, these people have no right to do that" suddenly seems to not make any sense when it applies to YOUR activity of choice. Except their activity of choice isn't to dance. They are career activists. It's not like the government shut down a production of Black Swan. And if the citizens went through the due process and were denied, then sure. But that's adding a hypothetical situation to a real situation that was a counterpoint to your original hypothetical situation. And you keep talking about rights and fighting for them: do you even know what rights the protesters in the video were actually fighting for? As in, an actual right being denied to people who want that right rather than just protesting for the sake of it? Because that's a key difference between all these historical heroes you love to throw around and the hypothetical situations you contrive: Rosa Parks wanted a place to sit, she was tired. Malcolm X wanted equal rights for blacks. Ghandi wanted to liberate his country from colonization. We want to play StarCraft. Career protesters protest to... protest? (Keeping in mind there are legal ways to protest) Do you know what they were actually fighting for? Do you know what YOU'RE arguing about? Because when it suits you, you reduce it to "they were just doing a silly dance, it wasn't even worth fighting over" Then when it's pointed out that their silly dance wasn't hurting anyone, you make it "they were staging a disruptive protest! they must submit to authoritay!" and then when it's pointed out that their has been historical precedent for civil disobedience in order to defend civil rights, you go back to "but it's just silly dancing!" Geez, make up your mind. They were dancing because they believed a group was wrongfully arrested for doing the same thing, which violates freedom of assembly and free expression. Watch, you're going to reduce the argument to "it's just silly dancing!" again. I don't think anyone in this thread, including myself, has ever said anything about 'silly dancing.' You sure love strawman arguments and logical fallacies in general. In fact, you didn't address my points at all. I didn't mention the word 'dance' at all, I talked about PROTESTING. I think I'm quite clear in what I'm arguing for. Seems like you're the only here arguing for the sake of arguing.
And now you're flat out lying.
I mean, of all the issues in America, you really don't think there's bigger fish to fry than trying to get the "No dancing at Jefferson Memorial" law vanquished?
The point is, people are trying to say that you should obey the police with no questions asked. Then I applied that logic to Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus, or to the crackdown on certain public exercise in China and suddenly that logic fell apart.
Then your cognitive dissonance kicked in because you're trained to believe that the police are above the people. You nitpick details because you REFUSE to see the core issue at hand is being able to do harmless activity in public. It's clear you're still stuck at level 3 or 4 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. No wonder why you have such a juvenile point of view.
Also, LMAO at the CONSPIRACY THEORISTS saying this is staged...
Anyway it looks like I've said my part here, and at least if nothing else, a few more people know about Adam Kokesh now  If you wanna join his next Dance Party on Saturday June 04, you can check out this facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=150453268357946
Gonna leave off with this comment which was largely overlooked:
On May 29 2011 22:33 SKaysc wrote:
Oh the Irony... "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". – Thomas Jefferson
|
conspiracy theories really dont appeal much to me but this does really seem rather strange.
what kind of coincidence could cause that man to be at the same location as david kokesh on two separate occasions? on the video with the attorney general the police officer seems rather out of place, given his uniform which doesnt match any of the other uniforms of other law enforcement officers around them. on top of it he doesnt really seem to be connected to any of the groups present, certainly not to the people getting into the van and driving off. it wouldnt be too difficult for him to just come up and pull off his act without anyone even noticing hes not a real officer and not supposed to be there,
now if he was something of a senior officer or something along these lines one could understand how he would show up on both occasions but being there just to keep people in check and showing up at the jefferson memorial in shorts and with a bike helmet on( which begs the question why he would keep wearing the helmet-as asked before by a poster here on tl...maybe to somewhat conceal his head?) doesnt give me an impression of a senior officer at all.
then again one might ask if the entire thing was staged why kokesh wouldnt take better precautions or hire another "actor" if it was so blatantly obvious that its one and the same person.
|
I've had so many horrible experiences with police that I cannot respect them in any form. I'm nearly 100% that he wasn't given the law or his rights. He was being subdued not arrested. Shit I've been in handcuffs for resisting arrest when I wasn't even under arrest lol. This is all a joke and probably staged
|
what a bunch of dummies. Talk about a really lame cause to protest over. I'll grant that the law is fairly absurd and unnecessary, but those people are just lame. So many other atrocities are taking place, use your rage somewhere else. This is a huge disconnect between my generation and I.
I think the argument can be made that these dancers are actually impeding certain people's rights to enjoy a historic monument(these people are also lame). I can picture some old lady feeling rather flustered because a bunch of sex-charged, dancing hooligans are interrupting her peaceful trip. Is that old lady infringing on their freedom of expression? Possibly, but who cares. Be a decent human being and let that old lady enjoy the monument. I can think of a dozen places where you have the right to dance but shouldn't be because you'd be totally idiotic if you did.
Moral of the story: Get rid of that absurd law, but be a decent person and FLASH MOB(really lame) dance somewhere else.
oh and the Rosa Parks thing isn't analogous at all...
|
|
|
On May 30 2011 09:12 plexx wrote:
what a bunch of dummies. Talk about a really lame cause to protest over. I'll grant that the law is fairly absurd and unnecessary, but those people are just lame. So many other atrocities are taking place, use your rage somewhere else. This is a huge disconnect between my generation and I.
I think the argument can be made that these dancers are actually impeding certain people's rights to enjoy a historic monument(these people are also lame). I can picture some old lady feeling rather flustered because a bunch of sex-charged, dancing hooligans are interrupting her peaceful trip. Is that old lady infringing on their freedom of expression? Possibly, but who cares. Be a decent human being and let that old lady enjoy the monument. I can think of a dozen places where you have the right to dance but shouldn't be because you'd be totally idiotic if you did.
Moral of the story: Get rid of that absurd law, but be a decent person and FLASH MOB(really lame) dance somewhere else.
oh and the Rosa Parks thing isn't analogous at all...
Interesting that you use that kind of language when honestly their dancing was very, very low-key.
|
On May 30 2011 08:04 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 00:30 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:27 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 30 2011 00:17 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:10 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 30 2011 00:05 Ocedic wrote:On May 30 2011 00:01 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
You know what would be funny, if Starcraft was banned (like it was in China), all these people would be crying bloody murder. And if someone was bodyslammed for playing it at a cybercafe out of protest and refusing to leave, you'd all have his back.
"lol what a bunch of nerds, you don't have a god given right to play silly computer games, the police have every right to body slam you, they're just doing their job." More slippery slope arguments. Mortal Kombat 9 was banned in Australia for a short period. The citizens didn't repeal the ban by doing anything illegal. They went through due process and made their voices heard through the many channels that were available to them MK9 is not banned in Australia now. But if the citizens played it illegally, you would have complained that the law was unjust. I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying that the logic of "it's a silly activity anyway, these people have no right to do that" suddenly seems to not make any sense when it applies to YOUR activity of choice. Except their activity of choice isn't to dance. They are career activists. It's not like the government shut down a production of Black Swan. And if the citizens went through the due process and were denied, then sure. But that's adding a hypothetical situation to a real situation that was a counterpoint to your original hypothetical situation. And you keep talking about rights and fighting for them: do you even know what rights the protesters in the video were actually fighting for? As in, an actual right being denied to people who want that right rather than just protesting for the sake of it? Because that's a key difference between all these historical heroes you love to throw around and the hypothetical situations you contrive: Rosa Parks wanted a place to sit, she was tired. Malcolm X wanted equal rights for blacks. Ghandi wanted to liberate his country from colonization. We want to play StarCraft. Career protesters protest to... protest? (Keeping in mind there are legal ways to protest) Do you know what they were actually fighting for? Do you know what YOU'RE arguing about? Because when it suits you, you reduce it to "they were just doing a silly dance, it wasn't even worth fighting over" Then when it's pointed out that their silly dance wasn't hurting anyone, you make it "they were staging a disruptive protest! they must submit to authoritay!" and then when it's pointed out that their has been historical precedent for civil disobedience in order to defend civil rights, you go back to "but it's just silly dancing!" Geez, make up your mind. They were dancing because they believed a group was wrongfully arrested for doing the same thing, which violates freedom of assembly and free expression. Watch, you're going to reduce the argument to "it's just silly dancing!" again. I don't think anyone in this thread, including myself, has ever said anything about 'silly dancing.' You sure love strawman arguments and logical fallacies in general. In fact, you didn't address my points at all. I didn't mention the word 'dance' at all, I talked about PROTESTING. I think I'm quite clear in what I'm arguing for. Seems like you're the only here arguing for the sake of arguing. And now you're flat out lying. Show nested quote +I mean, of all the issues in America, you really don't think there's bigger fish to fry than trying to get the "No dancing at Jefferson Memorial" law vanquished? The point is, people are trying to say that you should obey the police with no questions asked. Then I applied that logic to Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus, or to the crackdown on certain public exercise in China and suddenly that logic fell apart. Then your cognitive dissonance kicked in because you're trained to believe that the police are above the people. You nitpick details because you REFUSE to see the core issue at hand is being able to do harmless activity in public. It's clear you're still stuck at level 3 or 4 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. No wonder why you have such a juvenile point of view. Also, LMAO at the CONSPIRACY THEORISTS saying this is staged... Anyway it looks like I've said my part here, and at least if nothing else, a few more people know about Adam Kokesh now If you wanna join his next Dance Party on Saturday June 04, you can check out this facebook page http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=150453268357946Gonna leave off with this comment which was largely overlooked: Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:33 SKaysc wrote:
Oh the Irony... "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". – Thomas Jefferson
It's fascinating to see people have the inability to distinguish proper civil disobedience with going out and trying to start trouble .(Rosa Parks acceptingly chose being arrested, and complied peacefully with the police to prove her point, these goons went out to antagonize the police so they could get hits on youtube.)
And as for referencing Kohlberg: Get over yourself.
|
Oh please, they're just there to be fucking morons and piss people off.
No, there is no law that says "you may not dance" but I'm sure there's other things it falls under.
Same way "playing loud music" isn't an actual law but "disturbing the peace" is.
|
On May 30 2011 09:30 how2TL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 09:12 plexx wrote:
what a bunch of dummies. Talk about a really lame cause to protest over. I'll grant that the law is fairly absurd and unnecessary, but those people are just lame. So many other atrocities are taking place, use your rage somewhere else. This is a huge disconnect between my generation and I.
I think the argument can be made that these dancers are actually impeding certain people's rights to enjoy a historic monument(these people are also lame). I can picture some old lady feeling rather flustered because a bunch of sex-charged, dancing hooligans are interrupting her peaceful trip. Is that old lady infringing on their freedom of expression? Possibly, but who cares. Be a decent human being and let that old lady enjoy the monument. I can think of a dozen places where you have the right to dance but shouldn't be because you'd be totally idiotic if you did.
Moral of the story: Get rid of that absurd law, but be a decent person and FLASH MOB(really lame) dance somewhere else.
oh and the Rosa Parks thing isn't analogous at all... Interesting that you use that kind of language when honestly their dancing was very, very low-key.
I was just stating what I think a conservative old lady might be thinking... I made a bad joke.
|
On May 30 2011 09:44 Subversion wrote:
Oh please, they're just there to be fucking morons and piss people off.
No, there is no law that says "you may not dance" but I'm sure there's other things it falls under.
Same way "playing loud music" isn't an actual law but "disturbing the peace" is.
Disturbing the peace along with disorderly conduct are one of the many bullshit ways cops get away with charging people for doing nothing wrong. Code Pink may be a bunch of morons but they're morons with rights, full stop.
|
On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote:
You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny.
Ladies and gents we have a police officer in our midst.
|
On May 30 2011 09:47 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 20:07 Megaliskuu wrote:
You kids and your "fuck the police" attitude, oh you kids are funny. Ladies and gents we have a police officer in our midst.
dont be stupid please.
|
On May 29 2011 20:40 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 20:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 20:06 Navillus wrote:
But once a cop gives you a warning that you'll be arrested for doing something you don't do it five seconds later in his face, that's just stupid. . Get to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks. Are you seriously comparing African American rights with dancing near a statue? REALLY?!
Are you seriously comparing sitting on a bus to an attempt to protect the freedom of speech?
...
Do you realize how bad your argument is? 
|
On May 30 2011 06:25 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 06:18 mark05 wrote:On May 29 2011 19:55 Navillus wrote:
They were demonstrating without a permit, the arrest was legal as far as I know. wowwww. That's really what you have to sya about the situation that happened?, they were dancing, you really think they deserved it? I undserstand this happened with people thinking like this in your country I certainly think they deserved it because they were trolling
Trolling is a crime worthy of violent arrest now?
What would you do to those who frequent /b/?
Also, that was civil disobedience. Just because the people disobeying were trolls does not make it uncivil.
|
On May 30 2011 09:57 MidasMulligan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 20:40 dcemuser wrote:On May 29 2011 20:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 20:06 Navillus wrote:
But once a cop gives you a warning that you'll be arrested for doing something you don't do it five seconds later in his face, that's just stupid. . Get to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks. Are you seriously comparing African American rights with dancing near a statue? REALLY?! Are you seriously comparing sitting on a bus to an attempt to protect the freedom of speech?
No, he's not. You seem to be mistaken.
|
I agree with the police, its a fucking memorial. And they were not dancing because they wanted to, it was to resist what the police were telling them. The police did their job, its not like they had an unusual punishment, it was just a warning overnight stay in jail.
"I did not get a warning" yea fuck off, as if you would start dancing if you did not see the police telling people you can't.
What the hell is Adam doing, people like him thinking its funny to abuse the freedom right like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
