Principia Discordia

Yeah, this is going to be popular here.   :lulz:

Fuck it, I was bored and have been thinking that there's a lot of back and forth on the tubes about this still and little of it seems to be talking about the victims of the riots.  The people who were murdered.  The people who lost everything they've invested their life, time and sweat and money to build.

(http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5148/looting2.jpg)

This one isn't a jab at you Cram.  Just another view.  I respect what you're doing, I just think it's a bit one sided.

(http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/157/looting1.jpg)

Actually it's more like People Killed by Police: 200

I mean, unless we're just going by the last two weeks.

And we can throw in People Killed By British Government in Foreign Conflicts: 100,000+

Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2011, 05:59:20 PM
Actually it's more like People Killed by Police: 200

I mean, unless we're just going by the last two weeks.

And we can throw in People Killed By British Government in Foreign Conflicts: 100,000+

I was just going by the spark that ignited the keg.  As long as there is a state, there will be killings by people acting on behalf of the state. 

--Pickle, preaching to the choir here

Well, the government has decided it has the moral authority to lecture the rest of the country, so I think including their actual track record is only fair.

Quote from: Cain on August 16, 2011, 06:05:34 PM
Well, the government has decided it has the moral authority to lecture the rest of the country, so I think including their actual track record is only fair.

And that's more than fair. 

More than they deserve even.  Now if only such protests took place against the government, we might be on a motorcycle before the beginning of the next century.

Riots are a symptom, not a statement. Tactically useless unless you opt to use one as a smokescreen for something organised.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
This one isn't a jab at you Cram.  Just another view.  I respect what you're doing, I just think it's a bit one sided.

Here is the point I'm making

when people reach the boiling point, something is wrong.

How they act when they reach that boiling point varies... sometimes it's a democratic protest, other times its flipping over cars and smashing windows. How they react is partly due to the environment. (what's that quote ... "those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable")

There are mechanisms in place whose job it is to neutralize these actions - to make them look like it's just a bunch of kids and greedy niggers.

My point is to juxtapose imagery of what people consider "legitimate" disobedience with quotes attempting to de-legitimatize the reasons people are rioting.

All the legitimate instances of civil disobedience in this country were blasted by the media at the time. That happens any time you rock the status quo. So I want people to be more skeptical of the media's handling of these things. The media's job is to make it into a story, a sound byte ------ but it's not as simple as that!

If you look at the london riots as a form of protest, it does seem very ineffective. It's just a bunch of unfocused rage. They're not using the "official and accepted channels" to change society for the better. By the law, they should have pursued legal action against the cops that killed Duggan. But the rioters don't think they can accomplish anything that way. What does that leave?

If your takeaway from this is is that the youth of London are irresponsible, you are both correct and missing the point.

Media has been the mouthpiece of the powerful for a long time and it's good to see it changing with alternate media sources (provided they aren't eventually shut down for "inciting riots" or "encouraging violence" or some other made up reason) available to people who want to go find them.  I don't hold out hope that suddenly people who prefer the Clockwork Orange method of getting their media will suddenly change, but then I can't be an optimist about everything.

I get exactly what you're doing and again it wasn't a jab at you or what you're saying.  I didn't want to muck up your thread with some cognitive dissonance from another view point and so I started my own. 

Rational support for the riots should have ended the minute people started to be murdered for defending themselves and their property from being stolen.  That doesn't mean I think the reasons should still not be dissected and discussion to happen about the rotting foundations that led to this.

this brings to mind an image
from our buddy Bobby Campbell:

(http://www.bobbycampbell.net/11/ANCIENT_CHINESE_SOCIO-ECONOMICS.jpg)

Saw that in the pic thread I think.  It posits that capitalism is a weapon used for killing people or at the very least, that death of people is it's only use or ultimate end.

I've read a bit of the Chaos Marxism stuff from the links you've posted (not sure if it's you who wrote it) and we're not going to agree on very much on the economics front.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
Yeah, this is going to be popular here.   :lulz:

Fuck it, I was bored and have been thinking that there's a lot of back and forth on the tubes about this still and little of it seems to be talking about the victims of the riots.  The people who were murdered.  The people who lost everything they've invested their life, time and sweat and money to build.

(http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5148/looting2.jpg)

Obviously, this sort of thing cannot be allowed.  We must find a way to make the rioters see the value of The Perfect State™.

Meant more along the lines of someone should tell them their doing it wrong.

Make a sign, with distance to the capital?

Point in the right direction?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 06:54:50 PM
Saw that in the pic thread I think.  It posits that capitalism is a weapon used for killing people or at the very least, that death of people is it's only use or ultimate end.

I'm not seeing the part of the image that says capitalism is only useful for killing people

What I see is that it's confusing to identify the real "cause" of violence,

and also that we are blind to some forms violence because they are inherent to a system we like.

QuoteI've read a bit of the Chaos Marxism stuff from the links you've posted (not sure if it's you who wrote it) and we're not going to agree on very much on the economics front.

wait - who's talking about chaos marxism ITT?

it's not my blog, and please don't assume that because I read a blog and occasionally x-post from it, I agree with everything Doloras says. I love the way she thinks and writes, but we do disagree on plenty.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:00:24 PM
Meant more along the lines of someone should tell them their doing it wrong.

Make a sign, with distance to the capital?

Point in the right direction?

Maybe they should write The Times.

Because, you know, following the rules has worked SO well for the last decade or so.   :lulz:

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:00:24 PM
Meant more along the lines of someone should tell them their doing it wrong.

Make a sign, with distance to the capital?

Point in the right direction?

out of curiosity, what do you think the libyan people should have done this spring? also nonviolent protests?

is there an appropriate time to flip over cars and break glass?

question two - the people who sparked the riots after Duggan was shot - what kinds of changes would they have accomplished if they had made signs and stood patiently outside of Parliament?

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:03:35 PM
question two - the people who sparked the riots after Duggan was shot - what kinds of changes would they have accomplished if they had made signs and stood patiently outside of Parliament?

As I understand the anti-terrorism laws in the UK, they'd have gone to prison, and that would be that.

It also assumes anyone in parliament gives half a tug on a dead dog's dick about people holding signs.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:00:24 PM
Meant more along the lines of someone should tell them their doing it wrong.

Make a sign, with distance to the capital?

Point in the right direction?

Oh fuck, did they forget to read Rioting for Dummies? As an American I can only envy that they care enough to hit the streets.

Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

I only ask, because from what i've read just here, Disco Pickle is not
saying they should cease all activity, but only that they should direct it
towards the proper persons.

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

I only ask, because from what i've read just here, Disco Pickle is not
saying they should cease all activity, but only that they should direct it
towards the proper persons.

I am of the opinion that it is the complacency and self-satisfaction of the people in general that allowed the underlying problems to occur.  Thus, the rioters ARE directing it toward the proper persons...The people that elected parliament in the first place.

QuoteI'm not seeing the part of the image that says capitalism is only useful for killing people

It mentions sword, club, sword, and system of economics.  All (supposedly) weapons used for killing.  At least that's how I read it.  Maybe using "only" useful is a bit too much.  

QuoteWhat I see is that it's confusing to identify the real "cause" of violence,

and also that we are blind to some forms violence because they are inherent to a system we like.

Hadn't thought of it that way.  The fact that he doesn't answer the question makes that easier to see.  Yeah.  I'm with you.  

Going back to the sword and club part, they are not inherently violent, but must be wielded with the intent to be violent.  They can also be used to defend from violence, to protect.

I'll give it some more thought.

Quotewait - who's talking about chaos marxism ITT?

it's not my blog, and please don't assume that because I read a blog and occasionally x-post from it, I agree with everything Doloras says. I love the way she thinks and writes, but we do disagree on plenty.

Didn't say we were, but since I had no other basis for comparison on what you think on the economic front ready, it seemed handy to mention it as a possibility, but I was curious as to whether you were the writer.  That question's answered.  Didn't mean to imply you were 100% with anyone.  Just didn't know.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:09:52 PM

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

I only ask, because from what i've read just here, Disco Pickle is not
saying they should cease all activity, but only that they should direct it
towards the proper persons.

I am of the opinion that it is the complacency and self-satisfaction of the people in general that allowed the underlying problems to occur.  Thus, the rioters ARE directing it toward the proper persons...The people that elected parliament in the first place.

And that is a damn fair argument.  I'm inclined to agree if I get a few Wiskeys in me.  But it's the murdering of those people that will turn EVERYONE against them, even the ones who started out sympathetic.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:15:08 PM

QuoteI'm not seeing the part of the image that says capitalism is only useful for killing people

It mentions sword, club, sword, and system of economics.  All (supposedly) weapons used for killing.  At least that's how I read it.  Maybe using "only" useful is a bit too much.  

Capitalism has always been built on stacks of dead bodies.  It's just that, until recently, most of those dead bodies were brown, and in unfurnished countries that nobody gave a fuck about.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:17:09 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:09:52 PM

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

I only ask, because from what i've read just here, Disco Pickle is not
saying they should cease all activity, but only that they should direct it
towards the proper persons.

I am of the opinion that it is the complacency and self-satisfaction of the people in general that allowed the underlying problems to occur.  Thus, the rioters ARE directing it toward the proper persons...The people that elected parliament in the first place.

And that is a damn fair argument.  I'm inclined to agree if I get a few Wiskeys in me.  But it's the murdering of those people that will turn EVERYONE against them, even the ones who started out sympathetic.

Hearts and minds can be a good thing, but scaring the shit out of everyone can occasionally be useful, too.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:17:09 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:09:52 PM

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

I only ask, because from what i've read just here, Disco Pickle is not
saying they should cease all activity, but only that they should direct it
towards the proper persons.

I am of the opinion that it is the complacency and self-satisfaction of the people in general that allowed the underlying problems to occur.  Thus, the rioters ARE directing it toward the proper persons...The people that elected parliament in the first place.

And that is a damn fair argument.  I'm inclined to agree if I get a few Wiskeys in me.  But it's the murdering of those people that will turn EVERYONE against them, even the ones who started out sympathetic.

It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:15:08 PMDidn't say we were, but since I had no other basis for comparison on what you think on the economic front ready, it seemed handy to mention it as a possibility, but I was curious as to whether you were the writer.  That question's answered.  Didn't mean to imply you were 100% with anyone.  Just didn't know.

it's all good!

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

You can't look at the riots like they're just this bizarro form of a traditional protest.

It's an emotional reaction being expressed by an extended social network.

It's not like they got together and made a list of the ways they could fix their environment and then picked the most logical option. They were mad and they had nothing to lose. The best question to ask is WHY did they have nothing to lose? And WHY was this a better option than a civil protest?

I am not condoning the rioter's actions - lots of innocent people were harmed, lots of damage was done, and lots of mistrust was built up. Surely it was not the most elegant way to respond to the death of Mark Duggan.



Let's not forget that the American revolutionary war was sparked by some irresponsible kids throwing snowballs at soldiers.

Let's not forget that the Boston Tea Party was initially dismissed as the act of a lawless mob.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 06:27:23 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
This one isn't a jab at you Cram.  Just another view.  I respect what you're doing, I just think it's a bit one sided.

How they act when they reach that boiling point varies... sometimes it's a democratic protest, other times its flipping over cars and smashing windows. How they react is partly due to the environment. (what's that quote ... "those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable")

I'm pretty sure that quote is JFK, and that he uses the word revolution rather than protest.

Very apt in this case, after the way the police have been treating peaceful protesters.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
Hearts and minds can be a good thing, but scaring the shit out of everyone can occasionally be useful, too.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:21:06 PM

You can't look at the riots like they're just this bizarro form of a traditional protest.

It's an emotional reaction being expressed by an extended social network.

It's not like they got together and made a list of the ways they could fix their environment and then picked the most logical option. They were mad and they had nothing to lose. The best question to ask is WHY did they have nothing to lose? And WHY was this a better option than a civil protest?

I am not condoning the rioter's actions - lots of innocent people were harmed, lots of damage was done, and lots of mistrust was built up. Surely it was not the most elegant way to respond to the death of Mark Duggan.



Let's not forget that the American revolutionary war was sparked by some irresponsible kids throwing snowballs at soldiers.

Let's not forget that the Boston Tea Party was initially dismissed as the act of a lawless mob.

I thank you both. I only wished to understand better what you were driving at.
I can't say that I don't agree with you both, I suppose I am just
disappointed that, as things stand now, all of this will have been in vain.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:21:06 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:15:08 PMDidn't say we were, but since I had no other basis for comparison on what you think on the economic front ready, it seemed handy to mention it as a possibility, but I was curious as to whether you were the writer.  That question's answered.  Didn't mean to imply you were 100% with anyone.  Just didn't know.

it's all good!

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

You can't look at the riots like they're just this bizarro form of a traditional protest.

It's an emotional reaction being expressed by an extended social network.

It's not like they got together and made a list of the ways they could fix their environment and then picked the most logical option. They were mad and they had nothing to lose. The best question to ask is WHY did they have nothing to lose? And WHY was this a better option than a civil protest?

I am not condoning the rioter's actions - lots of innocent people were harmed, lots of damage was done, and lots of mistrust was built up. Surely it was not the most elegant way to respond to the death of Mark Duggan.



Let's not forget that the American revolutionary war was sparked by some irresponsible kids throwing snowballs at soldiers.

Let's not forget that the Boston Tea Party was initially dismissed as the act of a lawless mob.

Duggan was just the last straw.

And peaceful protests only work when the general public or the government can be shamed.  If Gandhi had tried his act on the Nazis, it would have been over immediately.  The Brits were harsh at first, reflexively...But they were, at that time, still capable of feeling shame on a national level.

The UK (and the USA) no longer has that capability.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:28:46 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:21:06 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:15:08 PMDidn't say we were, but since I had no other basis for comparison on what you think on the economic front ready, it seemed handy to mention it as a possibility, but I was curious as to whether you were the writer.  That question's answered.  Didn't mean to imply you were 100% with anyone.  Just didn't know.

it's all good!

Quote from: iarmit on August 16, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
Not to confuse the issue further, but, Doktor Howl, Cramulus, are you
suggesting that directing the rage of the people against those in their
community- who suffer under the same government- would better serve
the rioters than directing their attentions toward the government?

You can't look at the riots like they're just this bizarro form of a traditional protest.

It's an emotional reaction being expressed by an extended social network.

It's not like they got together and made a list of the ways they could fix their environment and then picked the most logical option. They were mad and they had nothing to lose. The best question to ask is WHY did they have nothing to lose? And WHY was this a better option than a civil protest?

I am not condoning the rioter's actions - lots of innocent people were harmed, lots of damage was done, and lots of mistrust was built up. Surely it was not the most elegant way to respond to the death of Mark Duggan.



Let's not forget that the American revolutionary war was sparked by some irresponsible kids throwing snowballs at soldiers.

Let's not forget that the Boston Tea Party was initially dismissed as the act of a lawless mob.

Duggan was just the last straw.

And peaceful protests only work when the general public or the government can be shamed.  If Gandhi had tried his act on the Nazis, it would have been over immediately.  The Brits were harsh at first, reflexively...But they were, at that time, still capable of feeling shame on a national level.

The UK (and the USA) no longer has that capability.

:spittake: So fucking true

I think it's also important to note here that the riots were not a unified movement. The nucleus which started rioting about Mark Duggan probably wouldn't have wanted it to go that far.

Their collective breach of everyday rules created a very very large Temporary Autonomous Zone. That atmosphere is ripe for opportunists to take what they can get. The opportunists sustained the TAZ by not letting things return to normal... by the end, we're only hearing news about looters. And it's easy to look at that and say "This is a shitty way of revolting against the government." And you'd be right, but again, I think that's missing the point.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:18:27 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:15:08 PM

QuoteI'm not seeing the part of the image that says capitalism is only useful for killing people

It mentions sword, club, sword, and system of economics.  All (supposedly) weapons used for killing.  At least that's how I read it.  Maybe using "only" useful is a bit too much.  

Capitalism has always been built on stacks of dead bodies.  It's just that, until recently, most of those dead bodies were brown, and in unfurnished countries that nobody gave a fuck about.

I'm having trouble thinking of another system that wouldn't also have to be built on a stack of dead bodies.

If i recall there HAD been peaceful protests leading up to this. but uh we didnt hear about that in the news very much did we?

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
I think it's also important to note here that the riots were not a unified movement. The nucleus which started rioting about Mark Duggan probably wouldn't have wanted it to go that far.

Their collective breach of everyday rules created a very very large Temporary Autonomous Zone. That atmosphere is ripe for opportunists to take what they can get. The opportunists sustained the TAZ by not letting things return to normal... by the end, we're only hearing news about looters. And it's easy to look at that and say "This is a shitty way of revolting against the government." And you'd be right, but again, I think that's missing the point.

Sometimes a big stick is what the situation requires.  Even opportunistic looters can have a part to play, albeit unintentionally.

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

No worries.  Soon we'll have riots of our own.  The teabaggers thought they could get excited?  Ho ho!  The left is harder to piss off, but far more explosive when they finally lose their shit.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

I'm not the one sitting here telling them they are doing it wrong. I wonder, did you cheer for the ME riots?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:37:57 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

No worries.  Soon we'll have riots of our own.  The teabaggers thought they could get excited?  Ho ho!  The left is harder to piss off, but far more explosive when they finally lose their shit.

I need to get a machete for my wheelchair. And a flag of some sort. As soon as it comes in I'll post a pic for wompage.

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:39:51 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:37:57 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

No worries.  Soon we'll have riots of our own.  The teabaggers thought they could get excited?  Ho ho!  The left is harder to piss off, but far more explosive when they finally lose their shit.

I need to get a machete for my wheelchair. And a flag of some sort. As soon as it comes in I'll post a pic for wompage.

You want cannons or machine guns?

Or a big bronze ram?

ETA:  I need a face-on pic of you in a cowboy hat.  Neutral background, please.

Disco, going back to my question --- do you think the filth of London would be in a better place right now if they had only pursued change through civil public discourse and letter writing?

and do you think there is a time when violent resistance is necessary? (for example, is Arab Spring going too far as well?)

If so, how do you tell the difference between a situation where you should make signs and a situation where you should strap some baguettes to your head and flip the fuck out?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L4Bf4fNgHQI/TVPPUZ4RJgI/AAAAAAABeRg/2NxAjFz9t0s/s1600/3682_2050_480.jpeg)

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:38:37 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

I'm not the one sitting here telling them they are doing it wrong. I wonder, did you cheer for the ME riots?

I'm unfamiliar with them, or at least that label for them.  Can't say one way or another.  Link to more information?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:43:09 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:39:51 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:37:57 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

No worries.  Soon we'll have riots of our own.  The teabaggers thought they could get excited?  Ho ho!  The left is harder to piss off, but far more explosive when they finally lose their shit.

I need to get a machete for my wheelchair. And a flag of some sort. As soon as it comes in I'll post a pic for wompage.

You want cannons or machine guns?

Or a big bronze ram?

ETA:  I need a face-on pic of you in a cowboy hat.  Neutral background, please.

Chain guns, pic in a day or two.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:45:36 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:38:37 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

I'm not the one sitting here telling them they are doing it wrong. I wonder, did you cheer for the ME riots?

I'm unfamiliar with them, or at least that label for them.  Can't say one way or another.  Link to more information?

If you are unaware of the recent unrest in the Middle East then we have very little to say to each other.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:45:36 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:38:37 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 07:19:17 PM


It sure is easy to be critical when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, no?

It sure is easy to be supportive of the riots when you are safe in your living room far away from what is happening, and none of your friends or family were the ones being killed, no?

I'm not the one sitting here telling them they are doing it wrong. I wonder, did you cheer for the ME riots?

I'm unfamiliar with them, or at least that label for them.  Can't say one way or another.  Link to more information?

Not sure how you could have possibly missed them.

he's referring to the chain of riots and uprisings in the mid-east

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:45:20 PM
Disco, going back to my question --- do you think the filth of London would be in a better place right now if they had only pursued change through civil public discourse and letter writing?

and do you think there is a time when violent resistance is necessary? (for example, is Arab Spring going too far as well?)

If so, how do you tell the difference between a situation where you should make signs and a situation where you should strap some baguettes to your head and flip the fuck out?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L4Bf4fNgHQI/TVPPUZ4RJgI/AAAAAAABeRg/2NxAjFz9t0s/s1600/3682_2050_480.jpeg)

Incidentally, that pic made my fucking year when it came out.

Dok,
Loves watching people lose their shit.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 07:50:19 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:45:20 PM
Disco, going back to my question --- do you think the filth of London would be in a better place right now if they had only pursued change through civil public discourse and letter writing?

and do you think there is a time when violent resistance is necessary? (for example, is Arab Spring going too far as well?)

If so, how do you tell the difference between a situation where you should make signs and a situation where you should strap some baguettes to your head and flip the fuck out?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L4Bf4fNgHQI/TVPPUZ4RJgI/AAAAAAABeRg/2NxAjFz9t0s/s1600/3682_2050_480.jpeg)

Incidentally, that pic made my fucking year when it came out.

Dok,
Loves watching people lose their shit.

Ditto.

 :lol: seriously! Great photograph. It captures the wild and manic spirit that everybody was getting swept up by. Good illustration of a TAZ.

I'm sure the guy in the photo spends his weekdays at a normal job. And then s uddenly he's screaming his head off for the baguette revolution. Shows you just how fragile this reality is, no?

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:54:14 PM
:lol: seriously! Great photograph. It captures the wild and manic spirit that everybody was getting swept up by. Good illustration of a TAZ.

I'm sure the guy in the photo spends his weekdays at a normal job. And then s uddenly he's screaming his head off for the baguette revolution. Shows you just how fragile this reality is, no?

Well, that's exactly it.

People are alive when they lose their shit.  That's one reason I do it so often¹.  If more people lost their shit when it's appropriate, the world would be a better place.


¹  The other reason is that I'm a horrible cunt.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 07:45:20 PM
Disco, going back to my question --- do you think the filth of London would be in a better place right now if they had only pursued change through civil public discourse and letter writing?

I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

Quoteand do you think there is a time when violent resistance is necessary? (for example, is Arab Spring going too far as well?)

It's absolutely necessary at times.  The Arab Spring (just realized Charlie's ME was Middle East, duh) was certainly healthier, IMO.  But it's like I tell a few asshole neo-conservative types I know when they say things like "The US should support the revolts in the ME" and I have to ask them if they'd still be willing to maintain support if the groups that took power put in a theocracy, like Iran did in the 70's.  Most aren't.

QuoteIf so, how do you tell the difference between a situation where you should make signs and a situation where you should strap some baguettes to your head and flip the fuck out?

I'm just not sure.  I'm hoping to learn.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Ok, I understand that argument, but there are people who would go out and fuck shit up just to fuck shit up if they thought they could get away with it, and wouldn't need any more reason than they thought they could get away with it.  Those people exist, and there's maybe more of them than you're taking into consideration.  Those are the sorts I meant.

[ETA] The sort of human whose behavior elicits the "this is why we can't have nice things" meme.

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

why would you suspect that?
:?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

Isn't DP from Mexico?

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

[EDITED FOR] for Pickle with a 2 day running headache and should have PMd it if I was going to be so fucking mean about it.  That, and I should really stop getting angry at people I've never met on the internet.

It just set me off. 

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

For the reasons stated above.

Quote from: COL Coyote on August 16, 2011, 08:51:41 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

Isn't DP from Mexico?

Not a native, but moved there for several years to get a break from the States and try something new.  Learned the language in a year and a half (still problems conjugating those verbs sometimes) and was engaged to be married.  I have a son living down there with his mother, who broke off the engagement when she got pregnant, and he'll grow up down there and I'll just have to see him when I can, or when I can afford to set up shop down there permanently, something I'm working on tirelessly.

I'm sure Charlie will have some smart-assed thing to say along the lines of "oh, well some of his best friends and family are smudgy people, he can't be racist"

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

I've meant to say this earlier when you made that first smart assed comment and I let it go because I wanted to have a conversation with people interested in sharing ideas, not shitting in a thread just to shit in it.  I'll gladly do it now:  Go fuck yourself Charlie.  I don't give a shit if you are sick and recovering, it's no good god damn reason to come in here and shit out of your fingers.  

You don't agree with me?  Fine.  Tell me why, I'll listen.  If you're convincing, I may even change my mind.  You're not interested in that though.  You just like to shit.

So fuck yourself.  

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

For the reasons stated above.

Quote from: COL Coyote on August 16, 2011, 08:51:41 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:46:30 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

I begin to suspect that he means smudgy people types.

Isn't DP from Mexico?

Not a native, but moved there for several years to get a break from the States and try something new.  Learned the language in a year and a half (still problems conjugating those verbs sometimes) and was engaged to be married.  I have a son living down there with his mother, who broke off the engagement when she got pregnant, and he'll grow up down there and I'll just have to see him when I can, or when I can afford to set up shop down there permanently, something I'm working on tirelessly.

I'm sure Charlie will have some smart-assed thing to say along the lines of "oh, well some of his best friends and family are smudgy people, he can't be racist"

You don't know how to do it, but you say they are doing it wrong. You said you supported the people in the ME, but not the people in the UK.

Tell me, who exactly did you mean by the "have nothings"? Who are the "have a bit and are working hard to get more"?

Why do those from the ME get a pass and those from the UK don't?

Pardon me, but this sounds like rehashed and overworked right wing bullshit to me.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:57:24 PM
I've meant to say this earlier when you made that first smart assed comment and I let it go because I wanted to have a conversation with people interested in sharing ideas, not shitting in a thread just to shit in it.  I'll gladly do it now:  Go fuck yourself Charlie.  I don't give a shit if you are sick and recovering, it's no good god damn reason to come in here and shit out of your fingers.  

We need a reason?   :lulz:

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:44:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Ok, I understand that argument, but there are people who would go out and fuck shit up just to fuck shit up if they thought they could get away with it, and wouldn't need any more reason than they thought they could get away with it.  Those people exist, and there's maybe more of them than you're taking into consideration.  Those are the sorts I meant.

[ETA] The sort of human whose behavior elicits the "this is why we can't have nice things" meme.

That fairly accurately describes all young men. Ever.

But it more accurately describes disenfranchised young men with little or nothing to lose.

You seem to think that there is a "type" of person for whom fucking shit up for the pleasure of it is inborn. Psychologists call them "sociopaths", and they are fairly rare. So what we are looking at is young men who are in an environment that causes them to feel they have little or nothing to lose. That means that those young men are interchangeable with any other young men anywhere in the world. Including you.

I think this bears repeating. Iirc there were peaceful protests leading up to the riots and prior to duggans death.

One more thing, can we all please drop the "Poor Charley is recovering bullshit"? I am not a fucking China doll. I am a God, I shove 10 inches of plastic up my dick at least 5 times a day.

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on August 16, 2011, 09:16:56 PM
I think this bears repeating. Iirc there were peaceful protests leading up to the riots and prior to duggans death.

And they didn't fucking work.  They did nothing.

But we can't let anything happen to fat, dumb, and happy John Q Public, who condones if not actually endorses the very policies that ruined the world's economy, leaving a bunch of people with nothing to lose...and the policies which killed Duggan.

Fuck John Q Public.

Precisely. The news and the authorities dont care about rallies. Riots do get their attention however.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:21:33 PM

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on August 16, 2011, 09:16:56 PM
I think this bears repeating. Iirc there were peaceful protests leading up to the riots and prior to duggans death.

And they didn't fucking work.  They did nothing.

But we can't let anything happen to fat, dumb, and happy John Q Public, who condones if not actually endorses the very policies that ruined the world's economy, leaving a bunch of people with nothing to lose...and the policies which killed Duggan.

Fuck John Q Public.

If the fox is guarding the henhouse and chickens keep coming up missing, sooner or later you're going to have to shoot the fox.

Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I wasn't steering a thing, I simply responded to what I read.

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

oh, ok.
i thought you were injecting race into a conversation that didn't have mention of it heretofore.
i'll step away.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Quite possibly. Six of one and half a dozen of the other IMO.

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:30:22 PM
oh, ok.
i thought you were injecting race into a conversation that didn't have mention of it heretofore.
i'll step away.

No need to step away, if I can't defend what I said then I should have kept my mouth shut.  :)

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 09:14:21 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:44:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Ok, I understand that argument, but there are people who would go out and fuck shit up just to fuck shit up if they thought they could get away with it, and wouldn't need any more reason than they thought they could get away with it.  Those people exist, and there's maybe more of them than you're taking into consideration.  Those are the sorts I meant.

[ETA] The sort of human whose behavior elicits the "this is why we can't have nice things" meme.

That fairly accurately describes all young men. Ever.

But it more accurately describes disenfranchised young men with little or nothing to lose.

You seem to think that there is a "type" of person for whom fucking shit up for the pleasure of it is inborn. Psychologists call them "sociopaths", and they are fairly rare. So what we are looking at is young men who are in an environment that causes them to feel they have little or nothing to lose. That means that those young men are interchangeable with any other young men anywhere in the world. Including you.

I know, I used to be one of those young men.  I suppose it's the type you mention that I'm referring to. 

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 09:19:20 PM
One more thing, can we all please drop the "Poor Charley is recovering bullshit"? I am not a fucking China doll. I am a God, I shove 10 inches of plastic up my dick at least 5 times a day.

:lulz: :x :x :x

Duly noted.  But given the above admission, don't mind if I leave the gloves on, so to speak.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 09:19:20 PM
One more thing, can we all please drop the "Poor Charley is recovering bullshit"? I am not a fucking China doll. I am a God, I shove 10 inches of plastic up my dick at least 5 times a day.

:lulz: :x :x :x

Duly noted.  But given the above admission, don't mind if I leave the gloves on, so to speak.

:lulz:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote.  

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:54:48 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote.  

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

It should be directed at pretty much everyone.

The rioter who pauses to punch himself in the balls at least once will have my respect.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:35:59 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 09:14:21 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:44:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on August 16, 2011, 08:39:59 PM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 08:03:44 PM


I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Ok, I understand that argument, but there are people who would go out and fuck shit up just to fuck shit up if they thought they could get away with it, and wouldn't need any more reason than they thought they could get away with it.  Those people exist, and there's maybe more of them than you're taking into consideration.  Those are the sorts I meant.

[ETA] The sort of human whose behavior elicits the "this is why we can't have nice things" meme.

That fairly accurately describes all young men. Ever.

But it more accurately describes disenfranchised young men with little or nothing to lose.

You seem to think that there is a "type" of person for whom fucking shit up for the pleasure of it is inborn. Psychologists call them "sociopaths", and they are fairly rare. So what we are looking at is young men who are in an environment that causes them to feel they have little or nothing to lose. That means that those young men are interchangeable with any other young men anywhere in the world. Including you.

I know, I used to be one of those young men.  I suppose it's the type you mention that I'm referring to. 

For the record, psychologists still don't know whether sociopaths are born or made, or both, but as of teh last time I read up on it they're leaning toward "made". So, once again, we're back at the relevant question, which is "why?".

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on August 16, 2011, 09:23:38 PM
Precisely. The news and the authorities dont care about rallies. Riots do get their attention however.

The news doesn't even report peaceful protests here anymore. At all. The only people who even know about them are the protesters and the people who for one reason or another are trying to go from point A to point B and find the roads momentarily blocked by a protest.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:54:48 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote.  

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

Of course the murders hurt their cause. But they weren't planning it, or even thinking... they were a mob in action. Once a mob is mobilized things just HAPPEN. And they will keep happening as long as the underlying conditions that caused the riots to erupt remain unsolved.

Quote from: Disco PickleStill think that the murders hurt their cause.

I agree with Cram (and others) in that I think you are missing the point.

There was no 'cause' for them to harm.

There was a mixture of emotion and opportunity. The fact that these two things combined could tell us a lot of interesting things about the state of our society. Especially given the large numbers of people involved (I think over 3000 are being brought before the courts, now, with more being arrested still).

But the chances of anyone in power acting on anything which could be learned is slim; because people are oversimplifying it. EITHER the riots were about Mark Duggan OR the riots were about the economy OR the riots were the result of mindless thugs and the moral decay of our society.

The truth is a hell of a lot more complicated. Too messy to turn into a soundbite, and the solutions likely too broadly unpopular because they involve things like empathy and understanding where most people don't want to accept the ugly fact that, like Nigel says, they could be the 'undisciplined mob'.

The murders and the rest of the hurt to peoples lives are terrible, yes. But as a lot of other people have pointed out, in the grand scheme of things, elements which combined to make up this powderkeg do more damage, continuously. It is just not reported on because it is business as usual. The amount of people who are killed in police custody, and the 'odd' proportion of those who are black. The massive amount of damage the credit crunch caused, and the agony that the lowest rungs of society are enduring to ensure that the very people responsible can maintain multi-million pound jobs. These things are gross atrocities to the relatively small injustices carried out by the mob.

But I heard today that they've already started evicting families from council provided housing on the basis that their young children were involved in the riots.

And they are going to massively empower the police as a result, rather than actually examine the system which allows the institutionalized murder of our disenfranchised youths to continue.

And the ignorant populace will cheer for it. They'll bleat about how these fuckers deserve every blow, because by God, their kids aren't out rioting, and don't you know everybody has it tough? And it is completely inexcusable. How can you possibly defend these actions?

I'm not surprised at all that people who feel they have no recourse through peaceful means, nobody who cares about what they want or need in any fashion, no prospects to better themselves, and no chance that any kids they bring into the world would do any better would resort to violence. Especially when, every fucking day, something happens to demonstrate how little they matter and how society is structured to keep them at the bottom, hurting for someone else.

I'm surprised it took as long as it did. And I'm absolutely positive that I'm only scratching the surface as to the multitude of causes behind this, many of which will likely never come out.

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on August 16, 2011, 10:21:09 PM

Quote from: Disco PickleStill think that the murders hurt their cause.

I agree with Cram (and others) in that I think you are missing the point.

There was no 'cause' for them to harm.

There was a mixture of emotion and opportunity. The fact that these two things combined could tell us a lot of interesting things about the state of our society. Especially given the large numbers of people involved (I think over 3000 are being brought before the courts, now, with more being arrested still).

But the chances of anyone in power acting on anything which could be learned is slim; because people are oversimplifying it. EITHER the riots were about Mark Duggan OR the riots were about the economy OR the riots were the result of mindless thugs and the moral decay of our society.

The truth is a hell of a lot more complicated. Too messy to turn into a soundbite, and the solutions likely too broadly unpopular because they involve things like empathy and understanding where most people don't want to accept the ugly fact that, like Nigel says, they could be the 'undisciplined mob'.

The murders and the rest of the hurt to peoples lives are terrible, yes. But as a lot of other people have pointed out, in the grand scheme of things, elements which combined to make up this powderkeg do more damage, continuously. It is just not reported on because it is business as usual. The amount of people who are killed in police custody, and the 'odd' proportion of those who are black. The massive amount of damage the credit crunch caused, and the agony that the lowest rungs of society are enduring to ensure that the very people responsible can maintain multi-million pound jobs. These things are gross atrocities to the relatively small injustices carried out by the mob.

But I heard today that they've already started evicting families from council provided housing on the basis that their young children were involved in the riots.

And they are going to massively empower the police as a result, rather than actually examine the system which allows the institutionalized murder of our disenfranchised youths to continue.

And the ignorant populace will cheer for it. They'll bleat about how these fuckers deserve every blow, because by God, their kids aren't out rioting, and don't you know everybody has it tough? And it is completely inexcusable. How can you possibly defend these actions?

I'm not surprised at all that people who feel they have no recourse through peaceful means, nobody who cares about what they want or need in any fashion, no prospects to better themselves, and no chance that any kids they bring into the world would do any better would resort to violence. Especially when, every fucking day, something happens to demonstrate how little they matter and how society is structured to keep them at the bottom, hurting for someone else.

I'm surprised it took as long as it did. And I'm absolutely positive that I'm only scratching the surface as to the multitude of causes behind this, many of which will likely never come out.

:potd:

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:54:48 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote. 

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I was under the impression that those murders could most likely be attributed to BNP/ELD agents provocateurs, though if that's not the general public impression it may not mean a whole lot.

Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on August 17, 2011, 12:05:14 AM

Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 16, 2011, 09:54:48 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 09:25:14 PM
Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 16, 2011, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on August 16, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
why would you suspect that?
:?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  :lol:

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote. 

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I was under the impression that those murders could most likely be attributed to BNP/ELD agents provocateurs, though if that's not the general public impression it may not mean a whole lot.

I had not heard that.    I'd be really interested to know if that's the case.   

Would certainly change my mind about it if that's what it was.   In hindsight, it wouldn't surprise me.

Funny that, those eyes..  looking back on what happened.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 06:42:41 PM
this brings to mind an image
from our buddy Bobby Campbell:

(http://www.bobbycampbell.net/11/ANCIENT_CHINESE_SOCIO-ECONOMICS.jpg)

The difference is that when you kill a person with a sword or a club, there is one specific person who you are attacking, and there might even be legitimate reasons as to why you are killing that person (enemy soldier, self-defense, etc.)  Also, the person wielding the sword or club is in control - they can choose whether to swing their weapon or not.

With economics, there is no one person in charge of the weapon.  And even if there was, there's no way to attack a specific person, so the victim is essentially arbitrary, greatly lowering the possibility of the killing being remotely justified.

Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 17, 2011, 01:52:58 AM

Quote from: Cramulus on August 16, 2011, 06:42:41 PM
this brings to mind an image
from our buddy Bobby Campbell:

(http://www.bobbycampbell.net/11/ANCIENT_CHINESE_SOCIO-ECONOMICS.jpg)

The difference is that when you kill a person with a sword or a club, there is one specific person who you are attacking, and there might even be legitimate reasons as to why you are killing that person (enemy soldier, self-defense, etc.)  Also, the person wielding the sword or club is in control - they can choose whether to swing their weapon or not.

With economics, there is no one person in charge of the weapon.  And even if there was, there's no way to attack a specific person, so the victim is essentially arbitrary, greatly lowering the possibility of the killing being remotely justified.

Roberto Mugabe would like to disagree with you.

Seriously, did you even stop to appreciate the irony of saying that in reference to a picture of somebody addressing an EMPEROR? :lulz:

No, I didn't.  I was being Americentric and thinking of economic systems that lead to generally decreased life expectancies for some classes, rather than carefully orchestrated attacks on specific groups.

It's all a carefully orchestrated attack on a specific group.

That group is called "the people who aren't wealthy".

Quote from: Nph. Twid. on August 16, 2011, 09:16:56 PM
I think this bears repeating. Iirc there were peaceful protests leading up to the riots and prior to duggans death.

Yup.  2000 mostly black men protested outside the headquarters of the Police Complaints Commission in July.

Nothing was done.  No media attention was paid. 

We had peaceful protests against the War in Iraq (1+ million on the streets of London and almost no violence) and fairly peaceful protests against the rise in student fees (barring a few notable idiots, who were blown out of proportion by the media).

In fact, pretty much every protest of the last decade has been legal, by the books and utterly ignored by Parliament when it comes to voting.

Let us recall, the profiles of some of those in court include not just unemployed young black men, but social workers, grad students and trainee doctors.

Britain has a surplus of young men with too much time on their hands, not enough employment, rising costs for everything (price of food up 2%, price of gas up 5%, price of train tickets up 8% average, price of rent up 4%, VAT up 2.5% etc etc) on top of stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to be employed.  It's also seen a decade of looting at the hands of MPs (via the expenses scandal - where MPs made fradulent claims which the taxpayer footed the bill for - including paying off the interest on MPs mortgages, paying for their moats to be cleaned, paying for them to employ their relatives to do nothing all day) and a past three years where bankers could wreck the economy entirely and the only question that was asked was "how much can we give them and how quickly".  A good degree of this was done by the "establishment left" and now the "esatablishment right" are following up with, what looks like in hindsight, the "bad cop" act to the previous "good cop" one.  All three major parties are now implicated, to one degree or another (the least tainted by all this, ironically, may be Ed Miliband).

And, well, people wonder if people in the UK may be pissed off.

And I'm one of the more reasonable ones over here.  Probably because I know, worst comes to worst, I can exercise the option to escape.  For lots of people, those with young families, those who cannot speak foreign languages, or just don't have the funds, that simply isn't an option.

tl;dr the UK government pays lip service to democracy once every five years, then ignores it in an orgy of sanctioned looting on behalf of their political allies, and blames everyone else for there being no money in the coffers.  They then beat up anyone who gets too frustrated at taking effective pay cuts every three months or being forced off welfare for bullshit reasons and goes a bit mental, because responsibility means doing everything society says, even when society is kicking you in the teeth constantly.

Quote from: CainYup.  2000 mostly black men protested outside the headquarters of the Police Complaints Commission in July.

Nothing was done.  No media attention was paid. 

We had peaceful protests against the War in Iraq (1+ million on the streets of London and almost no violence) and fairly peaceful protests against the rise in student fees (barring a few notable idiots, who were blown out of proportion by the media).

In fact, pretty much every protest of the last decade has been legal, by the books and utterly ignored by Parliament when it comes to voting.

Let us recall, the profiles of some of those in court include not just unemployed young black men, but social workers, grad students and trainee doctors.

Britain has a surplus of young men with too much time on their hands, not enough employment, rising costs for everything (price of food up 2%, price of gas up 5%, price of train tickets up 8% average, price of rent up 4%, VAT up 2.5% etc etc) on top of stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to be employed.  It's also seen a decade of looting at the hands of MPs (via the expenses scandal - where MPs made fradulent claims which the taxpayer footed the bill for - including paying off the interest on MPs mortgages, paying for their moats to be cleaned, paying for them to employ their relatives to do nothing all day) and a past three years where bankers could wreck the economy entirely and the only question that was asked was "how much can we give them and how quickly".  A good degree of this was done by the "establishment left" and now the "esatablishment right" are following up with, what looks like in hindsight, the "bad cop" act to the previous "good cop" one.  All three major parties are now implicated, to one degree or another (the least tainted by all this, ironically, may be Ed Miliband).

And, well, people wonder if people in the UK may be pissed off.

And I'm one of the more reasonable ones over here.  Probably because I know, worst comes to worst, I can exercise the option to escape.  For lots of people, those with young families, those who cannot speak foreign languages, or just don't have the funds, that simply isn't an option.

tl;dr the UK government pays lip service to democracy once every five years, then ignores it in an orgy of sanctioned looting on behalf of their political allies, and blames everyone else for there being no money in the coffers.  They then beat up anyone who gets too frustrated at taking effective pay cuts every three months or being forced off welfare for bullshit reasons and goes a bit mental, because responsibility means doing everything society says, even when society is kicking you in the teeth constantly.

:mittens:

heard the best soundbyte on BBC radio this morning ---

interviewer was asking an MP if he thought the sentences being handed out were too harsh. They mentioned a guy that got a six month sentence for stealing five pounds worth of bottled water.

"No, we have to send a strong message that this sort of thing won't be tolerated in our country," proudly pronounced the MP.

"But just a few weeks ago, we were talking with you about an MP who essentially looted five thousand pounds and only got a two month sentence. What kind of message do you think that sends?"

"Well the thing is," said the MP, not missing a beat, "that he did that within a series of laws -- a series of laws that the MPs created, sure, but technically no rules were broken."

Quote from: Cramulus on August 17, 2011, 02:36:56 PM
heard the best soundbyte on BBC radio this morning ---

interviewer was asking an MP if he thought the sentences being handed out were too harsh. They mentioned a guy that got a six month sentence for stealing five pounds worth of bottled water.

"No, we have to send a strong message that this sort of thing won't be tolerated in our country," proudly pronounced the MP.

"But just a few weeks ago, we were talking with you about an MP who essentially looted five thousand pounds and only got a two month sentence. What kind of message do you think that sends?"

"Well the thing is," said the MP, not missing a beat, "that he did that within a series of laws -- a series of laws that the MPs created, sure, but technically no rules were broken."

I FUCKING LOVE THIS CENTURY!

Two guys are getting four year sentences for trying to incite riots on Facebook that never actually came to anything.

The justification was that their words caused shock and panic.

I guess we should pray they never find out about the worst forum on the internet.  :lulz:

Quote from: Demolition_Squid on August 17, 2011, 02:46:09 PM
Two guys are getting four year sentences for trying to incite riots on Facebook that never actually came to anything.

Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, didn't even incite.  He made a joke.

There's nothing funny about the riots, Dok. It is only right that we lock these uncivilized brutes away for years, until they've learned to show proper respect for the seriousness of the times. What if their brand of so-called humour infected the rest of society? This kind of badwrong speech cannot be condoned under any circumstances. It is undoubtedly part of the moral sickness which is killing our great nation.

(http://thatwillbuffout.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/funny-car-photos-london-riots-fail-helpful-public-transportation-bus-fire.jpg)


See? Nothing funny at all.

 :lulz:

The best (and most accurate) take on the riots:

http://markalmondoxford.blogspot.com/2011/08/arab-governments-alarmed-by-crackdown.html

QuoteAliBababa News Agency (10.30 am Mekka/ 10am GMT) – "Londonistan in Flames – People overpower Bourgeois Police State."

Londonistan – The bourgeois minority regime of Cameron, Clegg and Crony has been shaken by widespread People Power demonstrations across Britain for a third night running. Summertime protests have sent a chill wind of hope through Britain's long repressed people. "Fear of the police has gone," dissident youth leaders claim. "It's a free for all society now or never."


King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has broken his silence by warning the regime not permit rioting to reach Saudi sovereign territory in the Mayfair district of the British capital and to introduce reforms at once. Other world leaders have joined the chorus of condemnation of the increasingly isolated Cameron clique. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Haged, has welcomed the joint condemnation of Cameron's regime by the Arab League and African Union and suggested the UN Security Council should authorise all necessary means to stop repression by regime thugs of the street protests. Analysts expect the ban on heroin exports to Britain announced jointly by Afghanistan and Burma could add to the pressure-cooker atmosphere in Britain which is 100% dependent on narcotics imports.

The regime has pinned its hopes for international legitimacy on next year's Londonistan Olympic Games which were controversially awarded to bourgeois Britain despite signs that its economy was overheating and popular anger against the regime rising. Threats of a boycott by the highly-regarded Omani-burka clad beach volley ball team could be a humiliation too far for Cameron's clique.

Reports of foreign interference in the British crisis have been rejected by expert analysts. Instead domestic tensions are seen as the only cause .The Yemeni professor of protestology, Bahce Kewi, explains "The ruling Consumerist Party finds that thirty years of its strict ideological dominance has not bred a docile youth. Young people are aware of a cyber-world beyond Britain where values like free access to the internet are normal. They can't wait to join the cashless society and get their hands on stuff for nothing."

Rejecting the empty slogans "You Can't Buck the Market" and "There is No Alternative," indignant youth across Britain have stormed the ruling regime's local headquarters setting fire to symbols of Consumerist dominance and removing telecommunications and internet monitoring equipment from branches of the feared Curry's organization in towns across the country.

With unverifiable but plausible reports of more than a thousand deaths in the Arsenal district of north Londonistan where a crowd estimated at a million strong overwhelmed the hated Met riot squads to occupy the Consumer Electronic Outlets Center, its seems likely that the popular protests could spread from the simmering suburbs even to previously loyal uptown areas like Kensington and Cholsey where many regime supporters have their luxurious barricaded villas.

You really have to read the whole thing, though.

Quote from: Cain on August 17, 2011, 04:14:14 PM
The best (and most accurate) take on the riots:

http://markalmondoxford.blogspot.com/2011/08/arab-governments-alarmed-by-crackdown.html

QuoteAliBababa News Agency (10.30 am Mekka/ 10am GMT) – "Londonistan in Flames – People overpower Bourgeois Police State."

Londonistan – The bourgeois minority regime of Cameron, Clegg and Crony has been shaken by widespread People Power demonstrations across Britain for a third night running. Summertime protests have sent a chill wind of hope through Britain's long repressed people. "Fear of the police has gone," dissident youth leaders claim. "It's a free for all society now or never."


King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has broken his silence by warning the regime not permit rioting to reach Saudi sovereign territory in the Mayfair district of the British capital and to introduce reforms at once. Other world leaders have joined the chorus of condemnation of the increasingly isolated Cameron clique. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Haged, has welcomed the joint condemnation of Cameron's regime by the Arab League and African Union and suggested the UN Security Council should authorise all necessary means to stop repression by regime thugs of the street protests. Analysts expect the ban on heroin exports to Britain announced jointly by Afghanistan and Burma could add to the pressure-cooker atmosphere in Britain which is 100% dependent on narcotics imports.

The regime has pinned its hopes for international legitimacy on next year's Londonistan Olympic Games which were controversially awarded to bourgeois Britain despite signs that its economy was overheating and popular anger against the regime rising. Threats of a boycott by the highly-regarded Omani-burka clad beach volley ball team could be a humiliation too far for Cameron's clique.

Reports of foreign interference in the British crisis have been rejected by expert analysts. Instead domestic tensions are seen as the only cause .The Yemeni professor of protestology, Bahce Kewi, explains "The ruling Consumerist Party finds that thirty years of its strict ideological dominance has not bred a docile youth. Young people are aware of a cyber-world beyond Britain where values like free access to the internet are normal. They can't wait to join the cashless society and get their hands on stuff for nothing."

Rejecting the empty slogans "You Can't Buck the Market" and "There is No Alternative," indignant youth across Britain have stormed the ruling regime's local headquarters setting fire to symbols of Consumerist dominance and removing telecommunications and internet monitoring equipment from branches of the feared Curry's organization in towns across the country.

With unverifiable but plausible reports of more than a thousand deaths in the Arsenal district of north Londonistan where a crowd estimated at a million strong overwhelmed the hated Met riot squads to occupy the Consumer Electronic Outlets Center, its seems likely that the popular protests could spread from the simmering suburbs even to previously loyal uptown areas like Kensington and Cholsey where many regime supporters have their luxurious barricaded villas.

You really have to read the whole thing, though.

Oh that was good.  :lol:

Fuckers on Radio 4 made my blood boil this morning.

Girl who stole two mismatched trainers (both left feet; her explanation being that she wound up swept up in a crowd, the shutter of a shop trapped her in there, and just picked up stuff from the floor in a panic to try and defend herself) has been sentenced to ten months in prison, probably ruining her chances of joining the RAF as she had planned.

This is apparently perfectly acceptable because it is a 'deterrent' that will prevent such behaviour in the future.

Because obviously, destroying the few career chances of desperate people who were rioting largely because of a sense of helplessness and hopelessness in their economic situation is going to be a fantastic deterrent.

As predicted, the actual causes of the london riots are not even going to be acknowledged by mainstream politicians. I hope there's a repeat; we deserve it.

This is not surprising.  Actually being able to defend yourself in London is crime enough, I've have students coming to me to complain that they cannot buy forks from local stores, because of fears they would be able to be used as a weapon.  Londoners from here on out will not be allowed to purchase or have access to anything which could be used as a weapon - which essentially means everything.

Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
This is not surprising.  Actually being able to defend yourself in London is crime enough, I've have students coming to me to complain that they cannot buy forks from local stores, because of fears they would be able to be used as a weapon.  Londoners from here on out will not be allowed to purchase or have access to anything which could be used as a weapon - which essentially means everything.

Also, the idiot who was talking about how great a deterrent it is (wish I had made a note of his name) was saying that HE had been stopped and searched twice in Westminster, and it really isn't all that bad so people should just shut up and let the police do their job, because they are Keeping Us Safe.

I'm sure the people who are stopped and searched forty times a month (mysteriously usually only young black men) can understand that. It isn't like the police only seem to harass and beat them and the people they know, after all. They perform a number of other important services. Like gunning down plumbers and people sitting in cars.

I've been stopped and searched once and I'm still pissed off about it.  And it happened three years ago. 

Wasn't sure whether to make a new thread or not but...

Secretly, Albermarle & Bond's Croydon branch was torched during the London Riots. This was hushed up by the company who have, today, confirmed that £4 mil in gold jewellery has been successfully recovered from the burned out ruins (http://www.professionaljeweller.com/article-10793-ab-successfully-unearths-pound4m-of-croydon-gold/). 

The criminal underworld got wind of the existence of these safes, and made attempts to try and put together a heist by pretending to be journalists. I can only assume that Jason Stratham and Vinnie Jones were not available, though, because in the end it seems to have come to nothing.

For some reason this whole situation makes me laugh, possibly the fact that there really was £4 million in buried treasure in the heart of London for a time.