Board 8 > man slowly bumps into protesters blocking intersection, injuring nobody [video]

(+) Yeah! (+)

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Your sister should probably take another route home as Philadelphia has more than one street.

You think that the number of people who protest in Philly are just going to cover one street?

They sure as shit won't cover all of them.
---

I got bumped by one little car and my mom got scared
---

We did it boys we are all heroes today
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

This manner of protest deliberately pushes people away.

but hopefully not with a car
---

"i would be a lefty if I wasn't super petty"
---

SmartMuffin posted...

left-libertarian political philosophy explained

Does not giving a shit about every internet dude's super original opinion make you left?
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

She says she hates them and does not care what their causes are at this point.

I don't hate them and I also do not care what their causes are because it has 0 effect on me

If you sister could click a button and give the protesters what they want so they stop, would she do it?
---

Imagine believing you're important enough that getting where you need to go is more important than other people's safety.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Imagine believing you're important enough that getting where you need to go is more important than other people's safety.

Imagine believing that your political preferences are important enough to delay hundreds of thousands of commuters, costing the city tens of millions of dollars of lost productivity.

The protesters have 100% control over their safety and can completely guarantee they won't be run over by getting out of the fucking road.
---

People who are in favor of this style of protest: Have you ever been in a traffic jam?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Imagine believing that your political preferences are important enough to delay hundreds of thousands of commuters, costing the city tens of millions of dollars of lost productivity.

is taking a different road than the one where the protesters are that big a deal? philadelphia must be a weird city.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Imagine believing that your political preferences are important enough to delay hundreds of thousands of commuters, costing the city tens of millions of dollars of lost productivity.

is taking a different road than the one where the protesters are that big a deal? philadelphia must be a weird city.

You don't know they are there until you're already stopped. And then the person behind you is stopped. And then you can't get out until they leave (or until some hero makes them leave)
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Oh yeah both sides were equally bad. That's an epic and intelligent position that no one has ever heard before.

Imagine the self esteem one must have to make this post when their entire posting style is "never take a stance for either side, instead just make masturbatory jabs at everyone so no one can actually engage you in discussion"

Anyway I don't understand why either side being more bad particularly matters. Both of them being in the wrong is a concrete stance on the discussion. I don't think either side did a super terrible thing, despite both sides being idiots, so trying to determine which side is slightly more in the wrong is kind of a waste of time-- and that's saying something considering this whole topic is kind of a waste of time.
---

Lopen posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Oh yeah both sides were equally bad. That's an epic and intelligent position that no one has ever heard before.

Imagine the self esteem one must have to make this post when their entire posting style is "never take a stance for either side, instead just make masturbatory jabs at everyone so no one can actually engage you in discussion"

Anyway I don't understand why either side being more bad particularly matters. Both of them being in the wrong is a concrete stance on the discussion. I don't think either side did a super terrible thing, despite both sides being idiots, so trying to determine which side is slightly more in the wrong is kind of a waste of time-- and that's saying something considering this whole topic is kind of a waste of time.

I mean shm closed his account so at least something worthwhile came of it.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

People who are in favor of this style of protest: Have you ever been in a traffic jam?

I don't think anyone's saying it's cool and fun to be the person in the car in this situation. I'd be annoyed too, but that's also sort of the point. If they protest off on their own somewhere where they're not bothering anyone then no one will notice.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Imagine believing that your political preferences are important enough to delay hundreds of thousands of commuters, costing the city tens of millions of dollars of lost productivity.

is taking a different road than the one where the protesters are that big a deal? philadelphia must be a weird city.

You don't know they are there until you're already stopped. And then the person behind you is stopped. And then you can't get out until they leave (or until some hero makes them leave)

Stop applying sense. They swarm the roads and then when you think you can go one route, you can't. And everyone is trying to figure out where to go. Everything gets jammed up.

foolm0r0n posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

She says she hates them and does not care what their causes are at this point.

I don't hate them and I also do not care what their causes are because it has 0 effect on me

If you sister could click a button and give the protesters what they want so they stop, would she do it?

I don't know, I should ask her and probably get a response of "Why are you asking me such a stupid question?" To which I would go "I don't know, some douchebag trying to make a dumb point asked me to ask you that."
---

If SHM closed his account over this topic I can indeed agree this topic was not a waste of time.
---

I've been in Atlanta traffic a million times and I'm perfectly fine with it. It just means you go slower and are less likely to be in a horrific crash!
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I don't know, I should ask her and probably get a response of "Why are you asking me such a stupid question?" To which I would go "I don't know, some douchebag trying to make a dumb point asked me to ask you that."

So basically she's admitting that it isn't the what or how, but that she's a bitch for no reason and is just looking for a reason to be upset.

At least if she can't answer a simple question.
---

Maybe you should just abandon driving entirely. Walking would lower your odds of dying in a horrific crash.
---

Lopen posted...

Maybe you should just abandon driving entirely. Walking would lower your odds of dying in a horrific crash.

but that just increases the odds of dying by being run over by a slow moving car!

nowhere is safe
---

It'd be less horrific though. Probably.
---

Your body slowly crushed while you're burned by a hot exhaust?
---

Lopen posted...

Imagine the self esteem one must have to make this post when their entire posting style is "never take a stance for either side, instead just make masturbatory jabs at everyone so no one can actually engage you in discussion"

lol this is laughably wrong. foolmo is (arguably) the most hardcore libertarian on the board. as far as politics goes his stances are incredibly firm.
---

Yes Lasa I know you think foolmo has some profound meaning in all of his posts, we've gone over this. You're just as wrong as you always were.
---

ah libertarianism, the most epic and intelligent position that nobody has heard before

foolmo isn't libertarian.

He's true conservative.
---

I mean it's not like "being a libertarian" magically means you know what someone's stance is going to be on any given topic anyway. I'm not even talking politics I'm just talking... posting in general. You can keep trying to horoscope some sort of meaning out of every statement he makes because you have some sort of respect for his posts (probably because he doesn't correct you when you misunderstand his point unlike most people, because that would involve actually taking a position) but perhaps if he wasn't always spouting pseudointellectual drivel you wouldn't need Lasa to explain everything he says.
---

Lopen posted...

Yes Lasa I know you think foolmo has some profound meaning in all of his posts, we've gone over this. You're just as wrong as you always were.

what the actual fuck is this post?

i've been reading foolmo posts since day 1 in the freedom topic (i should point out again that i've never seen you there) and in all those years i've never, ever seen him compromise on his libertarian beliefs. he's extremely consistent.

and your response is "LOL YOU THINK HE HAS PROFOUND MEANING IN ALL OF HIS POSTS"?

1) no, i don't think that. in the discussion you're referring to i backpedaled and said "well yeah, he obviously shitposts from time to time too." nice to see that that apparently didn't register with you at all.
2) what on earth does his shitposting have to do with my post? just because he shitposts doesn't mean you're not hilariously wrong about him "never taking a stance on anything."
---

I mean, the fact that you take "never takes a stance on anything" to literally mean never pretty well explains why I say you're really bad at understanding what posts mean to begin with. (and why I take your interpretation of foolmo's posts to mean next to nothing)

95% of the time foolmo's posts are shitposting. So I guess only 95% of the time he's a hypocrite. If that's conceding the point then okay.
---

Lopen posted...

I mean it's not like "being a libertarian" magically means you know what someone's stance is going to be on any given topic anyway. I'm not even talking politics I'm just talking... posting in general. You can keep trying to horoscope some sort of meaning out of every statement he makes because you have some sort of respect for his posts (probably because he doesn't correct you when you misunderstand his point unlike most people, because that would involve actually taking a position) but perhaps if he wasn't always spouting pseudointellectual drivel you wouldn't need Lasa to explain everything he says.

ok so you're just going to be an asshole again.
---

Lopen posted...

95% of the time foolmo's posts are shitposting.

completely untrue.
---

yeah, have you considered he might just have a shit personality?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

yeah, have you considered he might just have a shit personality?

uh duh
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lopen posted...

95% of the time foolmo's posts are shitposting.

completely untrue.

It's trending towards true.
---

You can have a shit personality and still make salient points in the open. Hell that's me half the time.

I mean you clearly disagree, Lasa, that's fine. I'm just saying I don't take you particularly credibly on this topic given our previous exchanges and what I've observed from you as far as interpreting posts from him and many other users, so your continued attempts to white knight foolmo will continue to fall on deaf ears.

I mean I must point to the fact that you took 'always' completely literally in my post as rock solid evidence that you kinda have a bit of a block on this. I'm sorry that makes you defensive, but that's not really me attacking you as much as an honest assessment of your ability to absorb context, tone, and pretty much anything that's not the literal posted words in posts. So yeah, the fact that you of all people are trying to claim that you can understand the guy's point in significantly more than 5% of his posts, I can't possibly take it seriously. I feel you're just projecting because you have respect for the guy (for whatever reason). Sometimes your projection is probably even correct, but frankly that doesn't even matter. The whole point of contention isn't whether he has concrete stances, but that the guy is a complete hypocrite for casting aspersions upon someone not clearly taking a side on anything, cause he does that probably the most of anyone on this board.
---

foolmo might shitpost but it's pretty clear what his position is even when he does. Like are you really reading his posts in this topic going "yeah here's a guy who didn't take a stance on either side"? His stance is pretty fuckin' obvious.
---

Lopen posted...

You can have a shit personality and still make salient points in the open. Hell that's me half the time.

More like half of that is you, all the time
---

Not really. You've got a somewhat clear picture of what he doesn't approve of. That's not really taking a position. That's pretty close to exactly what he was calling pseudo intellectual, actually.
---

60% of the time, foolmo shitposts all the time
---

Lopen posted...

Imagine the self esteem one must have to make this post when their entire posting style is "never take a stance for either side, instead just make masturbatory jabs at everyone so no one can actually engage you in discussion"

How is "driving a car into people is terrible and anyone defending it is an idiot and anyone equating it with protesting is especially an idiot" not taking a side?

"It doesn't matter cuz both sides are bad" is an argument that carries absolutely 0 information. It provides no information about you, and it doesn't provide anything for anyone to agree or disagree with. Actually it does do 1 thing: entrenches dichotomy-based thinking, which is the worst thing to happen to ever debate and argumentation. There's no reason to make a post like that.
---

Lopen posted...

I mean I must point to the fact that you took 'always' completely literally in my post as rock solid evidence that you kinda have a bit of a block on this.

i didn't take it completely literally.

i know you meant "the majority of the time" and i'm saying that's bullshit too.
---

This is what happens when you have me blocked all the time and only read my posts through other people's quotes
---

Actually, no, there's information there, because there's more to the topic than "herp this side is more dumbs than this other side" and I in fact think that's a pretty minor part of the discussion.

A lot of people think that it was completely acceptable to protest in that way. I disagree with that.

A lot of people think it's completely terrible to drive a car at 3 miles per hour into people. I also disagree with that, because it's 3 miles per hour.

The fact that I don't think either one is particularly heads and shoulders more terrible than the other doesn't mean there's no information there. It in fact has a lot more direct information given than again, 95% of your posts. Like imagine if you stopped posting when you had no clear information contained in your post. You'd probably have like 8 AMP.
---

Thank god we have Senators working to make these people in legal terms part of the road...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

Seginustemple posted...

ah libertarianism, the most epic and intelligent position that nobody has heard before

This is fair tbh BUT I do pretty much never say that I'm libertarian, partly because of the connotation that you describe (same with atheist), partly because I prefer saying "conservative" and trying to change that word back to its actual meaning. I do identify as libertarian and I would say so if you asked me, but I would never exclaim it.

If I have a position or opinion or something I would never say "____ because I'm libertarian", for example. I also wouldn't say cliches like "____ because that's not the role of government" or "that violates the NAP", unless I was specifically talking with other libertarians. There's just way better ways to phrase things to sidestep people's preconceived notions and be more persuasive.
---

Like I do legitimately think the guy has a lot more in common with the angry mob than anyone will admit, as I said in my first post in the topic. They're both ruffling feathers in a bit more direct a manner than they should feel they have any right to, but both doing it in a way that I consider to be technically peaceful protest.

You can blow what the guy did out of proportion to try and feel more justified in defending the right of the people to protest, but realistically, the fact that the guy could on fluke run over a guy's foot while very slowly inching forward at 3mph doesn't hold much more weight than the fact that the protesters could have on a fluke screwed with some emergency situation in a potentially harmful or even deadly way with their blockage of the traffic routes. There was no direct intent to cause harm on either side-- they were just trying to accomplish their goals effectively, but without hurting anyone.

And they both did it in stupid ways. Ideally, protesters are protesting in a way that makes them less of a dick to people who aren't necessarily against, or maybe even for, their cause, and doesn't potentially disrupt things like emergency response time. And ideally, the man doesn't drive at them and lets the police handle it when idiots protest like this.

But trying to take a side? I think trying to say puke smells better than crap conveys less information than saying both of them smell bad, given the premise that many people in the discussion are trying to claim they don't mind the smell of one of the two.
---

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Seginustemple posted...

ah libertarianism, the most epic and intelligent position that nobody has heard before

This is fair tbh BUT I do pretty much never say that I'm libertarian, partly because of the connotation that you describe (same with atheist), partly because I prefer saying "conservative" and trying to change that word back to its actual meaning. I do identify as libertarian and I would say so if you asked me, but I would never exclaim it.

If I have a position or opinion or something I would never say "____ because I'm libertarian", for example. I also wouldn't say cliches like "____ because that's not the role of government" or "that violates the NAP", unless I was specifically talking with other libertarians. There's just way better ways to phrase things to sidestep people's preconceived notions and be more persuasive.

Lol what is this libertarian shit
---

TheRock1525 posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

It is already illegal to block traffic. When you do you should forfeit any and all criminal and civil rights to court.

It's also illegal to remove the tag on a mattress before it gets to the consumer, clearly those people forfeit their rights and should be shot.

No, but if a vehicle ran them over while they were breaking that law (forced to because of it somehow) I'd have approximately 0 mercy for them and they again should forfeit all criminal and civil action.