patrick.net

Ceffer says

Can't we just fart in their general direction?

Stink Bomb the DA's Office.

But seriously, what is the Final Red Line?

For me, it's mandatory gun confiscation or gun registry.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

SKS toting Meriban

@MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou

What are these?

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

But seriously, what is the Final Red Line?

Mandates are the red line. When it is not an option to consciously object they have gone too far.

Patrick says

What are these?

SKS = Rifle
Meriban = Rednecks

How does Meriban come to mean rednecks?

Patrick says

How does Meriban come to mean rednecks?

I just made it up. I'm joking to make a point.

The Left calls anybody not into Technocratic Socialism a "Gun toting American Taliban"

Imagine if that was real... Red F150s bristling with AR-15s and SKS...

Ah, finally I get it, sorry, kind of slow sometimes.

American Taliban

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/being-ungovernable-is-the-only-basis

being ungovernable is the only basis for just government
unless you can say "no," there is no such thing as "consent"

el gato malo
18 hr ago

because that and ONLY that provides the basis for participation in just governance.

everything else is just a negotiation about how and by whom you will be coerced.

consider:

a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

if you cannot say “no”, then you cannot in any meaningful fashion consent to any form of social order.

if you cannot make yourself ungovernable, then you cannot say “no” to governmental as a free choice.

thus, any government to which one cannot say “no” cannot be consented to. that’s coercion. you are a subject, not a citizen.

therefore, no such government is just.

and every human has a right to remove an unjust government and replace it with one better suited to their pursuit of happiness.

if you doubt any of this, try a thought experiment:


replace “governed” with “sexual intercourse” and “government” with “grizzly bear.” see how you feel about the role of consent and justice. imagine a large ursus arctos horribilis that wishes to mate with you and will kidnap or kill you if you refuse this demand.

is this a situation in which you feel able to determine and grant your free consent of your own volition and in accordance with your wishes?

does the power here seem justly derived?

even if the bear sometimes protected you from harm or from others that sought to injure you, would that justify this license or render this taking “consensual sex”? or might you wish to be “ungovernable” in the sense of really, truly being able to say no and have it respected?

the bear may even think it loves you. so? does that make it any less an abusive relationship?

in the end, will you trust your life and safety and self-determination to “always having nice kinds of ursidae in charge?”

because any state to which you cannot say no will inevitably evolve into a predatory bear. (or a donkey. or an elephant…)

we do not need these regimes to be free people.


it is time to renew this social contract and remind those seeking to dominate and manipulate we the people that our rights stand paramount to their narcissism and grand designs.

the proper role of government is to defend the inalienable prerogative of peaceful people to non-interference.

this remit applies to predation by other individuals and (and especially) to encroachment by government itself.

the state exists to provide us with self-determination.

it is NOT instantiated to produce ever more convoluted aggregation fallacies about the “common good” and to force them upon the populace “for its own betterment.”

just government is never an exogenous ruler but rather the embodiment and protector of the individual agency of the people and the ultimate check on such a system always resides with the citizens not with leviathan.

How To Become A Tyrant' Trailer: Peter Dinklage Narrates Netflix Docuseries – Deadline
slippery appeals to utilitarianism are everywhere and always the fodder of fools and the alibis of tyrants.

no such “common good” exists in any measurable or empirical sense. claims to serve it represent the biggest of the big lies.

the general welfare is never known nor knowable.

bite any hand that tries to feed you that line of steaming bull excrement.


only when each and all are free to seek their own happiness can we maximize human flourishing.

and that everywhere and always requires each and all to be able to utter that simple syllable of freedom:

no.

this is the marrow of ungovernability and thus the essence of just social systems.

cultivate this ability.

if you find places where you cannot respond in the negative, change them. rise against them. pull down the structures that support them.

“because i don’t want to” is always enough reason. always.


freedom lies in self reliance, not in permission.

anyone who claims otherwise is selling something you do NOT want to buy…


Thank you for reading. bad cattitude grows through word of mouth. Please consider sharing this post with someone who might appreciate it.

richwicks says

He's thinking "I showed her, bitch that supports a bunch of violent thugs" and she's thinking "fucking white supremacists!"

Why would she think it was a white supremacist's turd? Were there bits of sauerkraut in it?

Passive aggression like shitting in the sink does NOT send a useful, targeted message where it needs to go, it merely reduces participants to beneath Karen level discourse.

Fun fact, thanks to the company Hipcamp adopting this database as their canonical "hate symbol" reference, I know that drawing a red circle and slash through the ANTIFA logo is considered by the Anti Defamation League as an act of HATE, and they list it as a HATE SYMBOL alongside literal swastikas and KKK insignia. It's funny the way parts of the database unironically accuse people of harboring "conspiracies that Jews secretly control XYZ" when the database is literally Jewish-curated such that almost everything listed is relevant to anti-Jew hate. You won't find the word Latino, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American anywhere in this "Complete" database of hate symbols!

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/anti-antifa-images

Become a backdoor man, like Siihan Sirhan.

"White supremacist anti-left (or sinistrophobic) symbology "

Sinistrophobic?!

Automan Empire says

Fun fact, thanks to the company Hipcamp adopting this database as their canonical "hate symbol" reference, I know that drawing a red circle and slash through the ANTIFA logo is considered by the Anti Defamation League as an act of HATE, and they list it as a HATE SYMBOL alongside literal swastikas and KKK insignia. It's funny the way parts of the database unironically accuse people of harboring "conspiracies that Jews secretly control XYZ" when the database is literally Jewish-curated such that almost everything listed is relevant to anti-Jew hate. You won't find the word Latino, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American anywhere in this "Complete" database of hate symbols!

The ADL is an anti-anti-Radical leftist group. You also won't find Muslim, Black Muslim, or Black Supremacist logos/symbols listed, because Hurty The Narrative.

CaptainHorsePaste says

The ADL is an anti-anti-Radical leftist group.

They are a MUCH, MUCH bigger player in the culture wars than almost anyone gives them credit for. I daresay they're a MUCH more active player than figurehead Biden himself. They also enjoy a halo of immunity from criticism. Would anyone here be willing to join together in public outcry for them defending the likes of Antifa?

Yep. Greenblatt was an Obama advisor. Whatshisface, the guy before, was a bit oversensitive but not at all focused on defending the far Left like Antifa.

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

Nice joke, as we all know that there is little to no copper in such a camera. This seems to be a variant on the old "5G antenna has 5 pounds of copper" joke. Anyway, you can defeat "the man" here with a simple hack - do not run a red light.

It takes a special kind of stupid to say that following the rules is sticking it to “the man”.

The issue is freedom of movement. Between cameras, GPS tracking in cell phones, etc. someone can in theory know where I am at all times.

If I run a lingering yellow and there is a cop on the other side of the intersection, I'm probably getting a ticket. So be it. But I also get to interact with a person and possibly plead my case right then and there.

The cameras take out the human element. One could even argue that with photo enforcement you are guilty until proven innocent because they will just mail you the ticket days, weeks or even months later. Granted you can fight it, but your dealing with a nameless faceless state behemoth at that point.

We are at times a charicture of the distopian society that our forefathers predicted.. and yet we live with it willingly for the sake of convenience.

My friends can't understand how I can go days of even weeks without my phone... But sometimes it's nice to be untethered.

PeopleUnited says

It takes a special kind of stupid to say that following the rules is sticking it to “the man”.

It takes a special kind of stupid to not see an obvious play on irony. Just like there is no copper in the camera, there is no rebellion by not running a red light. This even plays to the only real controversy of the redlight camera - that the system is more for revenue than safety.

Anyone else miss this?

GreaterNYCDude says

If I run a lingering yellow and there is a cop on the other side of the intersection, I'm probably getting a ticket. So be it. But I also get to interact with a person and possibly plead my case right then and there.

The cameras take out the human element.

Not around here. I have seen lots of these redlight videos when I was at the cab company. They only ticket if the light is red well before you got to the intersection. The video is reviewed by police and a $50 ticket is mailed to the address of the license plate holder. No points on the license, and you can contest it in court if you like. A "lingering yellow" won't get you a ticket by a redlight camera. We have one of the very few redlight installed at an intersection that was very busy and accident prone. The issue was people waiting a long time in line to get through the intersection and running red lights when they finally got to the front. Accidents went to virtually zero after the cameras were installed. I myself got one of those tickets when I was in line at the light and when it turned green the guy in front just sat there until someone beeped. I foolishly justified running the light when I got to the intersection since I knew that it would have still been green had the first guy not delayed, and I forgot about the camera. It was in a company car, so I had to reimburse the company the $50. If a cop gave me a ticket it would have been a lot more than $50 and also points on my license.

HeadSet says

the only real controversy of the redlight camera - that the system is more for revenue than safety.

HeadSet says

Accidents went to virtually zero after the cameras were installed.

Controversy settled. You said it yourself, cameras prevent crashes. And
HeadSet says

Anyway, you can defeat "the man" here with a simple hack - do not run a red light.

So you are all over the map here.

And that is why the attempt at “irony” falls flat.

PeopleUnited says

And that is why the attempt at “irony” falls flat.

Only for you. Own it, you missed the irony. There is no copper and there is no defeating the man hack. Searching a later post to try and gaslight the earlier post to being pro/com "all over the map" on the cameras is just sad.

On another note, learn the meaning of the work "controversy." My saying "the only real controversy of the redlight camera - that the system is more for revenue than safety" means there is a controversy, that is people disagree, it does not say what side I am on.

I own and stand by my comments. Nice straw man with the gaslighting.

The irony is that if you have to explain a “joke “ it’s not funny. Perhaps someone needs to own that.

PeopleUnited says

The irony is that if you have to explain a “joke “ it’s not funny. Perhaps someone needs to own that.

Could be. But also irony to call someone stupid when you do not get the joke.

Awaiting moderation

Please don’t confuse identifying a stupid comment with identifying a stupid person. Nobody needs to be stupid to say something stupid.

And now this conversation has become stoopid. So let’s get back to talking about sticking it to the “man”.


Or we could argue about who does irony and humor better. Maybe my original comment was ironic and not an insult? But regardless the best insults are funny, don’t you agree?