2012-09-17 YT.com - Police State Mastercard Bitcoin Parody

[sunnankar]

Would be a funny ad if it were not so sad. Enjoy!

[labestiol]

Wikileaks also made a nice mastercard parody :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzMN2c24Y1s

[grondilu]

Would be a funny ad if it were not so sad. Enjoy!

An other problem with this video is that a lot of bitcoiners may have a huge contempt for hippies or other left-wing protesters, so they might actually enjoy watching them beaten up by police.

[wachtwoord]

I never really cared for protestors. The again, it's not like I get enjoyment out of seeing them getting their heads kicked in either.

[grondilu]

The again, it's not like I get enjoyment out of seeing them getting their heads kicked in either.

Honnestly, I do.  I do not mean that I think it's ok to beat them up, but I just can't help feeling some pleasure when it happens.

It's not possible to control your emotions, is it?

[wachtwoord]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

[grondilu]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

Yeah, that's the spirit.  

PS.   Well, maybe I should think more about why I find hippies so annoying that I can even enjoy watching them beaten up.   It's not clear, but it's probably related to the way they deal with divergence of opinion.  When hippies have an opinion about something, let's say "X is a bad thing", then they think the best strategy to defend this opinion is to gather in large numbers, walk in the street with signs, shout « X IS A BAD THING!! X IS A BAD THING!!»  as loud as possible, and do this continuously until "something" happens.

They kind of hope that people, just because they have been forced to hear the sentence "X is a bad thing", will eventually be convinced.  So they continue shouting for ever in hope for this event.  Of course most of the time, what actually happens is that people call the police in order to get rid of what is nothing but a nuisance.

[hazek]

Protestors mainly piss me off because the vast majority of them are uneducated (mainly not their fault) and ignorant or simply too lazy to educate themselves(again, mainly not their fault) to actually ask the right questions and get to the root of the problems they protest. And to top it off they usually demand more of what caused all the problems in the first place.

I don't agree with beating them or anyone else for that matter unless they're destroying property but I have almost no sympathy with them and would never join them myself.

[Luno]

I'm confused! Are you sure you are not ranting right wing supporters?

[grondilu]

I'm confused! Are you sure you are not ranting right wing supporters?

Well, indeed  you can have people on the right who have the same communication strategies (gathering and making some noise) than people on the left.

Having stupid ways to deal with divergence of opinions is not clearly politically defined.  I admit that.

[BkkCoins]

Having stupid ways to deal with divergence of opinions is not clearly politically defined.  I admit that.

Making noise to attract attention is a relatively safe way to deal with divergence of opinion. Either you attract enough attention to change things or you don't and it fades away. It may be annoying when you disagree but's it's much better than the way they deal with divergence of opinion in many parts of the world today. I mean literally today where the Chinese are burning Japanese cars and factories, and the Muslims are killing US embassy workers. I think we should be grateful that here, for the most part, protest takes a noisy but subdued form.

Hippies are those that believe protest should be non-violent.

[grondilu]

Making noise to attract attention is a relatively safe way to deal with divergence of opinion. Either you attract enough attention to change things or you don't and it fades away. It may be annoying when you disagree but's it's much better than the way they deal with divergence of opinion in many parts of the world today. I mean literally today where the Chinese are burning Japanese cars and factories, and the Muslims are killing US embassy workers. I think we should be grateful that here, for the most part, protest takes a noisy but subdued form.

Ok, that's a valid point.

[Peter Todd]

Having stupid ways to deal with divergence of opinions is not clearly politically defined.  I admit that.

Making noise to attract attention is a relatively safe way to deal with divergence of opinion. Either you attract enough attention to change things or you don't and it fades away. It may be annoying when you disagree but's it's much better than the way they deal with divergence of opinion in many parts of the world today. I mean literally today where the Chinese are burning Japanese cars and factories, and the Muslims are killing US embassy workers. I think we should be grateful that here, for the most part, protest takes a noisy but subdued form.

Hippies are those that believe protest should be non-violent.

Also in biology parlance you would call street protests "honest signalling", in the sense that if you can can get thousands, or in some cases hundreds of thousands, of people to show up in a public area and demonstrate you've convincingly shown, in a way that is difficult to fake, that your viewpoint has tremendous support behind it. In democracies this is obviously important, and even in non-democracies this is still important as no large government can operate without the will of at least a good fraction of their population.

The trend towards non-violent protest that has been going on for decades creates large crowds that say both "we're here and want change", but also very importantly "you don't have to be afraid of us, we (mostly) play by the rules of society". Making sure that your enemies believe have a way out is tremendously important, and showing that you respect individual rights to not have violence used against them is a big part of that. People in the activist communities understand this well enough now that when you do see violent protest usually the question to ask is what authority is instigating the violence and for what aim.

[labestiol]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

Quite sick to hear that.
What I understood from anarcho-capitalism is that it value freedom of speech and doesn't link oppressive state. I guess I'm mistaking, and it only applies to people who agree with it... Silly me
I guess the divide & conquer strategy of our elites still have a bright future.

[hazek]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

Quite sick to hear that.
What I understood from anarcho-capitalism is that it value freedom of speech and doesn't link oppressive state. I guess I'm mistaking, and it only applies to people who agree with it... Silly me
I guess the divide & conquer strategy of our elites still have a bright future.

And you are right, wachtwoord must not believe in anarcho capitalism.

But you are also right about not understanding anarcho capitalism because it's not about freedom of speech and not liking the oppressive state, it's about peace, no initiation of violence and respect for private property and yes freedom of speech and not liking an oppressive state falls under that but it's not the entire idea.

[labestiol]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

Quite sick to hear that.
What I understood from anarcho-capitalism is that it value freedom of speech and doesn't link oppressive state. I guess I'm mistaking, and it only applies to people who agree with it... Silly me
I guess the divide & conquer strategy of our elites still have a bright future.

And you are right, wachtwoord must not believe in anarcho capitalism.

But you are also right about not understanding anarcho capitalism because it's not about freedom of speech and not liking the oppressive state, it's about peace, no initiation of violence and respect for private property and yes freedom of speech and not liking an oppressive state falls under that but it's not the entire idea.

I was just using this two aspects to prove a point. I agree it's a lot more complex.

[wachtwoord]

Well, I must admit there is the benefit that it usually shuts them up for a while.

Quite sick to hear that.
What I understood from anarcho-capitalism is that it value freedom of speech and doesn't link oppressive state. I guess I'm mistaking, and it only applies to people who agree with it... Silly me
I guess the divide & conquer strategy of our elites still have a bright future.

Besides this being said half jokingly, it does not exclude freedom of speech at all. In the statement I merely say that them being shut up is advantageous to me as what they are saying is annoying to me (all protests are, irrespective of whether I agree with you thesis). It does not say anything about this being advantageous to society as a whole.

[jojo69]

uhhh, all that "annoying" noise making you are complaining about is what we call "peaceable assembly", try re reading the constitution please.

Further, there is a great deal of occupy type energy in the bitcoin community, some posters above are embarrassing themselves.

[wachtwoord]

Seriously dude learn to read.

I said nothing about legality, I said nothing about righteousness I said something (half-jokingly) about annoyance. Also be sure to read my first post in this thread.

Oh, and this might come as a shock to you so please sit down, not all people in the world are US citizens.

Finally: why I think protests are insane. People are chanting something. After they said it once I either get it or wont and I will agree or wont. Shouting it out loud with a lot of people will not help me understand if I don't and it won't make me agree if I don't. Normal conversation and/or discussion can. In my view protests are a legalized form of blackmail.

[jojo69]

So we should state our grievance once and return to docility.

Alright then, at least we understand each other.