...where you can get arrested and tasered for asking questions deemed inapropriate.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Could anyone find a federal law that forbids asking a politician about his agenda in an open mic discussion?

What I find most appaling about the video is not the actual arrest, I've become accustomed to these things after following the blogosphere for some time. It's the fact that not one of his fellow students did anything about it, none of them stood up and protested, they all just sat there and watched silently as one of their friends got fried for exherting his right to freedom of thought and speech.

I'm aware that none of the people present during this demonstration of totalitarianism will read this, but I'd like to say that they have given up their right to think and speak freely. When you're not willing to stand up for you're rights you simply don't deserve them.


And here's another beautifull example of our great motherland's equality and respect for all:

HUH?

Discuss.

I'll respond to the replying bit here and the philosophical bit wherever else.

quote:

It just seems strange that you cease your involvement in the discussion all of a sudden, I don't know how to interpret it.

Sorry, doing that does seem to throw people quite often. Basically, I don't reply because I have no reply, nor do I have any reason to reply. Yes we disagree, but that's all that really needs to be said. I suppose I could write out why I disagree with you and on what points, but it's too late for me to try to collect my thoughts into something meaningful. However, I do have thoughts on the free will part, which I will write elsewhere.

quote:

Where would you get that I agree with you? I merely commented on how well-thought out your post was. I think Mein Kampf was well-written, but that doesn't mean I'm a Nazi.

It just seems strange that you cease your involvement in the discussion all of a sudden, I don't know how to interpret it.

Does it mean that you agree with what I say in the text, or does it mean you disagree but don't know how to reply? or are you just oblivious to what i propose? I'm not used to not getting a reply when I bring up that theory, you're actually the first person that hasn't replicated in some way or other.

Where would you get? well essentially I'm saying free will is inexistant, and that the establishment controls us all wether we like it or not, and if we try to break this control, be it consciously or not, the establishment will try to crush us.

EDIT: I'm reposting this, it's off topic and
I think it deserves a new thread with a more philosophical focus.

Where would you get that I agree with you? I merely commented on how well-thought out your post was. I think Mein Kampf was well-written, but that doesn't mean I'm a Nazi.

(And there's Godwin's Law...)

quote:

True. But whereas your recent post was well thought out and explained, your original post was more impassioned.

My later post is the reasoning behind my former ones, nothing wrong there.

And does that mean that you agree to an extent?

True. But whereas your recent post was well thought out and explained, your original post was more impassioned. I don't critique anything well thought out, but when someone starts foaming at the mouth, Benford's law of controversy comes into play and it's fair game to rip it apart.

quote:

It's your opinion. Critiquing it would be petty.

This whole discussion is opinion.

I could comment on the rest, but I don't really want to. It's your opinion. Critiquing it would be petty.

quote:

There are computer simulations that would do that for you, and that would be a lot easier than wrestling with cops and accusing people of enabling oppression.

A computer simulation wouldn't be accurate because the software would be programmed by a culture that bases interaction on transaction of goods, so there would be no possible way of predicting behaviour outside of that context.

You can also comment on the rest of the text you know.

quote:

No, being anti establishment means that I would like to rewind human cultural evolution to a point in the past where we could skip the creation of property, not because I think it would be better, but because I’m simply curious as to what the result would be.

There are computer simulations that would do that for you, and that would be a lot easier than wrestling with cops and accusing people of enabling oppression.

quote:

For crying out loud, the world isn't black and white! There isn't just "pro-establishment" and "anti-establishment."

Yes it is. Essentially, every human being can be classifiead in either of the two categories, some may not even be conscious of the existence of an establishment, but even they can be fit into one of the two groups.
There isn't an intermediate because the two postures are to radically different to be able to conciliate them.

Humanity in its form of social organization works like a large living organism. There is a well defined structure into which we all fit like pieces in machinery. Like all living organisms this social metabolism has many self regulating mechanisms to maintain it functioning correctly. In our case we have developed a culture which is based on the exchange of goods and capital as the primary form of social interaction, thus our society has established a tie between wellbeing and the acquisition of capital though profitable exchanges. The primary objective in every individual’s life is achieving happiness, and since we are completely reliant on commodities to be able to enjoy life we must attain the necessary capital to purchase these commodities. While in practice we organize ourselves into smaller cultural subgroups (nations), and these nations have politically democratic systems that allow us to elect those in charge, on a primary level our scale of priorities does not vary regardless of who is boss.

Like any life form, the cells, in this case us, are subject to the will of the brain, the culture of exchange and capital, which regulates bodily functions to maintain functionality, so while in appearance we have free will, society has developed certain control mechanisms to eliminate dissidence in the better interest of the organism as a whole. Like a tumor, the brain has to maintain a dictatorship over the body to protect its own life, and in our hypothetical social organism this is likewise. Our culture has evolved to a point where our educative systems and laws foment conformity, not because there are conscious individuals that want to keep us under control, but because if dissidence grows too powerful societies structure as a whole can be threatened. Difference is looked down upon, poverty, which makes us feel bad and empathic, is viewed as the extreme of human suffering, so anyone who questions the establishment is automatically associated with conditions of pain and distress, because the representation of lack of property is poverty, and the only possible alternative to a property based system is one where property is inexistent. Thus we automatically associate the alternative to the establishment with undesirable conditions.

If this scare mechanism isn’t enough to dissuade people from dissidence there are many active forms of control and repression. Sometimes these are embodied be humans who are pleased with their position in the establishment, for the sake of a comparison we’ll say they are the brain cells, the part of the organism that holds the most power. These people, frequently the rich, are aware that a destabilization in the system will damage their position as recipients of wealth and power, to protect this position they will use their influence, always through their economic power, to silence voices that challenge their position. This may be through reforms in education, control of the media, etc…

The last point is politicians and corporate entities. While society as a whole tends to view politics and the corporate world with skepticism and mistrust, it is generally accepted that they are the flexing muscle that guides and molds society. They impersonate the only form of conscious leadership in this super organism, so threatening their wellbeing is unacceptable, because they are responsible for society’s cohesion. They can be compared to the bone structure of the body. Notice, by corporate entities I do not necessarily mean corporations, but simply large economic powers embodied by diverse forms of private enterprise.

Finally, how does this relate to a student getting tasered for asking political questions, or like some of you believe, for disrespecting the established order of things. An upstart at a public hearing or political debate is a form of dissidence, had the student been and ultra right winger questioning Kerry on abortion or on religious matters they would have detained him anyways, not because the message in his words was considered inappropriate, but because he was challenging social structure by carrying out an action that challenged social hierarchy and organization.

Being anti-establishment doesn’t mean I want a communist government that confiscates all form of wealth and redistributes it equally, or an anarchist society in which everyone can do as he or she pleases , although both of these alternatives would be better if carried our correctly. No, being anti establishment means that I would like to rewind human cultural evolution to a point in the past where we could skip the creation of property, not because I think it would be better, but because I’m simply curious as to what the result would be.

In a sense being anti establishment means being anti human.

For crying out loud, the world isn't black and white! There isn't just "pro-establishment" and "anti-establishment." Seriously, speed, when someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they're blind, pro-establishment, or in favor of a police state. I, for instance, disagree with a lot of things the government does. But I agree with some of the things. Does that make me a government lackey? No, it means I happen to agree with the government on certain issues.

It also doesn't make me apathetic (even though I will freely admit that I am on some things, and no, I don't feel guilty for that). I'm not the type of person to protest because it seems incredibly pointless to me. There are better ways to change the world than throwing bottles at police and vandalizing public property.

quote:

I'd also like to know, how you know that a controversial question wasn't asked before the video begins?

BECAUSE IT WAS ASKED DURING THE VIDEO MAYBE?
He asked senator Kerry about skull and bones and about impeaching bush and contesting the election.

quote:

HE BROKE THROUGH THE POLICE LINE AND CUT IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE WAITING TO SPEAK.

Would you care to show me a source for that?

quote:

I'm going to assume you did similar things that gave the cop reason to do that.

No, I didn't, unless you consider tagging a wall reason enough to get beaten up.

quote:

It's clear he was tasered as punishment for bringing up a controversial subject.

I'd also like to know, how you know that a controversial question wasn't asked before the video begins?

quote:

I would go as far as saying that you feel theatened by anti establishment postures because they somehow remind you of your own apathy and make you feel guilty.

I'm not threatened, I'm just annoyed at how incredibly dense you guys can be. As you're being right now, by ignoring important facts I have given you more than once.

quote:

Of course it's biased, it just tends to portray reality more accurately than, say, any other mass media outlet, which will inevitably bends the truth to favor the economic and political system that provides it's share holders with massive profits.

That may be true, but any biased source is not a good source. Whether it supports "The Man" or not. Biased websites portray things the way they want them to be portrayed to their target audience. The only people who have any idea what happened that day, were the people that attended. A video is not the same, as I have seen several versions of that video, wherein most of them, the part where the kid struggles with the cops is edited out.

quote:

Obviously, maximizing profits is much more important than fullfilling their purpose in the free flow of information, thus the information transmited will allways be edited to suit this goal.

Like that video.

quote:

I dont accept any leftleaning information as truth, I'm just more likely to give it validity over other sources of information due to its focus. Someone with a similar ideology is much more likely to make a similar analisis to mine.

Which is ridiculous. People lie to get their own political agendas across. Be they left or right wing. The only valid source is your own effort for research and your ability to weed what is bull and what isn't. I'm sorry if typical police protocol bothers you, but that's what it is. It had nothing to do with what he was saying, it was how he was saying it.

quote:

So if a cop ordered you to jump off a bridge and you didn't do it you would deserve to be tasered? It's called justified disobedience.

Depends on the situation. If I'm suicidal and I'm on a burning bridge that's about to collapse, they can incapacitate me and carry me off. But most cops would never tell me to jump off a bridge for no reason. So, that analogy sucks. They would most likely however tell me to "Get on the ground!" And "Put your hands behind your back!". If I don't do that, they have a right to incapacitate me. Which is exactly the case in this video.

quote:

The police where trying to prevent him from exercising his right to freedom of speech so he disobeyed them.

Stop using the freedom of speech excuse. I'm almost completely positive that if his questions were much more conservative in nature you wouldn't care so much. And I'll say this one more time. HE BROKE THROUGH THE POLICE LINE AND CUT IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE WAITING TO SPEAK. Which means, he stole the right to free speech from others. I hope they set that taser to its highest setting.

Also, people who shout "FREE SPEECH!" the loudest seem to understand the concept the least. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, etc, is only protected if that speech, press or religion does not impede upon the rights of others. Meaning you can't cut in front of people at a speech to get your opinion across. He impeded on the rights of others and acted like a jackass, which is why the audience applauds when his mic is cut.

quote:

Our fucking country was built on attitudes like that, not on following orders like brainless automatons.

Disobeying orders is sometimes ok. Like back during the Civil Rights movement. But the main difference is, the participants of that movement were peaceful. I watched an old video of a bunch of blacks trying to go into a white bank, and when the white cop told them to leave, they left, but then they quietly went back when he wasn't looking. And they kept doing this for a while. MLK constantly preached peace and drove home that with the power of peace they could achieve anything. I wonder how that turned out? Hmmm....

So yeah, disobey orders all you want, but screaming and flailing around and fighting with cops makes you look silly.

quote:

Of course I wasn't, but the police response to my behaviour was completely out of proportion(beating up a 14 year old for doing graffiti). If they had wanted to arrest me, which would have been correct and justified they should have done so, instead a police officer 20 years older than me at the time, and who probably doubled my body weight, decided it was a better idea to punch me in the stomach and bang my head against a traffic sign, and after applying his "corrective" measures, let me go without even fining me.

Considering you won't even acknowledge the inappropriate behavior of taser guy (resisting and struggling). I'm going to assume you did similar things that gave the cop reason to do that. Regardless, it's shitty that you went through that, but it's a silly reason to assume all cops are out to get us. I could care less if a self-righteous college kid gets zapped. I'm more upset by the numbers of cops being thoughtlessly murdered, for no reason other than wearing a badge.

quote:

Anti-establishment, is anti-common sense. People like you are so hellbent on proving a point, that you ignore all logic.

Wrong, anti establishment is pure common sense if you care about others. Pro establishment means supporting a capitalist free market that literally rapes third world nations, or like you, being completely oblivious to political censorship and corruption. I think it bothers you because deep down you know that when I bitch about something I'm usually right, but like most people, being apathic and ignoring problems is much easier than confronting them. I would go as far as saying that you feel theatened by anti establishment postures because they somehow remind you of your own apathy and make you feel guilty.

quote:

That doesn't answer my question. Are you trying to tell me that short videos posted on a liberal website are not biased media?

Of course it's biased, it just tends to portray reality more accurately than, say, any other mass media outlet, which will inevitably bends the truth to favor the economic and political system that provides it's share holders with massive profits.
It is not in the interest of most modern media to challenge the establishment, if dissidence is allowed people question the system, and the media relies on the system to generate profits. Obviously, maximizing profits is much more important than fullfilling their purpose in the free flow of information, thus the information transmited will allways be edited to suit this goal.

quote:

Or are you one of those liberals who will accept any left-leaning information as "unbiased truth" without questioning it?

I read the resident evil article, it's utter bullshit. I dont accept any leftleaning information as truth, I'm just more likely to give it validity over other sources of information due to its focus. Someone with a similar ideology is much more likely to make a similar analisis to mine.

quote:

So effing what. He wasn't being civil, nor was he following the cops' orders. Therefore, he got what he asked for.

So if a cop ordered you to jump off a bridge and you didn't do it you would deserve to be tasered? It's called justified disobedience. The police where trying to prevent him from exercising his right to freedom of speech so he disobeyed them. Our fucking country was built on attitudes like that, not on following orders like brainless automatons.

quote:

Quit trying to put all the blame on the police. I doubt you were behaving like a perfect little angel during these encounters as you've illustrated your character on this site quite clearly. People are responsible for their own actions.

Of course I wasn't, but the police response to my behaviour was completely out of proportion(beating up a 14 year old for doing graffiti). If they had wanted to arrest me, which would have been correct and justified they should have done so, instead a police officer 20 years older than me at the time, and who probably doubled my body weight, decided it was a better idea to punch me in the stomach and bang my head against a traffic sign, and after applying his "corrective" measures, let me go without even fining me.

quote:

Would you kindly explain why being anti establishment makes me an idiot?

"making snap judgments based on a 2-3 minute video."

That's why. You'll take anything to support your views, without looking further into the matter. You even ignored me when I pointed out that the kid broke though the police line, which is a serious security issue, and spoke before others had a chance to do so. Anti-establishment, is anti-common sense. People like you are so hellbent on proving a point, that you ignore all logic.

quote:

There's a right side and a wrong side. I tend to think that the police, government, and the powers that maintain the current state of affairs are the wrong side.

That doesn't answer my question. Are you trying to tell me that short videos posted on a liberal website are not biased media? Or are you one of those liberals who will accept any left-leaning information as "unbiased truth" without questioning it?

quote:

Congratulations, Ann Coulter would feel proud of you

So effing what. He wasn't being civil, nor was he following the cops' orders. Therefore, he got what he asked for.

quote:

Would you care to point me to a better website?

Mine

Seriously, any site with writers that think Resident Evil 4 is a racist game because the SPANISH zombies speak in stereotypical MEXICAN (!!!?!????!?!???) accents, is beyond retarded.

quote:

And why should he be calm and quiet? He's being arrested for asking political questions.

Are you blind? HE WAS ARRESTED FOR TRYING TO RUN AWAY FROM THE POLICE. You NEVER EVER do that. How fucking hard is that to understand? They intended to quietly escort him out of the building, but he decided to escalate a simple situation by pulling away and not listening to their orders.

quote:

Consider yourself lucky then Smile I can't really appreciate the police force, I've had to many violent experiences with cops.

Quit trying to put all the blame on the police. I doubt you were behaving like a perfect little angel during these encounters as you've illustrated your character on this site quite clearly. People are responsible for their own actions. You push the cops, they'll push back harder. This is apart of their training. If you're civil, 9.5 times out of 10 they'll be civil as well.

I notice many times how "anarchist" kids will purposely provoke cops by throwing stuff at them. Am I supposed to be surprised that they get the business end of a nightstick?

When I got into an minor accident a couple years ago the cops that arrived on the scene were extremely nice. I didn't argue with them or annoy them. I took responsibility for what I did and when I started crying they reduced the price of my ticket. So please, save your paranoia for another forum.

quote:

I can't really appreciate the police force, I've had to many violent experiences with cops.

When you go up against the police with the expectation that they're going to abuse their power, you're likely to have a worse experience. The main thing to remember is that cooperation is what police officers like. People who are belligerent are more likely to be dangerous, so refusing to cooperate or being unruly sets them on edge and increases the chances they'll use force.

Sorry if you've had different reasons for getting into scrapes with the cops, but judging from the way you've reacted to this story, I'm guessing you don't view the police too highly. They can tell when someone doesn't like them.

EDIT: Wait, you live in England, don't you? It's my understanding the police there tend to be a lot more forceful than police in the United States. That may explain the difference in experiences.