all 54 comments

[–]magnora7 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (48 children)

chaz is meaningless imo, it's a bunch of kids playing sandbox who have little experience, for the most part. There are more significant and meaningful things going on elsewhere

[–]beermeem 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (47 children)

It doesn't even rise to the level of occupy wall street, which as we've all seen, had soooooo much impact on our lives...

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (44 children)

Not sure why you're so keen to spit on people who are trying to stand up for their rights

[–]beermeem 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (24 children)

I'm not sure you understand english.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

I clearly understand English, but I'm not so sure you understand rights, or protests, or the "social contract" that is the only reason authoritarians have power in the first place

[–][deleted]  (12 children)


    [–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    He dragged it lower. I addressed the topic at hand, instead of relying entirely on one ridiculous one-liner that completely side-steps the argument. So pester him about the pyramid violations, not me

    [–][deleted]  (10 children)


      [–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

      Yes OWS had serious problems, they never actually occupied wall street, so it never hit the aristocracy in their pocketbook, so they had no real bargaining leverage, so the protests were destined to eventually fail.

      [–]bobbobbybob 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

      your political naivete is showing.

      Kids playing games in the sandbox that far more sinister forces created to gain/consolidate power

      [–]Lithargoel 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Why didn't you lead with this reply to beermeem instead of the "keen to spit on people" remark? Deleting his the above two replies to you so we only have YOUR narrative of his alleged falling down your Pyramid is shady, at best.

      edited: for clarification

      [–]beermeem 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

      The concept of a social contract was popularized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau prior to the American Revolutionary War. In many ways, it gave moral standing to the creation of the United States of America, as well as the Jacobin terror and French Revolution that followed. The European socialist uprisings of 1848 also owe many of their intellectual underpinnings to Rousseau's social contract concept which holds that the rules of the state are binding only to the extent that they express the will of the governed. Abraham Lincoln echoed many of these concepts as he campaigned to end slavery and hold the Union together.

      However, there are many criticisms to this concept, not the least of which being that it boils down to little more than a truism. One could argue that it's based off another concept of French intellectualism, "noblesse oblige" or the obligation of the noble class to be generous toward those of lesser means. In this way, it is both condescending and demeaning. While it sounds pretty to girls and liberals, the fact is that it holds little weight in the real world. One need look no further than to the violent uprisings that swore by it to see that it is force and wealth that enforce these "freedoms" and not the other way around.

      Especially when looked at in light of millennia of Japanese, Chinese, and Indian political, cultural, and religious concepts, Rousseau's concepts are child-like, barely a blip on the radar of human achievements. Rousseau is a hope that leaves for wanting. Even Thoreau's Civil Disobedience -- which espouses the need to prioritize conscience over law -- has a more tangible grasp on the realities of governance and the individual.

      In fact, Rousseau's "social contract" is often used to enforce government control, whereas Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government" (1849) is truly a revolutionary concept founded on freedom. What is most interesting, though, is that Rousseau is of a time when authors wrote of Utopias. Nearly all conceptual literature prior to the revolutions of 1848 described Utopias (such as Sir Thomas More), theoretical places where people made rules that were fair and just and kept society happy. Following 1848, literature turned and wrote almost exclusively of distopias -- places where the rules of humans failed and the world felt more chaotic. It's quite certain that Rousseau's concept of a social contract held little real sway after this point in history, though some still cling to it as backing for their socialist tendencies.

      To say this all another way, I'll quote Wittgenstein's "On Certainty," paragraph 315, in part:

      It would be as if someone were looking for some object in a room; he opens a drawer and doesn't see it there; then he closes it again, waits, and opens it once more to see if perhaps it isn't there now, and keeps on like that. He has not learned to look for things. And in the same way this pupil has not learned how to ask questions.

      You do a great job on the technical side of things with this website and I truly appreciate that. But I'll walk up and down your little "pyramid" all day.

      [–]magnora7 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

      I appreciate the thoughtful reply!

      One could argue that it's based off another concept of French intellectualism, "noblesse oblige" or the obligation of the noble class to be generous toward those of lesser means. In this way, it is both condescending and demeaning.

      I think that's a misinterpretation of what "the social contract" means. It's not a matter of guilt, nor a matter of helping.

      It's a matter of bargaining. The people let those in power remain in power, because they give enough good to the populace to justify the other negative aspects that come with such a huge power structure.

      The moment the people aren't getting a fair shake, and that sentiment begins to form, unrest is sparked.

      Giving power to the people is the only way they can retain power without the populace protesting and then rioting to the point they're replaced with a different leader who is more fair.

      It's a matter of leverage and power retention that shows again and again throughout history. The people must be given bread and circus, a reasonable quality of life, or they revolt against the existing power structure. That pressure is "the social contract"

      [–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      Right now, you're reminding me of Osho's people who came to America thinking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were things that were enforced literally here in the States. You're describing "a" social contract, a truism of governance, however you're entirely missing the context of "the" social contract. That's why I said you don't understand english.

      Your descriptor could be dated all the way back at least to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, when the merchant class forced King John to codify their rights, lest they pull the plug on England's burgeoning commerce. (Or even further back, really. Probably to at least the Code of Hammurabi.) They achieved wealth separate from the Crown and used that wealth to enforce a codification of their rights.

      "The" Social Contract did not come about until much later. It is liberalism's response to its murdering of God and a humanity ruled by its spiritual nature. Whereas (Western) people had been ruled by the fear of god or gods, debasement of those musings necessitated the installation of a new framework -- worship of government. As Locke asserts, no longer was family tied by nature but by social agreement. The very formation of "the" social contract is socialist in nature.

      So when you go around talking about "the" social contract, it means one thing in your head but its context is entirely different to most people's understanding. And herein lies the true difference between modern Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals look at society and see a social contract. They look at government and see something that rules them at their own will and for their own good. Conservatives look at "government" and simply see people. Fallible people who must be used to one's own ends or simply worked around. Liberals still live in a pre-1848 world where they think government will one day bring them a utopia. They keep thinking -- just a couple more laws. Over that next hill. We just need to perfect the government, the contract we have with each other, and then we'll have legislated peace on Earth and free healthcare for all.

      Modern American Libertarians and most Conservatives as well as most Eastern religions remain much more rooted in the spiritual nature of humanity so they retain an intrinsic trust not just in one another but also in their own experience. Liberalism's attempt to rule by intellectualism has died and CHOP is the proof. That's why I say, there is no longer "The" Social Contract.

      I think that's a misinterpretation of what "the social contract" means. It's not a matter of guilt, nor a matter of helping.

      Conceptually speaking, it's literally where Rousseau and Locke got the idea. They just flipped it on its head.

      [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      "The" Social Contract did not come about until much later.

      I'm not talking about an actual contract, or a specific philosophical concept put froward by one person. I am talking about the human behavior that is thousands of years old, a relationship between the rulers and the ruled that is as old as history itself. We can call it by any other name, but this is what I refer to when I use the words "The social contract". We can call it something else if you prefer, but the dynamic itself is very core to the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, and largely dictates the rhythm of history, and the rise and fall of revolutions and empires.

      [–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Yes. And that's an extremely simplistic view of the world, which is generally put forward by socialists who think people can solve government can solve problems.

      [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Also, there is tacit contracting. Meaning, if you say nothing, it means yes, even if we do it without you knowing as long as you don't know until you die.

      [–]Jesus 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      If Malcom X was still alive, he would educate BLM on the real issues, or at the very least get them to see that there are cointelpro intended to destroy and discredit protests far more common than people want to believe. There is nothing better than an educated class of black and white folks unified together who understand the power structure.

      [–]beermeem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      He would. Malcolm X is one of my few heroes. It's because of him that I retain respect for Louis Farrakhan. Black lives DO matter and I support people's right to protest.

      None of that is what's happening right now.

      [–]beermeem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Oh and I spit on them because even as I type this, they are pissing on my rights to (a) a good night's sleep (haven't been able to go 3 nights in a row in over 3 weeks) and (b) the peaceful defense of my physical body and property by a duly established constabulatory.

      That is, if one believes in a "social contract." ;-)

      God save the LAPD.

      [–]Commiefa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

      They're not standing up for their rights. They're goal is to destroy the country.

      [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

      Some are, but you can't group those extremists in with all the protests that have happened

      [–]Commiefa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

      You can when they have the same leadership.

      [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

      They don't have the same leadership though, or else I would agree

      [–]Commiefa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

      [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      ...there's a lot other people protesting than just BLM and antifa. Some Americans just want our corrupt police justice system improved. But of course those attempts are being hijacked by the ones you mentioned

      [–]Commiefa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

      I don't see any evidence of that.

      [–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      I agree.

      And I'm not really sure what you're basing your opinion on, but I'll say I think your statement is correct. The main difference between these two events is that OWS was completely ignored by the MSM for about 2 weeks until they got traditional Democrat party organizations involved to coop the event. Unions being the most obvious. Which is a big difference since this even had the MSM pushing and reporting it from day one.

      [–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      This is a good man. I endorse anything he has to say.

      [–]candyboxradio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      the chaz leaders deserve to be in prison, and will be soon. they fail to recognize that the police have cameras all over the chaz and the police know who shot who.

      chaz is homeless people that are trying to self govern, good luck in prison.

      [–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Everyone in there deserves prison, unless they can successfully show it's a utopia. Otherwise what they did is destroy a city. Everyone there is complicit. We let them die in the graves they dug themselves into, or they surrender and pay for their crimes.

      [–]Silentxsage 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      ahhh, the CIA and FBI finally made their move.

      [–]BorrowedLadder 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Loooove that boot leather

      [–]Nemesis 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      CHAZ is an attempt to build a narrative.
      Leftists gather and put up barricades, say their only goal is a cop free zone, that they're "growing crops" and minding their own business. Media and the mayor try to spin it as a "block party" full of people dancing and peacefully protesting. The hope is that Trump takes the bait and breaks it up with the military. They get a powerful scene to play again and again for the next year of "Trump's army breaking up a peaceful protest", on every airwave with every celebrity and personality that can be bought affirming that this is the rise of fascism in America.