I know. They're asking for it: a link. I'm a sucker... must say what baited to say blah blah blah blah liberals blah blaming the victim blah blah if a conservative said that about a woman blah blah blah blah she was asking for it blah blah wearing that
December 12, 2012
Gawker tells Steven Crowder to "stop whining, take your licks, and accept that getting hit in the face is a hazard of inserting yourself..."
"... in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies. In exchange, liberals will buy you a band-aid for the cut on your forehead and re-iterate that Punching Is Bad. Sound good?"
I know. They're asking for it: a link. I'm a sucker... must say what baited to say blah blah blah blah liberals blah blaming the victim blah blah if a conservative said that about a woman blah blah blah blah she was asking for it blah blah wearing thatsmirking look short skirt on his face her female body blah blah....
I know. They're asking for it: a link. I'm a sucker... must say what baited to say blah blah blah blah liberals blah blaming the victim blah blah if a conservative said that about a woman blah blah blah blah she was asking for it blah blah wearing that
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
289 comments:
1 – 200 of 289 Newer› Newest»in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies
That's two ands. Can a thing be between 3 things?
Not the same, liberals *like* to victimize people, it appeals to their unacknowledged inner savage. They are taunting Crowder and enjoying the show.
Well, Glenn Reynolds favors the option of Crowder putting up Glenn's $1,000 reward money, to go to the union of the thug's choice if the thug is man enough to square off for a fair fight:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/wanted-protester/comment-page-1/#comment-396875.
I think most people would go with Instapundit on this one. Popcorn, please.
Gawker = Typical Liberal Douchbaggery.
people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies
At least they've made an objective and reasonable evaluation. You'd think that since they recognized the harm union heads and their enablers create they'd be more sympathetic to Crowder, but oh well.
3, 2, 1...
Trolls Defending Gawker
Coming Soon!
Gawker? They've lined up about every obnoxious NYC based troll and given them all bylines. So WTH did you expect? They ain't the Nation, TNR, or the New Yorker after all. It's bad enough you're always picking through the NYT's style section for discussion here but f****** GAWKER? No sympathy.
I think that's the same advice they gave Patrick Moran's girlfriend.
I need conservatism because liberals only teach classes on "how to avoid getting punched by union goons", instead of "don't punch people"
Is Gawker a union shop?
MSM: It never happened. Crowder faked it.
Gawker: It happened and we're glad and he deserved it.
White House spokesman: Next issue.
White House spokesman(sotto voce): Good job!
Finally, Gawker gets some traffic.
Crowder should have been carrying a big ol' novelty gavel through the protesters.
You protest too much. Crowder was, after all, wearing a short skirt.
So basically the left is saying their brownshirts can use whatever tactics they want as long as they say the other side are 'billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues'.
Dang.. I didn't know I was a 'billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologue'! Silly me, where did I put all that money?
Or am I a 'wooden-headed political ally' (well I vote but I'm not in office.)
See that's the thing. They just call someone what they want and their thugs appear.
Hitler did the same thing with his SD. But keep in mind once the SD had served his purpose he got the SS to liquidate them (like Marx, he knew what a useful fool was.)
Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally and harassed some union guys and got punched in the face! WHHHHAAAAA.
LOL.
Justice Kennedy would like to point out that Gawker's moral feelings against the insatiable greed of the super-rich will not pass rational-basis scrutiny.
Are you watching the deterioration? Fen's law is now in charge, and whatever you were berated about being a principle or a virtue was total bullshit. Wining, power, and theft - those are the guiding principles.
You fools who voted in the Grand Poobah of broken promises , lies and total bullshit are the reason. You fell for it at least once, if not twice, and are directly responsible for it all. You rewarded every lie, deflection, race baiting, and the general destruction of reason, discourse and logic for some emotional stroking of your own soft fur with a soothing: "good girl, you are really good girl, and so tolerant". Accept responsibility now at least, even if you didn't when it mattered.
Men with clubs at voting locations; mobs chasing and threatening legislators while their colleagues run away to avoid their duty; TV personalities wallowing in sick jokes about the sex lives or the children of women conservatives; shitting on police cars, fouling public parks and walking away, and on and on.
Now naked obvious violence in the street is just part of the way we treat each other in this brave new world, where we reward ever more disgusting behavior overwhelming in the name of one political party. Don't ever try to tell me "it doesn't matter - the parties are both the same." Bullshit!
Is getting punched in the face a common occurrence in some people's lives?
people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened
This is dire. Some of these guys don't seem to have a whole lot of stability to spare.
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
Althouse treats that common-sensical saying as on par with, if you wear a short skirt you might get raped. But then not too long ago was the idea of Scalia-as-teacher. The comedy knows no bounds.
Reminds me of the Imam's "cat's meat" statement from as couple of years ago. Gawker must be a big fan of dehimmisim.
What would Gawker's bitchy response be to Clint Tarver, who had his hot dog stand destroyed by epithet-spewing thugs?
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2012/12/12/union-thugs-demolish-clint-tarvers-iconic-lansingmichigan-hot-dog-cart-photo-donation-link/
Now, Tarver IS a Romney supporter. He's also African-American. Gonna have to consult your Book of Politically Correct Violence on that one, Gawker.
meanwhile, bagoh20 continues to rehearse lines from Atlas Shrugged.
If Crowder had fought back, he would have kicked that little man's ass, right before he was killed by the mob. He still would have been blamed by liberals for his own death.
Crowder was on Fox last night and challenged the guy to a refereed fight with a prize to be paid to charity by the loser. The asshole should show up and be taken directly to jail. It could have easily cause serious injuries or death if people decided to defend themselves.
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
Althouse treats that common-sensical saying
be careful about establishing rules you can't live with.
"Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally and harassed some union guys and got punched in the face! WHHHHAAAAA."
This is a good distillation of the "she asked for it" defense.
I guess Dan Savage will be the Lefties' Ernst Rohm.
harrogate said...
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
Althouse treats that common-sensical saying as on par with, if you wear a short skirt you might get raped. But then not too long ago was the idea of Scalia-as-teacher. The comedy knows no bounds.
As Double Aught Whatshisface once observed, "That's assault".
In the immortal words of somebody, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
Never read it harrogate. I don't read books. Other people write them about me. I already know how it goes.
Oh, and I'm certain that the first thing Lombardi will do on his triumphant return to Earth is line up guys like GM and punch them in the face.
If I make a bit of contrarian point here re the media--it seems to me that most media folks simply do not understand the rest of the public gives a good goddamn about their status (shrinking as it might be). Women who go into Arab countries thinking they wont be molested; TV reporters who stand in the middle of hurricanes to "report." And yes, conservative reporters who go into the cesspool of union thugs to report. I am sorry and I dont suggest these fools deserve what they get--but at some point people have to be responsible for their own safety.
This diatribe is in no way a justification for what happened in Michigan (or Cairo, or Hurricane Sandy). Merely because one is member of the "media" confers no special rights. There are people out there who wish you harm, and if you dont realize that, then you are a fool.
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
You explain why this bill will destroy someone's livelihood, and I won't declare your post liberal talking point drivel, deal?
Hey X,
I didn't establish that rule. I'm not even endorsing it. There are lots of things that are true that I don't endorse. I can critique them or even rail against them if I'm pissed enough, without torturing logic in the way AA does, here. Her post is more of the, "I don't like something so therefore it cannot be true" variety.
It's very Dr. Frankenstein, in its way.
You can link but I don't have to go. ;)
Union goons also trashed a man's hot dog cart for the crime of feeding capitalists. No doubt he deserved it, and also deserved to be called racial slurs on account of he was a black man making a buck with his own business and hired to feed capitalists.
There is a donation portal at the link so he can get a new cart.
If the guy was from out of state and traveled there to commit violence, that might make him a terrorist under to The Patriot Act. A nice subpoena of his emails might prove enlightening.
Punching people is A-OK so long as it's done in the pursuit of money, saith Mr. God-You-People-Are-Ugly.
How is this destroying Mr. Punchy's livelihood?
Why do we care what Gawker says?
If the guy was from out of state and traveled there to commit violence, that might make him a terrorist under to The Patriot Act
Who are you talking about? Crowder, or the union goon?
bagoh20,
Here's what's fun about your last comment: you think it is doing one thing, but it is really doing almost the opposite.
"If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you."
If that's reasonable for destroying someone's livelihood, what is reasonable if you believe that someone is trying to destroy the nation?
Just how much violence do you propose, harrogate?
Synova,
I suggest you either stop being a liar, or add another reading-intensive class to that courseload of yours. I didn't propose a goddamned thing.
Other than that, your comment shows real insight though.
Gawker and Garage fall right into the trap they don't even know exists. Good job dupes.
I suggest you either stop being a liar, or add another reading-intensive class to that courseload of yours. I didn't propose a goddamned thing.
She was only using your stated logic on you. That makes it a legitimate question. Why don't you grow a set and answer it?
Gawker has a point. If you're facing a bunch of union thugs you need to be equipped with more than just a smile and a pair of raised eyebrows. You'd better have a tire iron stuck down your pants leg, and a few dozen friends behind you with tire irons and baseball bats.
Astro: 45 ACPs locked and loaded are much better for short range combat
So all those bondholders who lost their money to the UAW should have punched them out, because that would have been excusable.
Of course, President Obama did not stand with them.
Or...maybe people who are the targets of higher taxes should start punching people.
There's no need to control yourselves from committing violence. There are truisms at play here, people! Deal with it.
harrogate... you defend the guy as reasonably provoked because of his personal belief that his livelihood is destroyed.
Lots of people have sincere beliefs that new laws or policies or politicians or parties are a genuine threat.
What do you propose as reasonable? If this guy getting violent is reasonable, what of the person who sincerely believes that Obama is a socialist out to destroy America?
I'm not saying that I think that, but I know that some people do think so. And if a violent reaction based on the belief that someone has, through politics, hurt you in a material way... it goes to follow.
My reading may be poor, but your thinking things through wins the prize.
You explain why this bill will destroy someone's livelihood
The thugs in question probably do stand to lose a bit from the undermining of their price-fixing cartel.
When your take-home pay gets reduced, that means your livelihood has been destroyed. But only when it's reduced by competition; if it's reduced by taxes, that only means you've been asked to contribute your fair share.
Callahan comes from the "answer my idiotic question. why are you dodging questions???" school of question asking. It is very Sean Hannity. Here, I'll help, Callahan: Often, AA commenters like to use the question "do you still beat your wife" to get a handle on the elementary school point you are missing.
A Hurricane has no legal or moral duty to behave itself, nor does a mob during a revolution, but people expecting the protection of the law need to be held accountable, and criticized by the rest of us when they act like animals with innocent people simply asking questions.
Nobody should be making excuses for it. Crowder knew what he was doing had risks, but that in no way diminishes the fact that it should not have come to violence, and should be called out when it does.
If I call Steven Crowder a slut, will Obama give him a supportive call?
(the other irony is that Obama said he'd march against RTW wherever it emerged. But he's not really doing anything)
So I guess the next time a liberal walks into a conservative rally he should expect the same? Check.
Synova,
You could of course look at my comment the other way and say I "dehumanized" the union people, treating them instead like red ants or bees. If you fuck with them, they'll attack, sort of thing. But who ascribes "reason" or "reasonableness" to bees or ants? But wait, I've gone too far. Now Synova thinks that MUST BE exactly what I meant, because I said it.
While you pretend that you care enough to actually be thinking about this conversation. Please save room to take into account that I only made one actual claim, ventured one actual opinion. Which is that Althouse's analogy is as dumb as a bag of hammers.
bagoh20--I agree in principle with your position--but the evidence as far as I can see that the expectation that the law will save you is totally misplaced. I wish it were otherwise. The law will simply not defend you.
"Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally and harassed some union guys and got punched in the face! WHHHHAAAAA."
"Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally in a short, tight skirt and got raped! WHHHHAAAAA."
"Here's what's fun about your last comment: you think it is doing one thing, but it is really doing almost the opposite."
Damn, I'd make the perfect Democrat voter then.
Crowder interviews people and asks them questions and they say dumb things in a way that shows they think they are smart because they voted for Obama.
I couldn't do it.
I'd feel guilty making people look stupid, even when they are stupid.
And I wouldn't ever answer a microphone stuck in my face because I know that whatever I said I'd sound like an idiot.
That said... "stupid people on the street" is legitimate reporting and no one is forced (just like I wouldn't be) to open their traps and sound like morons.
Nor does it excuse any person in that crowd who decided they weren't accountable for pushing down a tent or punching someone because they were simply so *justifiably* angry.
They could have made their case to Crowder on why "right to work" is bad, or if they knew they'd only sound stupid trying, they could have ignored him and he'd have nothing but a lot of footage of people saying "Back off!".
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
Besides the mismatch between "someone" and "they", the fact that "destroy...livelihood" is witless hyperbole, and the fact that Crowder didn't vote on the right to work bill, there's nothing wrong with that statement except for its amoral dismissal of political violence.
harrogate said...
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
I guess all those auto workers had better watch out for the buggy whip thugs.
The thugs in question probably do stand to lose a bit from the undermining of their price-fixing cartel
Say the guy in a government job. And in a union, right? Nobody ever accused cons of being consistent on anything though.
Fatty McGoo says:
Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally and harassed some union guys and got punched in the face! WHHHHAAAAA.
So the ability to engage in assembly and expression in a public space expressing an opinion contrary to others is harassment now? The union doesn't own that space. They do not have a monopoly on first amendment expression just because they bleat the loudest on that day.
Fuck you for condoning the union actions.
And for good measure, fuck you too Harrogate. You don't seem quite as unredeemably retarded as garage, so all the more shame on you.
Please save room to take into account that I only made one actual claim, ventured one actual opinion.
that Crowder was trying to destroy fatso's livelihood isn't an opinion?
Ah, a target-rich environment...
In no particular order...
Harrogate:
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
OK, that's true, but not terribly helpful. That also explains why drug lords kill law enforcement personnel, and why the Taliban fought back.
The more meaningful question is whether the livelihood of being a union goon is something the state should help along; and whether it's right, at some point, to stop helping that livelihood.
Meanwhile, there are folks whose livelihoods are denied by union officials under the present laws. Do those non-union folks get to punch union bosses in the nose? When does this happen?
Gawker:
Super-rich and super-powerful vs. poor little unions.
Yeah, everyone knows how powerless unions are.
Underlying this is the assumption that political battles are really and only about power struggles, and whoever's less powerful has presumed moral superiority.
Well, obviously politics is about power--but is that all its about? Is that all we want it to be about? And if we condone political disputes migrating to physical ones, why not just skip the attempt at politics?
Just have folks punch each other in the face. See who brings more folks. And more weapons.
Nice world Gawker and Harrogate want to bring us to.
Crowder pulled off brilliant reporting in getting the union to show its true colors. All the bullshit union "workers" propaganda was defanged. These are thugs more akin to brownshirts than the honest working man.
Yes, harrogate, the other option is dehumanization.
Poor dears just aren't responsible for their actions.
Garage has been going down that road since yesterday.
I don't agree, however, and I don't even think that the violence is because Obama and other political leaders, some explicitly, sanctioned a violent reaction.
I will suggest, that like Benghazi, the assaults in Michigan will be forgotten in weeks. That is a pessimistic statement, but the American public's attention span is very very short. What happens on blogs stays on blogs--it doesnt make it to the public's attention--that the American public gives a damn.
Fr Martin Fox,
Well put.
Let's see...
And then there's Garage and others playing the Claude Rains role, and exclaiming shock, shock! at claims of union thuggery.
Now Synova thinks that MUST BE exactly what I meant, because I said it.
I'm sure Synova is aware that as you're a progressive, there's no reason at all to assume you mean what you say.
harrogate said...
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
The left apparently believes that returning someone to the same status as the rest of us is "destroying their lives".
No doubt garage will be right along to mock the absurdity.
bgates,
I am not amorally dismissing political violence. Like a lot of people, I have my opinions on that, and like almost everyone who has opinions on that topic, I am not always consistent. John Brown engaged in political violence, Thoreau screamed out his support for political violence. Of course, the terrorist act on 9/11 was political violence. The Haymarket riots were political violence. And so on. Most people will come to different conclusions about the validity of the use of force, in each of those cases.
I am only acknowledging that, in some ways, this incident was indeed an act of political violence. And therefore not at all like a rape. In other words, I am stating the obvious.
Here's Hopi g someone takes a crowbar to Gawkers dumb mouth and bashes him in the face till all his teeth are knocked out and his mouth is nothing but a hole of gore. Metaphorically of course.
Seriously though, if someone were to punch Gawker out, I'd be ok with it. Knock him out cold. And leave hIm a band aid.
Metaphorically of course.
Or maybe not. Next time I hear about any counter protest at a tea party event I just hope a tea partier brings a crowbar and bashes one of those interlopers in the face. Metaphorically of course.
Or maybe not.
' The law will simply not defend you."
Certainly not if we don't demand it. We need to demand it, or it will get worse.
Mommy, mommy, I attacked a guy because his political views hurt my feelings and it turned out that he had a concealed weapon and he shot me in the chest. It hurts!
Synova, good God. You totally did go with the "dehumanization" path. You're still not seeing my point, which is fine, but pretending that you see it and continuing to talk as though you do, even after I spelled it out, makes for caricature.
Blogger edutcher said...
" I guess Dan Savage will be the Lefties' Ernst Rohm.
harrogate said..."
Just like Ernst in every way (wink), if you know what I mean.
I see a bad moon on the rise.
Scapegoating out of control on all sides on all fronts.
The bad times are sucking the life out of just about everybody.
Although we all want to think that we can analyze this on a rational level, I think that something profoundly irrational is beginning to take control of all of us.
Blood lust. Somebody's got to pay.
I don't even think that the violence is because Obama and other political leaders, some explicitly, sanctioned a violent reaction.
I think people's ability to control their behavior increases proportional to the degree to which lack of control hurts their cause. Right now, since left-wing violence generally goes unreported in mainstream media, there is little incentive to tamp down violent urges.
If such violence was reported and hurt the union cause, the union would see to it that its members control themselves. And party leaders would see to it as well.
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
Bloomberg suggested that occupy Wall Street was trying to destroy jobs in the city
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/08/us-usa-wallstreet-bloomberg-idUSTRE79704W20111008
Get the firehouses out next time. Have the demonstrators be met with hammer and knives. You ok,with that garage?
As an act of political violence, though...
...Crowder wins. AFP wins.
So does the guy who's hot dog stand was destroyed.
So, as an act of political violence it was stooopid. The goons have put the "goon" back in union.
I think that in some cases this would be called an unforced error.
Fr. Fox,
I appreciate that comment. Sincerely. it is measured and cutting at the same time.
And, you're exactly right: what I said about threatening someone's livelihood and the consequences that mounting such a threat brings, I was not offering a "terribly helpful" comment on the question of whether or not the threat is deserved, or the response is morally justifiable, or any of that.
Instead, I pointed out that ridiculousness of the rape analogy. Such analogies fuck up the possibility of reaching the sort of conclusions that you seem to want to reach, through measured evaluation.
Fr. Fox, do you see anything in my comment that shows I want to bring more violence into the world? Or that I support political violence at all?
let me return a minute to Benghazi--recall the outrage on this blog--and what precisely has been the outcome of that outrage? nothing
In two weeks this contretemps in Michigan will be equally forgotten--lots of outrage, but NOTHING will come of it.
the outrage expressed on blogs simply does not get to our political class, who, regretably will do nothing about it. We are truly fucked.
harro is right.
he suggested Crowder was asking for it and that's totally different than suggesting a woman in a short skirt was asking for it.
"Synova, good God. You totally did go with the "dehumanization" path. You're still not seeing my point, which is fine, but pretending that you see it and continuing to talk as though you do, even after I spelled it out, makes for caricature."
You're reading into what I wrote every bit as much as you're claiming I'm reading into what you wrote.
I said garage was going the "dehumanizing" route all yesterday as he explained again and again how these guys simply couldn't help themselves they were so distraught.
I said I disagreed with that and that I hold them accountable for their freely taken actions and that I don't *even* blame the politicians preemptively condoning the violence.
Synova, you write:
"So, as an act of political violence it was stooopid. The goons have put the 'goon' back in union.
I think that in some cases this would be called an unforced error."
From what we have seen so far, it certainly looks that way. Rarely if ever do such acts "help" or prove "smart", however.
X,
You're a goddamned liar for saying I suggested Crowder was asking for it. Thus, you fit in well around here.
So really harrogate... are you saying that Crowder didn't deserve to be punched for provoking someone who felt his livelihood was threatened and the hot dog vendor didn't deserve to have his livelihood destroyed because he was feeding free market capitalists?
If people are misunderstanding you, perhaps you're not being clear.
Gawker should put his money where his mouth is and fight Crowder. Stand up for your principles in the ring while crowderk knocks you silly. We'll even provide the band aids.
Crowder did offer to fight the guy who sucker punched him in lieu of asking for charges be brought up, but I'm thinking Gawker would be the better target.
Yesterday's Dilbert was a bitter comment on the nastiness of the current climate.
Yes, I see a bad moon on the rise.
The hardness of the times is gradually depleting any stock of goodwill that we once had to draw on.
Individual survival is all that remains.
Let's continue this thought-experiment, prompted by the cynicism expressed so well by Harrogate and Gawker: it's only about power.
If that's only the thing we care about, then why should the presumed weaker side have moral superiority?
After all, once that side becomes more powerful, then the morality shifts, right?
And in any case, why should anyone who isn't a billionaire, or someone whose livelihood depends on keeping union dues compulsory, pick the side Gawker favors?
"If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you."
Whos lively hood is being destroyed?
It is sad to see that mob rule has its ardent defenders (including those in the Michigan legislature and the White House). No speaking unless we say so - or else you get a punch in the mouth. We are closer to Venezuela than I could have imagined.
In response to Democrat Douglas Geiss' threat from the Michigan House floor that, "There will be blood," and the mob violence that occurred, it's time to revisit the thuggish face(s) of Big Labor Democrats:
Bob Etheridge, Mike Capuano, Richard Trumka, Jimmy Hoffa, Gordon Hintz, Elizabeth Warren, Michael P. Meehan aka "The Coakley Thug" and Democrat THUG-IN-CHIEF, Barack Obama.
http://networkedblogs.com/Bzo6A
In response to Democrat Douglas Geiss' threat from the Michigan House floor that, "There will be blood," and the mob violence that occurred, it's time to revisit the thuggish face(s) of Big Labor Democrats:
Bob Etheridge, Mike Capuano, Richard Trumka, Jimmy Hoffa, Gordon Hintz, Elizabeth Warren, Michael P. Meehan aka "The Coakley Thug" and Democrat THUG-IN-CHIEF, Barack Obama.
http://networkedblogs.com/Bzo6A
Yes, Synova, except that the only reason I mentioned the "dehumanization" point was to show that my comment only stated a fact: if you do A, then B might happen. It doesn't mean you were "asking" for B to happen. It also doesn't mean that B "had no choice" but to happen. So there's that.
Facts and claims, facts and claims. Think sometimes about the difference between them and you will float lighter and righter.
Dilbert has really been crushingly on target as things unwind.
Another bitter comment on where we now stand.
I'll repeat... I see a bad moon on the rise.
Just about everybody I know has been pushed to the limit of his or her tolerance for pain.
So we're now allowed to punch people we feel are threatening our livelihoods?
Is that a standard the regulation loving left really wants to set?
I imagine that Barack Obama deviated last night from his regular viewing of recent drone kills to watch his union thugs beat down Steven Crowder. After all, they were following his marching orders.
harrogate said...
X, You're a goddamned liar for saying I suggested Crowder was asking for it.
harrogate said...
If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you.
well I'll be goddamned.
Roger J,
In two weeks this contretemps in Michigan will be equally forgotten--lots of outrage, but NOTHING will come of it.
I beg to differ. In two weeks the laws in Michigan will give a large number of people the choice whether to contribute to unions, or to not. This is indeed something, and a very important something.
Give it two years, the left may try and vote out some of the legislators, they may even try to recall Snyder. But the genie is out of the bottle, and once people have a taste of not having that vig forcibly extracted out of their wages, its tough to put it back in.
Which is why tubby and the rest of the union stooges are so butt hurt today.
And all fat for some reason. Harrogate, are you overweight as well?
Synova,
One more time. I didn't say whether anyone "deserved" anything. I just noted the badness of AA's analogy and you wrote all sorts of things onto that and now you and others are chasing a flock of snipes.
Father Fox--I submit you are wrong--once the power shifts to one side or the other that side will hold on to it. just my .02
Fr Martin Fox said...
Ah, a target-rich environment...
Another wingnut uses vivid imagery of violence to stir up the teabagger rabble.
I denounce the right's use of fighting words like, "I think you're wrong about that."
Don't start none, won't be none....
Instead, I pointed out that ridiculousness of the rape analogy. Such analogies fuck up the possibility of reaching the sort of conclusions that you seem to want to reach, through measured evaluation.
And instead of just stating your point directly, you intentionally made did so obliquely via a trollish comment, so that the thread would derail and give you the opportunity to condescend to others. Don't be That Guy.
Oh, those lovable liberals supporting choice. Choice to kill your baby but not whether to be able to work where you wish without joining a union.
Yes, Synova, except that the only reason I mentioned the "dehumanization" point was to show that my comment only stated a fact: if you do A, then B might happen.
Something always *might* happen.
But there was nothing about what happened here that indicated to AFP their tent would be torn down, or Steven Crowder would be punched.
That doesn't actually happen very often at protests, does it? And where it does, it is worth illuminating rather than ignoring. If it becomes the expected behavior, it must be exposed. Because it is not acceptable.
Whos lively hood is being destroyed?
If we change that to past tense, then one answer is "Dave Bing's".
Not by the Koch brothers, of course.
How is some ones livelyhood been threatened?
machine said...
Don't start none, won't be none....
And still lefties complain about the term "liberal fascism".
harrogate said...
"If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you."
You're so very right. Union officials and front office flunkies won't be able to automatically skim their salaries from the workers checks. Union officials and their flunkies are mortally imperiled.
Which is why tubby and the rest of the union stooges are so butt hurt today.
you guys are the ones going around crying like grade school girls that the tiny scratch on Crowder's forehead is like the holocaust or something. He went looking for a fight and got one. Quelle surprise.
Morsi is currently using rape because he feels his crony's livelihoods are being threatened.
I am only acknowledging that, in some ways, this incident was indeed an act of political violence. And therefore not at all like a rape
I see. You think that an act of violence is not at all like a rape.
harrogate doesn't seem to want to answer.
Getting punched is the result of someones levelyhood being destroyed, but he does not mention how this legislation is going to do that.
And Occupy Wallstreet did not report rape because they felt it would threaten their livelihood and stability.
Shorter garage mahal, "That wasn't a punch punch."
bgates thanks for illustrating the level of reading that is happening in the post and in many of the comments. take a quote, remove a crucial word from the quote as though it never existed, and then let the retarded interpretations begin.
garage, don't forget to tell us that the AFP tent was pulled down from the inside. That one's already a Garage Mahal Classic.
Harrogate, let me explain why I think your comment is not being understood the way you think it should be.
Take the terms out of it and state it in prepositional logic form:
If X, then Y.
Logically, the corollary is
If not Y, then not X.
One might also say that X is a sufficient causal factor for Y.
So, taking all this context into account, what you appear to be saying is:
"Destroying peoples' livelihoods" is a sufficient cause for them to punch you. Now, stated as a pure positive, that's unobjectionable. But stated *as all* as a normative, it is morally questionable. By failing to provide context as to how you are speaking, and particularly considering the topic, people reasonably read it in a normative context, and THAT is why you actually said what you don't think you said.
Punching someone in the face is a serious criminal act.
The fact that Crowder did not sustain more injuries is a good thing, not something that should be mocked.
Ask Trayvon Martin if it is not a big deal to assault people.
The labor market has priced itself out of a job. Unions brag that they did it.
Really the Pax Americana's new world order brought Chinese labor into the market at 10% of the cost of union workers in Michigan.
There is no bottom in sight unless American workers can accept pau cuts and use cheap American energy here to make manufacturing here cheaper than doing it in China and shipping it here.
Oops. Obama and his Neo-Malthusian allies want American energy costs to triple instead of tp go down.
I feel like I played a tiny role in developing the internet... one ant in an army of ants.
I kinda thought that the vast proliferation of communication would produce greater understanding and conciliation.
We're headed in the other direction. Hardening of positions on every side.
As you can see here.
Harrogate:
No, I don't take your comment as an endorsement of violence. It was, from that point of view, opaque. To some degree, it came across as a verbal shrug. Thus it raised questions, some of which I have posed.
"I am only acknowledging that, in some ways, this incident was indeed an act of political violence. And therefore not at all like a rape. In other words, I am stating the obvious. -- harrogate
Actually, you are wrong. The Left says that rape is about power. And they also say politics is about power. It follows, therefore, that rape = politics. Is this not obvious?
Personally, I want punch you in the nose. The Left also says that the personal is political. So, personal matters = politics = rape. I hope my personal wish to punch you doesn't make me gay, but I think not, because the Left also says rape is NOT sex. So, my wanting to rape you, must just makes me ... Muslim.
Or something.
jr565 said...
Here's Hopi g someone takes a crowbar to Gawkers dumb mouth and bashes him in the face till all his teeth are knocked out and his mouth is nothing but a hole of gore. Metaphorically of course.
Seriously though, if someone were to punch Gawker out, I'd be ok with it. Knock him out cold. And leave hIm a band aid.
Metaphorically of course.
Or maybe not. Next time I hear about any counter protest at a tea party event I just hope a tea partier brings a crowbar and bashes one of those interlopers in the face. Metaphorically of course.
Or maybe not.
Along these lines I wonder what will happen in the event of Matt Yglesias' untimely death. Should we announce that the world is a better place since the world would in fact be a better place without his demonstrated hatefulness? His own principles certainly say so. Should we do it to show the left how inappropriate such hatred is and give them an incentive to become decent people?
I partially think we should for this last reason, being a student of institutional behavior. But I can't accept it.
garage, don't forget to tell us that the AFP tent was pulled down from the inside. That one's already a Garage Mahal Classic.
Thank you thank you. But I didn't come up with it, people around the tent did. As I said, the Breitbart/Koch rentboys doing ratfuckery like that wouldn't surprise me a bit. Who knows.
Do I get to punch any SOB who advocates raising my taxes?
Maybe just throw some hot coffee at him.
Don't say shit that pisses me off and you'll be OK.
Roger J. said...
Father Fox--I submit you are wrong--once the power shifts to one side or the other that side will hold on to it. just my .02
Well, it's not worth arguing over, but I think you may have missed my point, which I'll try to restate:
If all that matters--again, ALL--in a political struggle is who is more powerful; and if, as Gawker's comments seem to suggest, the less-powerful is, therefore, the more moral party to the struggle, then by that logic, once the less-powerful becomes more-powerful, our sympathy must shift.
And that seems stupid to me.
I didn't come up with it, people around the tent did.
Well, it's delusional enough to be original w/ you.
You haven't watched the video, I see.
Stay ignorant. It's the only way you can cling to your beliefs.
garage mahal said...
you guys are the ones going around crying like grade school girls that the tiny scratch on Crowder's forehead is like the holocaust or something
Garage is whining that people spoke to and looked at the protesters funny. There's not even a word to describe how big a pussy he is.
I can't actually root for him to get his ass kicked, but if he does I'm going to laugh.
"Mommy! Mommy! I went to a union rally and harassed some union guys and got punched in the face! WHHHHAAAAA."
I think Crowder should charge the guy with assault. There's nothing at all normal about punching someone in the face even once. Four times is criminal. Face punching doesn't go on at protests no matter what the liberals think based on TV, the movies and their fantasy life. Protests are filled with shoving, name-calling, ripping up signs, verbal threats, and property damage - breaking windows and possibly starting fires. Face punching is the act of a criminal, not an angered citizen. It's another level where what happens isn't a protest, it's a crime.
Stay ignorant. It's the only way you can cling to your beliefs.?
I seen firsthand in Wisconsin, and chronicled about 15 last night, how the right operates. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can cry and play martyr quite like righties can.
I like unions like the NBA players union, the NFL players union, or SAG.
Those unions are more about the people at the top providing protection from abuse for the people at the bottom. Performance matters. The UAW is the opposite of that, as are many other unions. They are about the people coming in to support the old timers. Performance doesn't matter, it's just bodies and time put in. The new people are fodder.
Hey, now that we have Obamacare, everyone's treatment is free so whack away. Jungle Rules.
My money's on the conservatives. Predators by nature. Union thugs are fat wussy liberal herd animals. Separate them from their herd and rip their throats out.
Garage: Crowder should have punched back. That first guy was a wild swinger and wide open for an upper cut or a left cross if I remember the set up. I am with you on this one. You, being a big guy, would be the kind that gets sucker punched because the puncher wouldn't want you to hit first, but you probably know this from experience. I boxed as a kid and am very pro violence, pro fisticuffs. Crowder was a pussy doing all that arm waving, surrender shit. He should have flattened that lefties nose.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, can cry and play martyr quite like righties can - garage mahal.
Indeed, garage. And all martyrs are saints. Therefore, righties = saints.
And those who oppose them are ...
The Falcons?
garage mahal: "If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you."
Didn't you vote for President Clusterfuck, garage?
That's a pretty transparent attempt to destroy my livelihood right there, garage: Voting for a man who's put a target on S corps (also known as Fat Cats, and the 1%.)
Pretend you don't know what I'm talking about here. Act as though you have no idea that S corps pay taxes via their shareholders' personal income taxes.
So I guess I owe you a punch in the cock-sucker, garage. A word of advice: Find yourself a good plastic surgeon, expert in facial reconstruction. I'd wager that my fist alone weighs about as much as your head.
Just man up and take your lumps. Right?
Who's for an Althouse meetup? I feel like a nice scenic drive to Wisconsin.
Hooray for Billionaire rights!
I seen firsthand in Wisconsin
An' I seen video uddah stuff we're talkin' about in dis tread.
(It's "talk like a union thug" day, right?)
Harrogate:
I see the point you are trying to make, and I am fine with that: maybe the rape analogy is bogus. I skipped over that anyway.
That said, it occurs to me that one possible reason your point may have been misunderstood, including by me, is because of the context, provided by the thread and beyond:
> First, that the very issue of violence by union operatives is being treated as a joke, or as some sort of outlandish accusation;
> And second, because of the notion that the unions are the put-upon powerless weaklings who are being picked on by powerful interests.
I find these assumptions infuriating, and I am far from alone.
I don't know if this is helpful.
Hooray for Billionaire rights!
I'm pretty sure Crowder's not a "Billionaire", tho admittedly not certain of it.
Do I get to punch any SOB who advocates raising my taxes?
Next proest at the capital in Madison, we get to punch everyone, just to make sure we get the right people.
"Do I get to punch any SOB who advocates raising my taxes?"
You are supposed to understand that getting union negotiated benefits without paying dues is abhorrent, but getting taxpayer benefits without paying taxes is progress.
Union dues is a special Democrat tax that members pay on top of their other taxes. It's how Dems show love and friendship - by taxing you.
Garage,
You really are silly with this false flag accusation.
I've been on this earth a long time and unions have always been know for their violence.
Do you really expect us to disbelieve our own eyes and long experience, to believe that these particular union guys are as meek as girl scouts?
I, for one, welcome these new rules, that allow us to use violence as part of our public debate.
Maybe leftists should reconsider, given how much better-armed our side is.
You, being a big guy, would be the kind that gets sucker punched because the puncher wouldn't want you to hit first, but you probably know this from experience.
You think Crowder got sucker punched? Maybe I'll have to watch it again.
Find yourself a good plastic surgeon, expert in facial reconstruction. I'd wager that my fist alone weighs about as much as your head.
Just man up and take your lumps. Right?
You're certainly welcome to try.
You are supposed to understand that getting union negotiated benefits without paying dues is abhorrent, but getting taxpayer benefits without paying taxes is progress.
Just highlighting this. Truth.
Garage: Looked like it to me, but then it was a shitty sucker punch, ineffective. Crowder can obviously take a punch so he should have punched back. He was trying to get beaten up on t.v. He should have beaten up the leftie on t.v. More entertaining and then we would have been able to see your pussy whining reaction which would have been worth it.
Maybe these "union" guys, garage, who alledgedly did these "violent" things, were Tea Partiers.
I mean, they were incredibly fat and stupid. Right? What else could they be but redneck Tea Partiers? I think we have all the proof we need.
Great! I'll have a contract ready that you can sign, legally absolving me of any responsibility for the various surgeries and dental work you'll need.
Pasta:
Who established or embraced these "new rule" you speak of? You might relish the thought of engaging i political violence, you might be only having fun, or maybe it's a bit of both.
More than anything, I am saddened by the whole spectacle of where we are going as a society. The elevating of "efficiency" as the highest social value by those who have the power to do the elevating, we see it more and more.
And the thought that hitting someone or shooting someone or blowing someone up is a proper response to this distortion of values, or that it can do anything to halt the distortion, or do anything positive at all even in the short run? An ignorant, dangerous, "stoopid" thought.
More entertaining and then we would have been able to see your pussy whining reaction which would have been worth it.
I wouldn't whine. Crowder would have every right to take this guy downtown. But he didn't, and I don't think Crowder could have taken the old timer if he wanted to.
I'm actually surprised by the lib commentariat's unwillingness or inability to denounce the behavior of this mob. Instead, a handful of them show up to make complete fools of themselves while the others simply stay away.
The truest lefty slogan ever seems to be by any means necessary.
In the future, pls spare us your "the people have spoken" bullshit when a vote goes your way.
"More than anything, I am saddened by the whole spectacle of where we are going as a society." - harrowgate
Sure you are. Good for you, champ.
Garage: I am afraid you are right. I believe Crowder to be a pussy, one of the majority of men in our country who has never been in a fist fight and who probably thinks that is what makes him a more civil man than the leftie who hit him. I take the opposite approach. I believe that since we turned from fists to handguns we have suffered as a country, become pussified and feminine. If you have never felt a face on our fist or a fist on your face the whole idea of violence is an abstraction an intellectual toy. Having fought and lost, or won, you have some sense of the humanity of the giving and the receiving end. As I said, I am very pro fisticuffs.
"I wouldn't whine. Crowder would have every right to take this guy downtown. But he didn't, and I don't think Crowder could have taken the old timer if he wanted to." - garage mahal
I would have to agree with you there, big guy. There was clearly no chance the other union thugs would have piled on that fookin' Canuck. None at all.
And by "union thugs" I mean "Tea Partiers"
I'm sure Gawker's employees are unionize, right?
"Nobody, and I mean nobody, can cry and play martyr quite like righties can."
Today's Daily Projection brought to you by "people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies."
Call the waaaambulance.
This is nothing, really. I'm just not seeing anything except the slow agonizing desuetude of unions. They were useful, yes, but it's no irony the Wisconsin teacher protester had to go back sixty years for items on her list of useful things unions did to advance society. I was pretty sure there are more recent things but I couldn't think of any right off.
They bussed those round boys in for that, and that's all they could come up with. They pulled the same shit. The same droning. Same phrases. Same droning, same drowning out rational thought. Crowder put himself right smack in the middle of that and all that happened was his tent was pushed down and he was punched in the face. Bad, yeah, but he wasn't killed. And it also shows why it's so easy to attribute that behavior to Tea party protesters. They're two completely different phenomena but how easy it is to say tea party people behave this way when all evidence is to the contrary, because they simply never do see beyond their own noses.
Until now. I'm telling you what I notice in Denver since Obama's second election. Minorities approach me and engage pleasantly. Almost aggressively were they not so nice about it. I'm seeing a gracefulness in all ways and extended common courtesies etc. They appear to want to prolong the engagement, and the apparently non-minority people appear to me perfectly satisfied. These things in the distant north and nearly alien east are anomalies that do not fit, and the seismic shifts they would indicate if we paid attention are all fine with us.
How the progressive universe works:
Post a stupid video online, get (falsely) blamed for causing the death of a bunch of people, get locked up. You deserved it, the law's the law, and posting the video was a parole violation.
Commit assault, on camera, over a political debate. Law shmaw, it's not like assault is illegal illegal, amiright? The assualtee is just a whiner who needs to get over it.
I'm pretty sure if the union dude rapes a 13 year old girl or orders a drone strike on brown people he makes it through to the final ballot for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm sure Gawker's employees are unionize, right?
Thread winner!
Gawker is a yuppiefied, mostly gay staffed operation. Gawker employees wouldn't be caught dead in a union.
Gawker is a well known employer (if you can call it employment) of that unpaid trust fund brat... the intern!
Let's clarify one point that gets repeated as if it were self-evident truth: that workers who refuse--or who seek to refuse--to pay dues, are "free riders," and pity the poor union that has the "burden" of carrying them.
False every which way.
First, unions have the option to seek "members only" contracts, in which they do not represent non-dues payers.
Now, the point may be made that there are disadvantages to this. No doubt. But that's not the same thing as saying they "must" represent everyone.
Second, let's challenge this notion that being the sole bargaining agent for everyone in a work-unit is a "burden," and if only the poor union could be shed of it!
Why assume that?
Being in the drivers seat for negotiations, and in making decisions for the employees, is very obviously a powerful place to be.
Even without the power to collect compulsory dues, that power alone is fearful in the wrong hands.
Which may explain why unions don't seek to be shed of the "burden" of representing non dues payers.
Finally, I guess it needs to be said: if someone wants to argue that the poor unions have no choice but to operate within the present legal structure, that's utterly laughable.
If the unions actually wanted a reform that assured them the ability to have members-only contracts, without ambiguity, does anyone seriously think they couldn't get that within 100 days?
Congress wouldn't pass it?
Individual states wouldn't pass it?
Now, that would be a very interesting battle: because it would be true that many large corporations would side with the unions: they often prefer the tidiness of dealing with one union rep, or a handful, versus something more wide open.
And that is a very interesting aspect of this: the extent to which big corporate interests line up with those of large unions, and the interests of individual workers, or particular subsets of workers, are actually not represented...at all.
Wasn't this all supposed to be about "workers rights"?
Lefties take to political violence the way hausfraus take to Fifty Shades of Grey.
And it's why harrogate went missing on this thread for 10 minutes. Welcome back, harrogate!
Nomen:
Well, maybe; or maybe Harrogate has another life beyond this thread. Imagine that!
No way, Padre.
None of you see the irony of a well known employer of unpaid interns carrying on like this?
I guarantee you that the staffers at Gawker are complete pansies, too.
And in a union, right?
Wrong. Not exactly a novel experience for you, I know, but wrong.
ST:
Oh, the ironies are too many to keep track of! That's politics!
That's not what Alanis Morissette taught me about irony, ST.
Poor oppressed union folk, who only ever want their rights ...
stomp on an old black man, upset his food cart, and call him a n*gger.
What it really shows is the left and modern unions contempt for actual democratic governance. They prefer mob rule through violence and intimidation to get their way, rather than pursuasion.
Poor oppressed union man who only ever wants his rights ...
backs down from a fair fight with Steven Crowder.
(Crowder offered to fight the guy instead of press charges but, erm, offer declined.)
Herd animals not so tough when separated from their herd.
Amartel:
You are more right than perhaps you know?
My point being that the union movement has a long, sordid history of disadvantaging minorities.
Obviously, in theory, "unionism" has its arguments. But it's so absurd when defenders of unionism pretend it's all a noble adventure. To listen to such folks, you'd think joining a union cleanses people of Original Sin.
Of course unions have been willing to negotiate wages for the non-union employees.
What good would it do the union to have a bunch of workers at the plant doing the same job for less money, with the promise of promotion for doing a good job?
So, let's look again at the lead-in, and balance it against the fact that Gawker employs trust fund babies as interns:
Gawker tells Steven Crowder to "stop whining, take your licks, and accept that getting hit in the face is a hazard of inserting yourself in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies.
So, what we have here are the children of those "billionaire-funded know nothing[s]" acting out their rebellion against their daddies.
Fr Fox,
Thats what bugs me so much; the pretense to selfless nobility for the Working Man, when the actual goals involve perpetuating violence and thuggery in order to maintain the flow of great big, heaping piles of cash, used to purchase elections and political influence.
Radical chic seems unlikely to ever die!
What is the goal of the radical chic poseur?
Getting laid!
Fr.
I would be curious your thoughts on John Paul II encyclical Laborem Exercens, particular the principle of priority of labor over capital as social morality. I actually slogged through a lot of it last night.
Kind of sounds like commie stuff?
Hello, fada! (Talk like a union thug day continues.)
Not more right than i know, just actually literally right.
http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2012/12/12/union-thugs-demolish-clint-tarvers-iconic-lansingmichigan-hot-dog-cart-photo-donation-link/
Ya ya. I need to learn how to link.
Damn that Crowder fellow for hitting that union thug's fist with his face.
Gawker seems to forget that the Unions support public policies which have caused inflation in all aspects of the economy, including health care. The consequences of which they were then subsequently compensated for through the exploitation of democratic leverage. While American citizens, and especially taxpayers, were forced to absorb the debasement their demands caused. The Unions are not a friend of American workers. The public Unions are not a friend of American taxpayers.
Gawker may also want to speak with environmentalists. Their policy of out-of-sight and out-of-mind does not help anyone. Their collaboration with other special interests to bypass environmental and labor laws harms the environment, somewhere else, and labor, both in American and abroad.
corey3rd 7 hours ago
There's a cut before the punch is thrown. Can't trust him that he didn't earn getting pounded.
He deserved "getting pounded". Now that's a philosophy garage can get behind - LET'S POUND CONSERVATIVES!
"If you try to destroy someone's livelihood, they might punch you."
You see that's all the justification one needs to dehumanize your opponent and pound him mercilessly into the ground. "He's stealing my job".
Union thuggery speaks for itself. It's cup overfloweth!
garage: "Kind of sounds like commie stuff?"
Nope, which is why garages commie pals in the Soviet Union got their commie pals from Bulgaria to shoot Pope JP.
Quick tip garage: when one side is shooting at another side, it's very likely they are not on the same side......
Given garages "performance" on the whole Crowder thing, garage will probably start arguing that the Pope got all "right wingy" and attempted to steal that innocent and mostly peaceful commies bullet by letting it hit his (the pope's) body.
I, for one, welcome these new rules, that allow us to use violence as part of our public debate.
Maybe leftists should reconsider, given how much better-armed our side is.
Luckily, we aren't nearly to that place yet. But, with the way things are going, might we be there sooner than we expect?
The left, and in this case, I include the union thugs in that category, depend on the fact that almost all of the right is invested in the community much more heavily than the left. Their origins are in the bourgeois, the middle class, and, esp. the more affluent parts of the middle class, and they have long been the foundation for stability, in our culture, and in many others. And, so the Tea Partiers picked up their trash, and the Occupiers defecated in public places, and the union thugs committed multiple acts of violence and vandalism yesterday in the name of their beliefs.
In this last election, we essentially saw the takers outvote the makers, voting themselves largess at the cost to the rest of us. When democracy fails the middle class in protecting what they worked so hard to acquire, at some point, there may indeed be violence, because the state is no longer protecting their interests, but rather is being used as part of a protection racket, skimming off the fruits of their labor for the benefit of the more violent and those less willing to work hard.
Post a Comment