7 ms·

No, there aren't "people"; there is "a person", me. Just one person. Everyone else is speculating on how the poor little "Googler"'s life is destroyed by a nai

• walshemj 13y ago
  And if I as a "techie" feel threatened an oppressed by those individuals I am. I am in no way a right winger I was coming at it form the same direction that those who fought in cable street did. "An injury to one is an injury to all"
  • mgunes 13y ago
    "Threatened" and "oppressed", by non-violent assembly and protest? Come on.
    • bovermyer 13y ago
      So if I hang out in your front lawn and prevent you from leaving your house (in a non-violent manner) with a bunch of my friends, does that make me non-threatening and non-oppressive?
    • walshemj 13y ago
      Absolutely its the "perception" by the group of the threat/oppression that is the key thing. You might want to talk to a few people outside of your group from different ethnicity / group.
    • vidarh 13y ago
      A group posts pictures of your house, your name, and detailed descriptions that attempt to dehumanise you and paint you as some supervillain. Would I feel threatened and oppressed if I was the target of that? Yes. I'd probably make sure I had weapons in the house. My lunatic meter went off time and time again while reading their flier. I would not for a second trust that there's not at least one crazy guy that decides to take things one step too far in that group.
    • genericuser 13y ago
      They state that they chose to block his personal commute not merely protest at his residence. That means they chose to attempt to prevent him from leaving (since once he left he would be out of their control and may well go to work). If you were someone that needed to go to work, and needed to drop your child somewhere on the way, and there was a large group of people outside your house with the stated intent of preventing you from doing so, you would not feel threatened? I mean sure they are peaceful while you are inside not attempting to leave, but when you try to oppose their goals by leaving, it raises the question of how dedicated they are to their goal, which I believe would make a rational person feel threatened. If they had not made the point that the purpose of this was to restrict him from going about life then I would be much more willing to consider the view that he should not feel threatened.
  • Torgo 13y ago
    That kind of egalitarian viewpoint is alien to these protesters. They are entitled to attack this individual because he is powerful and wrong, and they are powerless and right. You're thinking "no punching" and they're thinking "punch up, not down."
• n1ghtmare_ 13y ago
  There is something wrong with you dude ... Like seriously!
• vidarh 13y ago
  I'm a marxist - certainly not aligned with any right wing libertarians. But right from the headline that article disgusts me. Unless they have concrete proof that this specific guy have done something particularly bad (and they've not presented any), calling him out by name and with photos of his home is way over the line to begin with. Not only is it creepy, it is deeply counterproductive and will only serve to alienate people that might otherwise be sympathetic. What they describe as a "pompous two story palace with stone lions guarding the door" looks to me like a quite average suburban house. Yes, I get that there are people substantially worse off, but they're not getting any sympathy with crap like that. Further, trying to dehumanise him with their descriptions of him as a "robot" and contrasting him with his child, and their use of words like "evil" ought to make everyone concerned. This is not progressive. On the contrary, this is moronic petit bourgeois luddites staging ineffective and creepy demonstrations that will achieve nothing but play straight into the hands of their opponents. It also shows that they fundamentally fail to understand the mechanisms they are fighting. Everyone on the other side will see what they are doing as perfectly reasonable. They are just "hacking the system" and following consequences. The moment they are described as "evil" and faced with personal demonstrations, these guys start creating enemies, when they could instead have searched for partners. But these clowns use socialist terms while they clearly don't understand much of its basis. Marx, for example, was very clear in his agitation against the kind of moronic vilification demonstrated in this text: The typical capitalist, and those aiding him, according to Marx, is no more evil than the worker he oppresses - capitalist and worker alike for the most part are trapped in the same machine, and have little choice but to stick to their roles: A capitalist that stops exploiting labour will fail, and end up a labourer by necessity himself. Marx was not against the capitalist. He was not even against the capitalist system per se - on the contrary, he realised that for any chance of socialism to succeed, it would be _essential_ to bring about the economic development and automation required to be able to meet the needs of everyone. In fact, socialism as an idea is a child of the industrial revolution more than anything: It arose out of the hope that the industrial revolution would bring about such wealth that poverty could finally be beaten, Marx held that the capitalist system would play out its role once production had reached such a height that poverty could be eradicated. Socialism originated as an ideology deeply intertwined with a positive view of technology and automation as tools of liberation. To see these guys play modern day luddites and drag out socialism in the same breath just shows a staggering degree of lack of awareness of history. To see them target individuals rather than the system equally so.
• mindcrime 13y ago
  Why shouldn't googlers carry weapons? Everyone has a right to self-defense, and certain recent actions at least hint that googlers may be at an increased risk of being attacked. Choosing to carry a weapon is just being prudent.