I read this thread while working on the car today. Got me all philosophical while busting some knuckles


Those with the ability of calling something "mass" or organizing an "mass" type event- Are they really even in trouble? The people exterminated in WWII came to mind. They didn't get that luxury.

Hands up don't shoot
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1439684178.jpg

Yup, the ones I see are all pretty darn healthy and well fed. They are spoiled brats protesting "first world" problems. Many are riding bicycles that cost more than the cars they are confronting; many are demanding "rights" that are actually privileges. Many will go home to their parents' basements only to go on-line to look for the next "mass" event in which they can protest something that pisses them off.

Funny you should mention people who have every advantage yet still have to point the finger and vent their frustrations in groups...

Don't know where I have seen that before. ;)

This is kind of how I see it. You reward bad behavior, you get more of it

Are they really furthering whatever their "cause" ostensibly is by making more people aware of it, but with a negative impression? The old, any publicity is good publicity theory?

You seem to be presenting some form of paradox. It was the mass in the streets, the thugs, the brownshirts, that through thuggery, intimidation, and mass demonstration, took power.

You then seem to also be saying those the "mass in streets" overpowered, didn't get that luxury?

Perhaps you are saying by not calling out a mass of thuggery for what it is, you doom yourself to slavery?

Your post confuses me.

Certain issues do need to be addressed in this country, which without demonstrations. Those issues would not come to light. However, the recent nature of demonstrations in my opinion, lack merit.

Good point. That post is more of a "thought in process" than some ultimate position statement. For example, I was really contrasting the idea of demonstrating in a free society vs. a totalitarian state. On one hand- The holocaust, the guy getting run over by the tank in Tiananmen square, not clapping hard enough in North Korea, -there are many places in the world I would not want to be, let alone demonstrate in. On the other hand, some art students donning blinkies and pedaling through downtown with the express intent of making a statement, and meeting up later for a beer-not quite the same thing (BTW-I'm a huge cyclist-but not a critical mass fan). Not just critical mass events either. My thought was that we've got it pretty good here to do this, even on more important issues than cyclist's rights, and at least in my case, I'm going to recognize this before I go carrying on mayhem in whatever causes I support.

Your point is good because it points out, that this society we enjoy these freedoms in, is itself built on revolution. Are you suggesting we should embrace all these types of events (demonstrations/revolutions) because we owe our existence to such actions? Where does one draw the line? Craig T had a good point earlier that we are a biased group. With that in mind, how do "we" define the "rules"?

At very least, I suggest all future demonstrators/rioters/protesters (who want sympathy for their cause) to quit loading up shopping carts with stolen flat screen TV's and such. It's 2015, the cameras are on.