Anti-Tech Protesters Target VC With Vulgar Flyer

SMTA said:

Do you seriously not understand the impact that they have had on 1A rights?

You are quite clueless, it seems.

Click to expand...

Seriously? they have had no impact on First Amendment rights - as a matter of fact they're embracing the First Amendment. I don't agree with their message, however I support their right to protest.

I know a lot of tyrants would love to ban them from society just because they don't agree with them and their message, however that would be a serious infraction an the Bill of Rights - not to mention would create a slippery slope that would lead us into an Orwellian totalitarian society.

Sometimes you just have to put up with these crazy groups and their protests because as weird as it may seem and how ironic some of their messages are - they're protecting the First Amendment by practicing and embracing it.

Kreton said:

Nothing in this story says left other than right wing paranoia. I dont see the problem here.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they are in San Francisco, complaining about rich people, calling them leeches, and harassing them for being successful.... I just assumed they were Amish.

Fiddytree said:

The police showed up in this case too, you know.

Click to expand...

That's fine. If people are on public property, they should be allowed protest, but they don't get access to private property nor may they engage in vandalism. There are legal recourses available for both circumstances.

j-mac said:

Several reports of this incident have made the news, all trying to re-categorize the protesters as something other than leftist OWS types. This is not far different than the discussion on another thread concerning the Mozilla exec forced to resign.

What are your thoughts as to this type of bullying by the extreme left?

Click to expand...

The argument isn't around technology, trying to frame it as such is dishonest. It's about the fact that people who make a ton of money in tech jobs live in less exepensive areas and drive up the price so that people who have been there are forced out. The tech companies, like Yahoo, enable this by running private buses from these areas in San Francisco and Oakland to their HQ in Silicon Valley.

Eventually, the people who don't make tech bucks don't have anywhere they can afford to live. This is a problem for society as a whole unless these folks want to start scrubbing the toilets and serving fries themselves.

SMTA said:

Do you seriously not understand the impact that they have had on 1A rights?

You are quite clueless, it seems.

Click to expand...

The First Amendment doesn't apply to Liberals. It's in the fine print.

ludin said:

fact is as more people move into an area and the more income that comes into the area prices generally go up. just look at ND. the energy boom there has driven housing prices through the roof but their unemployment rate of 2.8% counters that as people are getting paid well enough to afford it.

i never said everyone could be a billionaire, but you can't really do better for yourself standing outside someone's housing carrying a protest sign.
that isn't going to accomplish anything. creating your own idea and or job skills will make it better for yourself.

Click to expand...

Just because unemployment is low doesn't necessarily mean people are being paid better, but i agree overall.

My main point is the "fight" is basically over gentrification. And gentrification is a complex.process with real iasues for real people.

Its NOT just poor people being jealous of rich people. I'm not sure how accurate the "the lazy poor are just jealous of the hardworking rich" meme is. I see it here and there but it's not part of "mainstream" leftist thought.

IME its much more nuanced and focuses on real issues arising from our latest iteration of capitalism, which came into being circa the mid seventies. Technologies and practises that have changed the "game" on a fundamental level.

j-mac said:

If you want to carry your gun then yes. But Gun ownership is a right, your desire to take my wealth is not.



If you had actually read the link I provided from the Cali ACLU you would have seen that permits are rarely turned down, but that they are there not only to provide for services needed for these types of protests, but to make sure that others rights were not infringed like what happened here in this illegal protest.

Click to expand...

So problems with protests justify limitations on free speech.

I actually see that point and agree as long as the permit process isn't being abused to silence protest.

Yet I'm betting you support unlimited anonymous campaign contributions, even though there are obviously problems involving the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Why ia one set of problems worthy of being addressed while the other set is completely dismissed?

Wiseone said:

Its not a left/right issue its about people being priced out of their homes and apartments, no one likes that regardless of politics.

Click to expand...

So, how is this gentleman pricing them out of their homes? Did you read the flier?

ludin said:

no one is booting them out. if they can't afford the rent then they have to move that is not booting people out.
a landlord has a right to price his apartment at market level. it isn't up to the government to decide what he should charge for apartments.

if his rent is to high for the building that people are moving into then people won't move in and he will be forced to lower it.
more people moving in with high paying jobs will cause the prices to raise this is just basic economics.

Click to expand...

And when all those displaced have to move elsewhere that increases demand THERE and causes rents to go up and on and on. While no one is building low income housing because it isn't profitable and generates little tax revenue.

Its not as simple as you seem to believe.

Kreton said:

St. Louis man charged with anti-gay harassment : News


There ya go. First result out of hundreds of pages

Click to expand...

Nothing in that report describes him as a 'conservative', 'right winger', 'right leaning', etc.... What, are you just going to pull up assholes, and assume that they must align with the right? pathetic.

What if...? said:

So problems with protests justify limitations on free speech.

I actually see that point and agree as long as the permit process isn't being abused to silence protest.

Yet I'm betting you support unlimited anonymous campaign contributions, even though there are obviously problems involving the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Why ia one set of problems worthy of being addressed while the other set is completely dismissed?

Click to expand...

You're trying awfully hard What if, to tell me what I think.....Look, if the protesters were legal in what they were doing then fine, we on the right should remember that and do the same to those leftists that further things we disagree with....I am sure some supporting the protesters wouldn't like that too much.

Mr.Nick said:

Seriously? they have had no impact on First Amendment rights - as a matter of fact they're embracing the First Amendment. I don't agree with their message, however I support their right to protest.

I know a lot of tyrants would love to ban them from society just because they don't agree with them and their message, however that would be a serious infraction an the Bill of Rights - not to mention would create a slippery slope that would lead us into an Orwellian totalitarian society.

Sometimes you just have to put up with these crazy groups and their protests because as weird as it may seem and how ironic some of their messages are - they're protecting the First Amendment by practicing and embracing it.

Click to expand...

Yea, seriously.

I guess that their win @ SCOTUS has no bearing, even though is was based on 1A rights, which WNC won.

Silly old me.

Snyder v. Phelps: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro - TIME

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

rocket88 said:

The argument isn't around technology, trying to frame it as such is dishonest.

Click to expand...

So, who said it was about technology? Not me...Try again.

It's about the fact that people who make a ton of money in tech jobs live in less exepensive areas and drive up the price so that people who have been there are forced out. The tech companies, like Yahoo, enable this by running private buses from these areas in San Francisco and Oakland to their HQ in Silicon Valley.

Click to expand...

Aren't people free to live where they want in this country? I wasn't aware that one needed permission to buy a home in a certain area if they are over a certain income level....

Eventually, the people who don't make tech bucks don't have anywhere they can afford to live. This is a problem for society as a whole unless these folks want to start scrubbing the toilets and serving fries themselves.

Click to expand...

And there you go....Those with means must give them up in order for you to approve where they live....What a crock....:roll:

j-mac said:

So, who said it was about technology? Not me...Try again.

Click to expand...

You followed the rules and used the title from the link. Whoever did write that title framed the argument dishonestly.

Aren't people free to live where they want in this country? I wasn't aware that one needed permission to buy a home in a certain area if they are over a certain income level....

Click to expand...

Sure, the problem isn't that a few people choose to live there. The ultimate problem is that they are encouraged and enabled by tech employers. If they had to drive to work like most of us do, they'd probably live closer.

And there you go....Those with means must give them up in order for you to approve where they live....What a crock....:roll:

Click to expand...

And there you go...can't actually make a decent argument, so you make one up. Typical. Affordable housing is a problem in some areas. If the janitors are priced out of the area, where do they live? Should all the janitors be homeless because they don't have enough money for you to give a crap? Why is it only "class warfare" when those on the lower end of the ladder do it? This IS class warfare, even when the higher incomes are doing it to the lower incomes. What happens when these neighborhoods get overpriced? People move to the next neighborhood down, and the buses follow them. Where is the affordable housing? You may not like the way they do it, but who's going to bring the issue to the forefront?

What if...? said:

And when all those displaced have to move elsewhere that increases demand THERE and causes rents to go up and on and on. While no one is building low income housing because it isn't profitable and generates little tax revenue.

Its not as simple as you seem to believe.

Click to expand...

It is hard to build low income housing. Cities don't like it and neither do other people that live in the area. it also tends to bring in a lot of crime.

however you can't blame it on the tech industry. people cry that they want high paying jobs. when high paying jobs come in people complain.

you need to make up your mind.

rocket88 said:

You followed the rules and used the title from the link. Whoever did write that title framed the argument dishonestly.





Sure, the problem isn't that a few people choose to live there. The ultimate problem is that they are encouraged and enabled by tech employers. If they had to drive to work like most of us do, they'd probably live closer.




And there you go...can't actually make a decent argument, so you make one up. Typical. Affordable housing is a problem in some areas. If the janitors are priced out of the area, where do they live? Should all the janitors be homeless because they don't have enough money for you to give a crap? Why is it only "class warfare" when those on the lower end of the ladder do it? This IS class warfare, even when the higher incomes are doing it to the lower incomes. What happens when these neighborhoods get overpriced? People move to the next neighborhood down, and the buses follow them. Where is the affordable housing? You may not like the way they do it, but who's going to bring the issue to the forefront?

Click to expand...

like everything housing is driven by the market. you like others you either want high end jobs coming into an area which means prices will go up or you want low end jobs to stay.
you can't have it both ways.

yes people that don't make tech dollars have places to live although they might have to move to cheaper area's. when i started working for my company i had to drive an hour back and forth to work because of where i lived. why? it was to expensive to move closer. the savings wasn't enough to justify the move.

ludin said:

i have better things to do like work and invest and increase my personal value. unlike these guys i don't have free time to sit around and complain that someone has more than me.
they should follow what successful people do not what unsuccessful people do.

successful people work invest and gain knowledge to increase their value.
unsuccessful people sit for hours holding signs that it isn't fair.

Click to expand...

And this goes right to the heart of the issue.

Ikari is correct that the right to assembly and protest is important.

The problem here is that the Left is filled with losers and bums who have the time to randomly pick people on the street and go to their house and picket them. Normal people aren't 100% politics all the time, normal people take care of the business of life and don't see the benefit of randomly targeting people for vilification.

Just because normal people don't fully use their right to free assembly and protest doesn't mean that we should weaken it.

What if...? said:

IME its much more nuanced and focuses on real issues arising from our latest iteration of capitalism, which came into being circa the mid seventies. Technologies and practises that have changed the "game" on a fundamental level.

Click to expand...

I've heard leftists called many things but never "nuanced".

j-mac said:

So, how is this gentleman pricing them out of their homes? Did you read the flier?

Click to expand...

He's a representation of the force that is pricing people out of their neighborhoods, I'm saying these kind of protests are admirable, using vomit for God's sake, but its not a right/left thing.

j-mac said:

Nothing in that report describes him as a 'conservative', 'right winger', 'right leaning', etc.... What, are you just going to pull up assholes, and assume that they must align with the right? pathetic.

Click to expand...

Nothing in your post has anything to do with with the left. So I did the same thing you did.

Wiseone said:

He's a representation of the force that is pricing people out of their neighborhoods, I'm saying these kind of protests are admirable, using vomit for God's sake, but its not a right/left thing.

Click to expand...

Pricing them out of their neighborhoods? Is he forcing them to sell or anything like that?

I've never heard of people protesting against prosperity before. Is this something we can now come to expect?

j-mac said:

Several reports of this incident have made the news, all trying to re-categorize the protesters as something other than leftist OWS types. This is not far different than the discussion on another thread concerning the Mozilla exec forced to resign.

What are your thoughts as to this type of bullying by the extreme left?

Click to expand...

why those ignorant pigs. How dare they CREATE jobs, live the American dream of owning your own home and surpassing the hard living "poor" people whose only chance at bettering themselves was the high school they slept through.

These fat, cash fat, pocket lined, silk hat ****s need to give their money to these people who's lives have been absolutely ruined by Google.....

Grant said:

Pricing them out of their neighborhoods? Is he forcing them to sell or anything like that?

I've never heard of people protesting against prosperity before. Is this something we can now come to expect?

Click to expand...

Clearly you have no understanding of real estate allow me to educate you with some extremely basic concepts like "adjustable rate mortgage" and "rent."

You see when housing prices go up, those folks with an adjustable rate mortgage may not be able to pay because their rate will increase to match their new house prices, if they aren't making more money at work it could force them to default or cut back in other ways.

As for rent if a renter decides to terminate your lease because he can now rent at a higher price and you cannot afford, again because you still make the same but the influx of higher wage earners raise prices, then you'll have to move somewhere else. Likewise if your lease ends on its own your renter can jack up the price to reflect the new market rate and if you can't pay then you must go.

Additional grocers target specific income levels and set up stores in areas where those people live, you won't find Wal-marts or as many Wal-Marts in wealthier neighborhoods but you will find them in poorer ones for example, if these stores decide to move because wealthier people like to shop at higher end retail and grocers than that adds further economic burden onto you.

Its a symptom of economic growth you could say, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen or needs to be stopped but no one likes having their cost of living suddenly outstrip their income and be forced to move or have less money in their pocket because their cost of living increased.

And no one, not even you, love the free market soooooo much that you wouldn't be upset if it were to happen to you.

Wiseone said:

Clearly you have no understanding of real estate

Click to expand...

In fact I have made millions in real estate and in the coming months I will make more.

Yes, everyone wants to make as much money as they can and don't want to pay more for anything.. Point taken.

Wiseone said:

Clearly you have no understanding of real estate allow me to educate you with some extremely basic concepts like "adjustable rate mortgage" and "rent."

You see when housing prices go up, those folks with an adjustable rate mortgage may not be able to pay because their rate will increase to match their new house prices, if they aren't making more money at work it could force them to default or cut back in other ways.

Click to expand...

This was comedy gold. Thank you.

I particularly enjoyed your fine comedy touch of deigning to educate people about basic issues like "adjustable rate mortgages" and then grossly misunderstanding them yourself. The blind teaching the sighted how to read is always good for laughs.

The rate which is adjustable is the interest rate, not the value of the house.

I'm trying to understand how you see the world but I can't make heads or tails of how you could arrive at such a view.

Related: