I honestly don't see protests as much of an inconvenience either, but then, that may be because they are regulated.
Getting back to the original issue, the police in this case seemed willing to work out a compromise. They did not want the protesters causing disruptions, and in addition to the option of getting a permit, they offered several other options which technically still broke the 'permits required' rule but solved the disruption problem. To me, this indicates that it was not adherence to the rules that the police were after, but a reduction in the negative externalities of the protest. They were willing to bend the rules, as long as the protesters were willing to reduce their impact on the community.
You really don't understand how the world works, do you? JournoList is a mailing list for journalists. Journalists are not editors. Editors have control over content. Journalists do not. JournoList members can decide all they like how to word their stories, but they can not force anyone to do so. Editors can.
You mean the bigoted right wing commentator who was fired from NPR because he hates Muslims? The guy who defended Clarence Thomas' sexual abuse of Anita Hill?
That's a lovely idea, but it does not address the issue. You don't want the government telling people when, where and how they can protest. That is understandable, that power can and has been abused. But just saying "Anyone can disrupt and inconvenience everyone else in a city without any consequences" is no answer either, as it also leaves the population open to abuse.
If you argue that the right to free expression trumps all other rights, then you will have protesters torching your house. Does their right to express themselves through fire trump your property rights? If protesters must respect your property rights, why not the city government's property rights? After all, a city government is just a form of corporation, it is just a group of individuals.
In short, if you believe that an individual has the right to control his property, you must accept the rights of a group of individuals to control their collective property. And government is nothing more than a group of individuals.
On a side note, I'm actually a little incredulous at myself for taking this side of the argument, as I have been, quite literally, on the other side so many times. I've seen the cops bash my friends heads into the pavement for the crime of trying to feed the homeless in public without a permit. I guess I'm getting older and don't have as much of a "fuck everything!" attitude as I had in my youth.
Regulations are just a tool, like guns. Like guns, regulations can protect people. They can also harm people. The answer is not to do away with guns, or regulations. The answer is to restrict the harm and punish people who cause it. If the government is prohibiting protests for the wrong reasons, punish the government for that, don't get rid of the regulations.
You missed the point. The point is that ad hominems are logical fallacies. It doesn't matter whether the publishers of the survey are biased or not. It only matters whether the survey is true. You have not presented any evidence that the survey is wrong in any way.
What you are doing is called poisoning the well. You are trying to call the motives of the publisher into question. The problem with that is, the publishers motives have no bearing on the veracity of the survey. They could all be child molesting professional con artists and still publish an accurate survey.
The question is not whether it is biased or not, the question is, is it TRUE? Unless you have some evidence that the survey is false, you can take your ad hominem poisoning the well bullshit and stick it up your ass.
You can't TL:DR something and then quote it, proving you did read it. It makes you look like a fucking idiot who can't keep his story straight for one fucking sentence.
MSNBC does have conservative guests on. Especially on Morning Joe, but also on all other shows.
Phil came on board after Keith already had a multi year contract, he had no say in that.
Look at the way Phil handled Scarborough's political donations, versus how he handled Olbermann's. He only suspended Joe after he was called out for the hypocrisy of suspending Keith indefinitely without pay for political contributions while ignoring Scarborough. Keith's suspension was indefinite. Joe's was for two days.
This is just laziness and bias on your part. Rather than think critically about your news sources, you have discounted them all as equally biased. Journalism is in a bad way, to be sure, but it is not due to political bias. For the most part, it is due to laziness, journalists have pretty much stopped checking facts and just report "He said this, she said that," without bothering to point out that one side is telling the truth and the other side is lying.
You are talking about Mika Brzezinski, who is Joe Scarborough's assistant running WH talking points without her bosses permission? Why doesn't he just fire her? I mean, Joe is in tight with MSNBC's rabidly right wing CEO, Phil Griffin. Joe got Kieth Olbermann suspended without pay, and he has editorial control over who goes on Kieth's show (Markos of DailyKos is forbidden from MSNBC thanks to Joe and Phil) so if he wanted to fire his assistant for pushing White House talking points, he could.
And here's what I observed: World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat)(and 90% of professors are too). So the survey bashing Libertarian-leaning FOX viewers is as unsurprising as a Microsoft-funded survey showing Google Chrome is insecure. BOTH surveys are meaningless bullshit, not worth the paper they are printed on.
Commodore64_love's posts are 70% libertarian and 90% conservative. He is biased so you don't need listen to anything he says, even if it is true. His posts are meaningless bullshit, not worth the electrons they are displayed with.
Joe Scarborough is a host on MSNBC. Phil Griffin, the head of MSNBC, is rabidly right wing. There are no liberals at all on Fox News. MSNBC hosts a few shows that have a liberal bias. The network itself is not liberal.
The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
And you think that any other 'news' shows are any different?
Yes, I do. I don't think that other news shows' editorial staff makes specific decisions on the wording to be used on every story covering a particular issue, like global warming or health care reform. I do not think any other news source has ever stated in a memo that reporters are never to use the phrase "The public option" and must always refer to it as "The government-run option."
They're definitely activists and they do have convictions, although they can change from one day to the next (maybe this is why they seem like a "fuck up their shit" group to you). Remember it's not one coherent group, it's basically a flash mob of whoever cares to act at the time.
And once a few get taken down, the rest will cease to care enough to act. That is my prediction anyway. The people with real convictions don't act and organize through 4chan. They have their own organizations, ones that are not associated with random Internet hate crimes and child pornography.
People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.
Bullshit. The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
I'm just going by what I've seen. If my generalizations don't apply to you, great, I'm happy for you. They still apply to the majority of anonymous, just based on the behaviors I've seen from the group.
A violent, hate filled mob of idiots is still a violent, hate filled mob of idiots even if a few of its members are upstanding geniuses. Although one must question why an upstanding genius would associate with a mob of violent, hate filled idiots.
In closing, let me add that a violent, hate filled mob of idiots will continue to think of itself as a group of upstanding genius freedom fighters, even after it has been pointed out to them that, to the outside world, they appear to be a mob of violent, hate filled idiots.
Anonymous are bullies, not freedom fighters. Like all bullies, once they feel a little pain themselves, they will give up. They are not activists. They have no convictions. They just like to fuck shit up. Not "fuck shit up for a good cause." Just "fuck shit up, and if it happens to be for a cause, whatever."
Anonymous are complacent cowards, they have no real beliefs or convictions that might give them the courage to continue fighting after a few of them are taken down. After they realize they are not anonymous once a subpoena is involved, and they can go to jail, the members of anonymous will find better things to do with their time.
A government is just a group of individuals. Individuals have property rights to the public property they share ownership of. They have a right to use the roads and sidewalks. Yes, people have a right to free speech. But that does not give them the additional right to use their free expression to harm others. Having a bunch of people taking up the sidewalk and roads harms the individuals who use those roads and sidewalks. When they refuse to schedule their protests, the protesters are stealing from the other citizens. In some places, the citizens have decided that free speech is more important. In other places, they have decided they want protesters to schedule their protests in order to reduce the harm the protesters cause.
It sounds as though you are saying the citizens of a town or city do not have rights to control the public property they collectively own. I ask again: does an individual have the right to control speech on their property? If not, please provide your address so I can come blast "Louie, Louie" outside your house at 4 in the morning. If so, then citizens of a city have the right to limit where, when, and how protests occur on the property the collectively own and control.
Or perhaps there should not be publicly owned and controlled property, and all protesters can either protest on their own property, or they can ask permission of the owners.
You also do not have to "give in" to the mob. You just have to make sure that there ain't enough people pissed enough to reach critical mass.
This is the reason we have a middle class, rather than just serfs and masters, but the masters seem to have forgotten this fact and appear to be actively working towards the elimination of the one thing keeping the people from rising up and slaughtering them. They seem to have forgotten the real reason for noblesse oblige, which is basically that we will kill you if you push us too far.
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't see protests as much of an inconvenience either, but then, that may be because they are regulated.
Getting back to the original issue, the police in this case seemed willing to work out a compromise. They did not want the protesters causing disruptions, and in addition to the option of getting a permit, they offered several other options which technically still broke the 'permits required' rule but solved the disruption problem. To me, this indicates that it was not adherence to the rules that the police were after, but a reduction in the negative externalities of the protest. They were willing to bend the rules, as long as the protesters were willing to reduce their impact on the community.
You really don't understand how the world works, do you? JournoList is a mailing list for journalists. Journalists are not editors. Editors have control over content. Journalists do not. JournoList members can decide all they like how to word their stories, but they can not force anyone to do so. Editors can.
You mean the bigoted right wing commentator who was fired from NPR because he hates Muslims? The guy who defended Clarence Thomas' sexual abuse of Anita Hill?
That's a lovely idea, but it does not address the issue. You don't want the government telling people when, where and how they can protest. That is understandable, that power can and has been abused. But just saying "Anyone can disrupt and inconvenience everyone else in a city without any consequences" is no answer either, as it also leaves the population open to abuse.
If you argue that the right to free expression trumps all other rights, then you will have protesters torching your house. Does their right to express themselves through fire trump your property rights? If protesters must respect your property rights, why not the city government's property rights? After all, a city government is just a form of corporation, it is just a group of individuals.
In short, if you believe that an individual has the right to control his property, you must accept the rights of a group of individuals to control their collective property. And government is nothing more than a group of individuals.
On a side note, I'm actually a little incredulous at myself for taking this side of the argument, as I have been, quite literally, on the other side so many times. I've seen the cops bash my friends heads into the pavement for the crime of trying to feed the homeless in public without a permit. I guess I'm getting older and don't have as much of a "fuck everything!" attitude as I had in my youth.
Regulations are just a tool, like guns. Like guns, regulations can protect people. They can also harm people. The answer is not to do away with guns, or regulations. The answer is to restrict the harm and punish people who cause it. If the government is prohibiting protests for the wrong reasons, punish the government for that, don't get rid of the regulations.
You missed the point. The point is that ad hominems are logical fallacies. It doesn't matter whether the publishers of the survey are biased or not. It only matters whether the survey is true. You have not presented any evidence that the survey is wrong in any way.
What you are doing is called poisoning the well. You are trying to call the motives of the publisher into question. The problem with that is, the publishers motives have no bearing on the veracity of the survey. They could all be child molesting professional con artists and still publish an accurate survey.
The question is not whether it is biased or not, the question is, is it TRUE? Unless you have some evidence that the survey is false, you can take your ad hominem poisoning the well bullshit and stick it up your ass.
You can't TL:DR something and then quote it, proving you did read it. It makes you look like a fucking idiot who can't keep his story straight for one fucking sentence.
You keep talking sense like that and I'll have to start revising my opinion of libertarians.
MSNBC does have conservative guests on. Especially on Morning Joe, but also on all other shows.
Phil came on board after Keith already had a multi year contract, he had no say in that.
Look at the way Phil handled Scarborough's political donations, versus how he handled Olbermann's. He only suspended Joe after he was called out for the hypocrisy of suspending Keith indefinitely without pay for political contributions while ignoring Scarborough. Keith's suspension was indefinite. Joe's was for two days.
This is just laziness and bias on your part. Rather than think critically about your news sources, you have discounted them all as equally biased. Journalism is in a bad way, to be sure, but it is not due to political bias. For the most part, it is due to laziness, journalists have pretty much stopped checking facts and just report "He said this, she said that," without bothering to point out that one side is telling the truth and the other side is lying.
You are talking about Mika Brzezinski, who is Joe Scarborough's assistant running WH talking points without her bosses permission? Why doesn't he just fire her? I mean, Joe is in tight with MSNBC's rabidly right wing CEO, Phil Griffin. Joe got Kieth Olbermann suspended without pay, and he has editorial control over who goes on Kieth's show (Markos of DailyKos is forbidden from MSNBC thanks to Joe and Phil) so if he wanted to fire his assistant for pushing White House talking points, he could.
Good observation.
And here's what I observed: World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat)(and 90% of professors are too). So the survey bashing Libertarian-leaning FOX viewers is as unsurprising as a Microsoft-funded survey showing Google Chrome is insecure. BOTH surveys are meaningless bullshit, not worth the paper they are printed on.
Commodore64_love's posts are 70% libertarian and 90% conservative. He is biased so you don't need listen to anything he says, even if it is true. His posts are meaningless bullshit, not worth the electrons they are displayed with.
You sound a little hot under the collar. Maybe you should chill out.
Joe Scarborough is a host on MSNBC. Phil Griffin, the head of MSNBC, is rabidly right wing. There are no liberals at all on Fox News. MSNBC hosts a few shows that have a liberal bias. The network itself is not liberal.
Hahaha, really? You don't think there are other sources out there saying the same thing? Here:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Critics-Slam-Fox-News-for-Distorting-Global-Warming-Debate-71473.html
Yes, I'm sure "Tech News World" are all a bunch of socialists...
The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
And you think that any other 'news' shows are any different?
Yes, I do. I don't think that other news shows' editorial staff makes specific decisions on the wording to be used on every story covering a particular issue, like global warming or health care reform. I do not think any other news source has ever stated in a memo that reporters are never to use the phrase "The public option" and must always refer to it as "The government-run option."
So you've never heard of the innocent people whose lives anonymous has ruined, "for the lulz?"
They're definitely activists and they do have convictions, although they can change from one day to the next (maybe this is why they seem like a "fuck up their shit" group to you). Remember it's not one coherent group, it's basically a flash mob of whoever cares to act at the time.
And once a few get taken down, the rest will cease to care enough to act. That is my prediction anyway. The people with real convictions don't act and organize through 4chan. They have their own organizations, ones that are not associated with random Internet hate crimes and child pornography.
People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.
Bullshit. The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
I'm just going by what I've seen. If my generalizations don't apply to you, great, I'm happy for you. They still apply to the majority of anonymous, just based on the behaviors I've seen from the group.
A violent, hate filled mob of idiots is still a violent, hate filled mob of idiots even if a few of its members are upstanding geniuses. Although one must question why an upstanding genius would associate with a mob of violent, hate filled idiots.
In closing, let me add that a violent, hate filled mob of idiots will continue to think of itself as a group of upstanding genius freedom fighters, even after it has been pointed out to them that, to the outside world, they appear to be a mob of violent, hate filled idiots.
Anonymous are bullies, not freedom fighters. Like all bullies, once they feel a little pain themselves, they will give up. They are not activists. They have no convictions. They just like to fuck shit up. Not "fuck shit up for a good cause." Just "fuck shit up, and if it happens to be for a cause, whatever."
Anonymous are complacent cowards, they have no real beliefs or convictions that might give them the courage to continue fighting after a few of them are taken down. After they realize they are not anonymous once a subpoena is involved, and they can go to jail, the members of anonymous will find better things to do with their time.
A government is just a group of individuals. Individuals have property rights to the public property they share ownership of. They have a right to use the roads and sidewalks. Yes, people have a right to free speech. But that does not give them the additional right to use their free expression to harm others. Having a bunch of people taking up the sidewalk and roads harms the individuals who use those roads and sidewalks. When they refuse to schedule their protests, the protesters are stealing from the other citizens. In some places, the citizens have decided that free speech is more important. In other places, they have decided they want protesters to schedule their protests in order to reduce the harm the protesters cause.
It sounds as though you are saying the citizens of a town or city do not have rights to control the public property they collectively own. I ask again: does an individual have the right to control speech on their property? If not, please provide your address so I can come blast "Louie, Louie" outside your house at 4 in the morning. If so, then citizens of a city have the right to limit where, when, and how protests occur on the property the collectively own and control.
Or perhaps there should not be publicly owned and controlled property, and all protesters can either protest on their own property, or they can ask permission of the owners.
I'm not a peasant, I'm the co-chairman of our autonomous collective. Uh, 'till Friday, anyway. We switch up executive powers on a rotating basis.
You also do not have to "give in" to the mob. You just have to make sure that there ain't enough people pissed enough to reach critical mass.
This is the reason we have a middle class, rather than just serfs and masters, but the masters seem to have forgotten this fact and appear to be actively working towards the elimination of the one thing keeping the people from rising up and slaughtering them. They seem to have forgotten the real reason for noblesse oblige, which is basically that we will kill you if you push us too far.