Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Pretty disgusting right?
pick on internet stroke victims or something?
Profile picture: http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1969/50/108/518975346/n518975346_5488258_9837.jpg
About me: I love israel
J to the E to the W to the I to the S to the H
most recent groups joined: ''?? ????? ??'' sur votre statut en support a Israel et a Tsahal, SOUTIENT AU SOLDAT D'ISRAEL POUR QUI RENTRE TOUS VIVANT DE LA GUERRE , I Support the Israel Defense Forces In Preventing Terror Attacks From Gaza, SOLIDARITER AVEC NOS FRERE EN ISRAEL QUI RECOIVENT LES BOMBES DE GAZA etc.
and xxxxxxxxxxxx:QassamCount Jan 6, 2009: Hamas fired 34 rockets & mortar shells at Israel, bringing total to 8621 since 2000. Donate your status: http://qassamcount.com/fb.via QassamCount -on Tuesday
Dunno why, but I'm really uncomfortable about people gettin'all p0l1tic4l on facebook. Doesn't really seem right.
Can people not have different things to protest about?
they read anime
not everyone who goes on 4chan read anime, you racist
the israel protest thing is futile anyway - do a bunch of students think they're going to be able to stop what's been going on for three zillion years by traipsing around westminster smoking rollies?
the more you ridicule and alienate a religion, the less inclined people are going to be to get involved in it.
mind you - there are other religions which are far more dangerous than scientology, but you're not really allowed to protest against them.
So they could be dangerous to people with psychological disorders if they persuaded them that they didn't need medical help.
it's just a ridiculous money-making scheme, like those "get rich in five days" scheme things. Only more interesting.
It said so in the Mail today.
i genuinely don't believe that ridiculing scientology will make shit different. look at where scientology thrives - california, and yeah, it's strongly associated with hollywood (not just through tom cruise et al but beyond). they're the kind of people who don't give a shit about what the proles think so long as they watch their movies (and they still do). actually, yeah. if everyone started boycotting john travolta and tom cruise and other scientologist actors' films, well, actually, i don't think it would make shit difference
I agree with your sentiment that it won't make much of a difference, but I still agree with what they're doing.
they should be aiming their protests elsewhere, though. definitely.
scientology gets way more flack in the media in comparison to islam or christianity. All are equally bullshit and should be treated as such.
students and their fucking protests.
it's no wonder people hate us so much. we come to their cities from our pretty little suburbs, shouting the odds about what people should believe and who people should vote for.
The crowd was much more diverse than a "bunch of students". I assume you're making your assertion from your prejudiced imagination, which makes it null and void.
Do you think that protesting about this is going to make any difference to anything?
Snuck one in there though. I'm as coldly deterministic about these kinds of things as I think it is humanly possible to be. I have fairly set views about power relations, and I also think that the apparent success of the protest will be quite negligible and, perhaps in your view, futile. I however have no problem with people making themselves politically visible in any situation, and I haven't yet reached the point of ruthless cynicism where I would pour scorn on such an action (like a lot of people on here).
masks? Or is the guy who plays V (Hugo Weaving) a Scientologist? Or am I missing the point? What is the point?
They have members all over the world (well, I'm guessing so, I saw some in New York) who go around protesting against scientology. I think the V masks are just a generic way of anonymising themselves - presumably that mask is quite easy to get hold of.
hundreds of these impassioned people rallying against something obviously worthwhile were within 20 yards of 4 or 5 internet cunts all dressed up outside the scientology building. Pathetic.
is responsible for (and this is why they wear the masks), plus the fact that they have donated several gifts to the City of London police, pretty serious questions about freedom of speech and protest are raised:
Massively important world event involving continuing daily killings of civilians
some thing you heard of between the child porn and lolcats on 4chan
could you not just... have a day off out of shame from protesting scientology
I went down to the local Waterstones and ordered a copy through them out of curiosity, and was told there was ONE copy of this book in the whole of the UK. Strange. Turns out, my copy was blocked from getting to me with no explanation, despite the fact I was told there was a copy to be ordered and that doing so was okay.
This changed my perception of Scientology from being a harmless, money-making cult scam with Tom Cruise attached to something a little bit more dangerous. The minute information is censored like this (and god help me, I can't remember the last time its happened here, even over Islam), is frightening as all fuck.
It's true that other religions (though Scientology is a cult, and should be discussed separately) have things to account for, but I think the difference here is that Scientology is both open in its affairs and intensely secretive at the same time, and its influence comes through in really unsettling ways, like how they can so easily censor anything they do not agree with. Nothing good can come of Scientology being around, that's for sure.
I'm not about to run around with a V mask on - I have never attended a protest in my life - I do recognise, from my own experience, that the church is really quite sinister, and the people who DO protest have a legitimate case against it.
That's pretty impossible to dispute, I'd imagine.
I'd like to have a go at getting it myself, just to see what happens.
There are hundred of protest worthy issues in the world today, Scientology being one of them. If you feel passionately enough to make a stand about any of them, good luck to you.
No, because the war in Israel is something that can be tackled with some cooperation from both sides. Once that war has stopped, perhaps Israel would be happy to donate the money it no longer needs for defense on other things, like tackling AIDs.
I mean really, it's unlikely anything worthwhile can be done until a country's populace are as happy as possible; why spend their tax money on something that doesn't improve their personal welfare.
I really need to learn how to make bombs.
I have absolutely no intention to blow anybody up or be involved in anyone being blown up. So don't arrest me. Kthnx.
They only exist cos the participants feel like a communal back patting is in order
Protests can and do form an important part of the process by which citizens can express their dissatisfaction with the policies and actions of their government. So what if protesters are sometimes smug, back patting smelly hippie losers? Doesn't make protest inherently ineffective or unimportant.
probably should have gone with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom
as well as stupid and very selfish.
And seriously, if you can't come up with an argument within the last 40 years, I don't think you can make much of a case for them being effective now, can you?
it's an example. The argument stands, regardless of whether the example is 40 years old or not. I used those examples because they involved particularly appalling government policies and particularly well know, so they make my point more forcefully.
You really do have a big fat (metaphorical) hard-on for authority don't you?
It's completely irrelevant. Authority is mostly a very good thing, yes. Obviously when bad people have it damage is amplified. But it should be desirable, anyhow.
I do think that you believe authority is desirable for its apparent good consequence rather than being inherently desirable. Is slavery acceptable to you? The master has authority over the slave. Is this desirable? If authority is inherently desirable, then slavery is desirable, right?
get a new line you detestable twat.
mind answering the question?
I'm talking about STATE power here. Not individual. If you can't grasp that then I'm not even going to bother.
and not just "authority", but anyway. the question is still valid even if you are talking about state power, since it is not inherently desirable either.
I think it was pretty clear. And no, the question isn't still valid. Unless you want to talk about state slavery. Obviously I don't agree with that. I'm not saying authority should be uncapped. I'm saying, as far as government goes, it should be very strong, but strictly for the purpose of being beneficial to the country and citizens.
But people only protest when they feel that (on a particular issue) the government isn't working for the purpose of being beneficial to the country and citizens.
That they're not completely stupid, and are aware of the facts. If the government isn't acting on something, then then there's going to be a reason for that. Remarkably enough, they have actually heard of all these issues. If they don't act, or act just to a certain extent, then there's a reaosn for that, and fools shouldn't pressure them into doing something stupid because they decided their view should completely override what's actually best.
It would suprise you to find out how many government (and opposition) policies are decided on the basis of how they play with focus groups.
The idea is to make so many people aware of an issue that enough people register their dissatisfaction for the government to think (or realise) that it is in their interests to change their policy.
It's also incredibly naive (there's that word again!) to assume that the government does actually know best. Protest forces them to question their policy, whether or not they then change it.
It always becomes hysterical if it doesn't start off that way. It's still trying to make government act. And that's completely wrong. Government decisions should be made purely on facts, and feasibility etc. One expert's advice to government, is worth far more than a few hundred shouting idiots outside.
the protestors don't believe that the government is making decisions based 'purely on facts, and feasibility etc.', that's why they're protesting.
When it comes down to it though, public protesting is just one facet of campaigns - most of the 'experts' to which governments listen are by and large lobbyists from different interest groups.
And what I'm saying -should- happen with government are different things. I'm not pretending things are run to how I'd like thm to be currently. Or that they ever will be.
You're saying that a government should ideally run the country in the best interests of the people and country, but that it actually doesn't.
And that protests should be banned because the government should be left to get on with what it's doing.
Have I got that right?
And I think it more or less does, but not completely. Short-term and popularity-boosting measures are again problems with democracy. So democracy in that sense very much encourages ineffective government, bad measures, and not acting in the country or peoples best interest.
Certainly in terms of what we could have within this structure. But it's certainly not the ideal.
I know that what I want isn't going to happen. And if I thought it was possible, the way to go about it would certainly not be through protests. There are other ways to make change. If you're not capable of doing them, either what you want is unachievable, or you're too stupid for your views to be of worth anyhow. For me, it's the former. So I wish for it, but I accept that's all it's going to be.
which you disagreed with
When talking about a state, it is. When talking about individuals, generally not. Are you having difficulty with that?
The purpose of a state is to govern and protect it's people. The best way of doing that is to have a lot of control. Things get done better and more effectively that way. Protests and such like are not productive, and give people the idea that their views as individuals are more important than any collective aim. It's just people thinking they're far more important than they are, and that their opinions are worth far more than they are. It's completely misguided.
But I'm kinda tired. You can probably pick out the basic points anyhow.
so you're saying that the state is the only/best means of carrying out its purposes? And therefore it is desirable? Am I right here? If I am - that's a consequentialist justification, so you're not really showing the conclusion you want. And using the old chestnut examples of say Stalin's Russia, which illustrates that state power can be used for a lot of harm, could we say that such a state is not desirable, whereas a state which governs well and does little or no harm would be desirable? Or was Stalin's USSR a desirable place to live by virtue of it being a society governed by state power (even if you could live a safer life in Somalia right now)?
The desirable should be a fairly authoritarian state, sure. There are limits as there are with everything. There are examples of it not working, as there are with everything. I'm not saying that some megalomaniac oppressive person should be given free reign to do whatever they want. But the ideal, is for a government to use such powers for the benefit of the people, because it would be far more fair, and far more objective. If you're just arguing that point, I don't really see what else you want me to talk about?
most if not all states are "fairly authoritarian" at the very least, i was just questioning you to try and get your position clarified. thx mon. not gonna argue on whether the desirable state is the more authoritarian state, because it depends upon what you think benefits the people. personally, i'd go for freedom, but horses for courses innit?
So this is completely impossible. And, no it's not, it's people who know what's best and people who don't.
and not with my diction
Even 'experts' disagree. The interpretation of 'facts', or rather the interpretation of what policies result from 'facts' is not absolute.
It can be interpreted/acted upon in different ways, but those different ways, will to varying degrees, be either right or wrong.
You're basically saying that the State is imperfect, but that it knows best and should be left alone to make decisions as it chooses.
Is that right?
But then I'd only want that if it was a government I approved of in power. And -everyone- would want it if it meant a government they approved of being in power. So that doesn't really mean much.
Why do you value trivial formalities over what is best for the country. Seems kinda foolish...
would by that virtue be a government which is not "best for the country", and would coincidentally be a government which by that virtue i would be opposed to on principle. benevolent dictatorship is still dictatorship, and it's only benevolent for so long.
besides, i'm not talking about representative electoral democracy specifically, because in its incarnation in most western "liberal democracies" it basically sucks, but I am talking more generally about "government" consisting of the participation, direction and consent of "the governed".
Good for you. I'm going to sleep now. Good night.
dear god you're a moron
about every single thing in the world ever? you must be the most disconnected person in the world, i can't imagine what you'd be like in real life
If we take away ideals, and what I'd like for a government, and look at just what we have now in this country,
I believe that Labour are by far the best party, I feel that having the Conservatives in power would be very bad an destructive. Therefore I would obviously want Labour to be in power whatever the cost. What's the point in saying "this is who's best for the country, and the other party will be very bad for the country, but hey, if they win, that's fine". It makes no sense at all. If you think something is right, but would accept the other, then you obviously don't have much conviction in thinking that.
Ordinary people should only be political, and should only seek to influence the state once every five years, on a date determined by the state, in which they get to vote for one of three (perhaps four) parties with pre-determined policies.
But it certainly minimises damage.
not the same
but saying that protest is inherently unimportant implies that the views of anyone BUT people in authority are complete nonconcerns. which i'm sure you don't think.
what's the worst that could happen
you're in for a long, depressing, and ultimately pointless internet debate.
What's that got to do with anything.
That comment is so beyond ridiculous I don't even know how to counter it. If there were no protests issues would be far more fairly represented/addressed. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that? It's not like people stopping protests would leave to the government deciding to cut anything beneficial to the people, but I'm sure you don't think that...
Even the most ridiculous liberal couldn't disagree with any of that. It's not even as complex as common sense. Protest distorts issues and priorities massively - that's fact.
that issues are presently unfairly represented/addressed.
It's very naive to assume that any change to the current situation would make it less fair, and it's very arrogant to presume that there is a definitive order to these things.
that the issues concerning the people who mostly need the representation get drowned out by the middle class / young people. I get that it's not always that, but by and large there are people who protest, and people who don't, and those groups tend to have very different priorities. Even within that there's some issues which are far more 'attractive' than others. Plenty of important issues are things that people don't want to take to the streets with signs about.
It could be argued that the most responsible citizens are those that hold their governments to account by raising these issues.
So whoever shouts the loudest wins? That's a real good idea. Moron.
earlier you were arguing that protests were completely ineffective. So are you saying that protests are simultaneously utterly ineffective, yet at the same time insidiously pushing other "more important" issues (which you've very helpfully failed to mention) off the agenda (you also haven't explained how this process works)? You're going to have to justify that, because it's seems to me pretty incoherent.
They pressure the government into taking short-term or crowd pleasing action which is almost always not a great way to tackle the issues being protested. It's very rare, certainly if we're looking at recent (even semi-recent) times, that genuinely beneficial, proper and planned action has been taken as a result of such pressure.
So unless the people protesting have the aim of obscuring other views, I see it as ineffective and futile, sure.
"If there were no protests issues would be far more fairly represented/addressed."
I can't see any reason why that would be the case. If protesting is so unimportant and ineffective then why would stopping it produce any net effect? And where does "protesting" end and "legitimate means of dissent" begin in your opinion? Do you just mean banning people from strolling about with catchy picket signs?
"It's not like people stopping protests would leave to the government deciding to cut anything beneficial to the people, but I'm sure you don't think that..."
The ability to protest is beneficial to the people, firstly, because, well, I could go on but some bloke wrote a book about it in the 1800s and he put it a lot better than I could do here. And secondly, if people could not protest then they wouldn't be able to protest against governments cutting anything beneficial to the people. They do do that sometimes, you know.
There are far better and fairer ways of the government deciding which issues are most important to tackle. The best and fairest would be to ban protest/pressure groups. I explained why above.
No it isn't. Not as a whole. It's beneficial to various causes, and hugely detrimental to many, many (often far more important) others. I know it won't ever happen, but if I was creating an ideal government, the ban of such things would certainly be part of it. It's destructive and unfair. And, as much as this in itself isn't such an issue, but just because the people who do it argue otherwise, really quite undemocratic.
it's pretty obvious PocketMouse is a character, and that she's basically trolling you. She may be a real person, but this persona she's created is complete fiction, and if you look at her posts, you'll soon realise that's the truth. Don't keep arguing, she's about to get extremely immature and you'll ruin a perfectly good Saturday afternoon.
she sounds so earnest!
Obviously can't be real.
Not sure how you quite work that one out. But okay, I guess...
and they are actually the people I tend to agree with more, so your silly backhanded insults won't work on me.
If you want me, and others, to believe this is actually what you believe, make some fucking sense when you come out with your arguments. It would be a start and believe me when I'd be the first person to take your side, mummy.
And yes, some are left-liberal, or right-liberal. There's not really a great deal of difference there.
It's more the idea that you think that the right to protest is 'destructive and unfair' to the extent that you think it should be banned.
I'm not sure that there are many people beyond authoritarian dictators that believe that.
You probably don't hear about them because unlike others, they don't spend their time standing in squares and screaming that at people ;-)
but you don't make any sense half the time
If that's what you were aiming for, congratulations?
and why does it matter that I don't think you make much sense? I can't speak for everyone. Keep voicing your opinion, you entertain people if nothing else and everyone deserves to be heard.
like I admire CG_Allin and Chevy/Doc_Brown. An excellent wind-up merchant and a dynamite character! No one uses the insult 'moron' more effectively.
and she isn't trolling, it's all genuine in my opinion.
And you're not a troll, or anything other than really, really pathetic. Deal with it.
not really much need for that imo
When somebody is so intent on being a total moron.
it shows that I was such a great troll, that people beleived I was genuinely a complete twat.
"orange" "revolution" "ukraine"
not reading this thread on a saturday and anyone doing so should be ashamed of themselves. but yeah, prettygr8example of protests forcing a decent change. sigh. BYE GUYZ.!
left in a better position had yanukovich had been elected?
forking hell pretty incredible scenes.
i'm doing doing this.
But I'm sure a much more carefully planned, better orchestrated change would have been possible. Instead of it all being a pretty major screw up. Which it has been. And, let's face it, it wasn't exactly a bunch of people standing in the streets that changed things. It gave the press some nice front-page photos, but that wasn't what changed things. It was part of it, sure, but it could have succeeded without that. It has, for the most part, been a failure, so it's not a good example to use for protest bringing about worthwhile -and- competent change.
and go punch beck until he renounces his 'faith' and send him to unite israel and palestine. he looks like he'd be a good negotiator, he has kind eyes.
but I bet it's pretty fuckin' heated
also: add "odyssey" to my list of whiny annoying people with nothing to say for themselves
It's certainly got an silly premise. It makes absolute sense that Anonymous should seek in the way they have, to make a link between a belief system based on a bunch of illogical mythical bullshit and Scientology.
Don't you have an essay to hand in?