What's everyone think about the Ustride video?

[UPONIT]

19 hours ago, MadVlad said:

I suppose. Im not sure what exists to keep people to their word today. I operate at the level of written contract at this stage in my life, so I have no idea how its done outside of that anymore. Maybe everyone just does and says whatever they feel like, running their mouth has no consequences, I dont know if thats always better.

You can't think of any other ways to keep people to their word aside from beating them? The consequences of "running their mouth" should be... non-violent, for sure. *

And, like it or not, saying whatever you feel like is (generally) the point of the 1st Amendment.

Not to be Captain Serious or anything, but a time when people who broke their word "caught a beating" isn't a time that should be fondly remembered, IMHO.

 

---------------------------

*    Teach children the concept of honor? Insist that elected officials demonstrate integrity? Be role models in our own lives? 

 

[MadVlad]

1 hour ago, UPONIT said:

You can't think of any other ways to keep people to their word aside from beating them? The consequences of "running their mouth" should be... non-violent, for sure. *

And, like it or not, saying whatever you feel like is (generally) the point of the 1st Amendment.

Not to be Captain Serious or anything, but a time when people who broke their word "caught a beating" isn't a time that should be fondly remembered, IMHO.

 

---------------------------

*    Teach children the concept of honor? Insist that elected officials demonstrate integrity? Be role models in our own lives? 

 

You misunderstood what I said. The guy made a bet, shook hands on it, he lost the bet, he lost his wheel. If he had tried to back out on it after doing the race and losing, that wheel would have been taken from him by the group, along with some extra value for being a bitch and forcing such a thing (reparations). The beating would have happened had he decided to then snitch and get the police involved in the matter. What do you do if someone hits on your girl in front of you? What if someone calls you a bitch in front of her? What if they insult your mother? etc. There were things everyone knew you simply didnt do, because if you did you were in for a bad time. And in order to make sure that a big guy couldnt just provoke people because he can take anyone on 1 v 1, the punishment was handled communally, no matter how big you are you were still going to get handled.

[eezo]

On 8/20/2023 at 11:07 PM, MadVlad said:

maybe Im just old and things have changed, I dont know.

I can answer this for you. You're old and things have changed. Vigilante shit isn't justice, it's mob rules. Society is growing past the place where old dudes with antiquated ideas can fuck people up because they want to. I'm glad to see your world fading into the sunset.

I shouldn't need to say this but I need to say this: I am not defending Ustride.

[eezo]

1 hour ago, MadVlad said:

What do you do if someone hits on your girl in front of you? What if someone calls you a bitch in front of her? What if they insult your mother? etc. 

We're not cavemen.

She's not my girl, she's her own person, she'll handle her own shit and if she wants my help she'll ask. If someone calls me a bitch I laugh it off because they're a sad pathetic little human and they're not worth my time. If they insult my mother I ignore them because I don't engage with trolls.

This is way off topic at this point but for being the generation who calls young people delicate sensitive flowers, your generation sure is hyper sensitive. It's sad that you can't even envision a world where conflict is handled without violence and threats.

Do you realize that in your system, if the threat of violence is the only thing holding everyone back from doing awful things, that means everyone involved is awful? It's 2023, we're not animals.

[EUCzero]

I hate this NYC aggressive behavior. But a handshake and the spoken word is a contract. At least in my country. With witnesses as well as a video. It is a LEGAL contract. I would be surprised if a layer would not say the same.

https://oboloo.com/blog/is-a-handshake-a-legal-contract/

I think this one explains it well. "A handshake in it self is not a contract unless both parties have an “understanding” that they are entering into an agreement."
And both parties most certain understood there was an agreement going on. Even if U-stride made the agreement as a strange revenge knowing he would brake the agreement, it was still an agreement, therefor a binding contract.

There are two things that makes it possible not being a "legally contract". There was no offering (money/buy sell something) involved. Or it was.. The EUCs are maybe just that... the payment needed to make it a contract.
Other thing.... Legality. Street racing is not legal. So was the activity "Street racing" witch is illegal, or was it "betting" that is legal?

NO MATTER IF IT IS A "LEGAL" CONTRACT OR NOT..... IT STILL WAS AN AGREEMENT!!! Handshake... That is not nothing. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by EUCzero

[alcatraz]

Breaking a contract is ugly and should be looked down upon.

[varamontelo]

The garbage on wheels in this video are too dumb, they shouldn't be out there risking their lives and especially the lives of innocent audiences. He is a moron who stakes his life for a sum of money or for a brief attention, the next day he will be forgotten by the majority of riders and future riders, so no success, no respect for normal populations. His image will be that of an idiot, we see an empty head pass.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

4 hours ago, eezo said:

Society is growing past the place where old dudes with antiquated ideas can fuck people up because they want to.

If only this were true with today's youth, Its nice to pretend they are a "better" generation. However the news says otherwise. How many school shootings can we remember back in the 60's and 70's.? The problem is that our youth lives under the illusion that "they know whats best" so in reality, things haven't changed a bit. Except for people taking less responsibility for their own actions as well as inflicting a more permanent lesson. And now I'm thinking these last few comments should be moved off of this topic to it's own category.

[The Brahan Seer]

5 hours ago, eezo said:

I can answer this for you. You're old and things have changed. Vigilante shit isn't justice, it's mob rules. Society is growing past the place where old dudes with antiquated ideas can fuck people up because they want to. I'm glad to see your world fading into the sunset.

Are you living under a rock? or just naive. Nothings changed.

Old dude Putin with antiquated idea's is fucking up Ukraine (and Russia) as we speak. You do realise we are at hot proxy war with Russia atm?

Anyone had bad experiences with politicians and government recently? (rhetorical question) 

I wish the world was heading in the way you think and a few years ago I almost believed it was but alas no.

Peace out.

[UPONIT]

15 hours ago, MadVlad said:

You misunderstood what I said. The guy made a bet, shook hands on it, he lost the bet, he lost his wheel. If he had tried to back out on it after doing the race and losing, that wheel would have been taken from him by the group, along with some extra value for being a bitch and forcing such a thing (reparations). The beating would have happened had he decided to then snitch and get the police involved in the matter. What do you do if someone hits on your girl in front of you? What if someone calls you a bitch in front of her? What if they insult your mother? etc. There were things everyone knew you simply didnt do, because if you did you were in for a bad time. And in order to make sure that a big guy couldnt just provoke people because he can take anyone on 1 v 1, the punishment was handled communally, no matter how big you are you were still going to get handled.

The answer to all your questions is simple: you do anything but put your hands on someone because of something they say.

The problem here is that you (I don't know or care how old you are--it isn't an age or generation issue) think violence in response to words is justified, ever.

13 hours ago, eezo said:

We're not cavemen.

She's not my girl, she's her own person, she'll handle her own shit and if she wants my help she'll ask. If someone calls me a bitch I laugh it off because they're a sad pathetic little human and they're not worth my time. If they insult my mother I ignore them because I don't engage with trolls.

This is way off topic at this point but for being the generation who calls young people delicate sensitive flowers, your generation sure is hyper sensitive. It's sad that you can't even envision a world where conflict is handled without violence and threats.

Do you realize that in your system, if the threat of violence is the only thing holding everyone back from doing awful things, that means everyone involved is awful? It's 2023, we're not animals.

Technically, we ARE animals. But even some non-human animals can be taught to not react violently to negative stimuli. 

So there's still no excuse. 

[UPONIT]

8 hours ago, The Brahan Seer said:

Are you living under a rock? or just naive. Nothings changed.

Old dude Putin with antiquated idea's is fucking up Ukraine (and Russia) as we speak. You do realise we are at hot proxy war with Russia atm?

Anyone had bad experiences with politicians and government recently? (rhetorical question) 

I wish the world was heading in the way you think and a few years ago I almost believed it was but alas no.

Peace out.

Both of you can be correct. Optimism and pessimism both have their places. Progress is never easy or a straight line. 

[MadVlad]

11 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

If only this were true with today's youth, Its nice to pretend they are a "better" generation. However the news says otherwise. How many school shootings can we remember back in the 60's and 70's.? The problem is that our youth lives under the illusion that "they know whats best" so in reality, things haven't changed a bit. Except for people taking less responsibility for their own actions as well as inflicting a more permanent lesson. And now I'm thinking these last few comments should be moved off of this topic to it's own category.

Bingo. When I was a kid many of us had guns, we had fights, 0 of those fights ended with a shooting. Win or lose, it was settled. Today it seems that much of the time shooting is the first thing kids go to, many adults as well. We can debate on the reasons for this, but I think everyone can agree that its not an improvement. The community had a way of weeding out kids that caused problems, disrespected others, etc. Today it seems like the community tends to bully people instead, weeding out the unfortunate souls that had something embarrassing that happened to them captured on video, and turning them into pariahs. Then the kid snaps and either commits suicide or brings a gun to school ... and nobody can figure out what happened, its a mystery! For all this talk about this being a better society ... I dont see it.

[MadVlad]

8 hours ago, UPONIT said:

The problem here is that you (I don't know or care how old you are--it isn't an age or generation issue) think violence in response to words is justified, ever.

 

Once again: that is not what I wrote. Violence was a response to snitching, as in going to the police after the situation was settled. I never said it was right, or the best way to handle it, but thats how it was, and thats what kept most people from doing stupid things. If you remove a mechanism, you better have something ready to replace it with, because people are people, they tend to do all sorts of bad things. What you are talking about is a theory that is not connected to reality. Believe it or not, many people, given a chance, will walk all over you, some of them actually enjoy hurting people, it brings them physical pleasure, so when you say violence is never a justified response to words, you better understand that those words might be a test to see if you do anything in response, if you stand up for yourself, and if you dont, then you are about to get stepped on. Thats reality.

And thats before we get into things like the "Standford Prison Experiment", the various conformity experiments, the Marina Abramovic experiment etc. When you express a theory and form a plan based on that theory, you better take human nature into the equation, and then figure out a way to modify it/channel it to make your idea possible. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by MadVlad

[Planemo]

6 hours ago, MadVlad said:

Once again: that is not what I wrote. Violence was a response to snitching, as in going to the police after the situation was settled. I never said it was right, or the best way to handle it, but thats how it was, and thats what kept most people from doing stupid things. If you remove a mechanism, you better have something ready to replace it with, because people are people, they tend to do all sorts of bad things. What you are talking about is a theory that is not connected to reality. Believe it or not, many people, given a chance, will walk all over you, some of them actually enjoy hurting people, it brings them physical pleasure, so when you say violence is never a justified response to words, you better understand that those words might be a test to see if you do anything in response, if you stand up for yourself, and if you dont, then you are about to get stepped on. Thats reality.

And thats before we get into things like the "Standford Prison Experiment", the various conformity experiments, the Marina Abramovic experiment etc. When you express a theory and form a plan based on that theory, you better take human nature into the equation, and then figure out a way to modify it/channel it to make your idea possible. 

I've been following this discussion but decided not to reply until I saw this. On the whole, I had disagreed with most of what you were saying but this post actually carries a lot of truth. I and many others go down the rabbit hole of trying to be 'lefty', nice, non violent and think that we can make the world a utopia of friendliness where everyone gets on, is truthful, honest and carries integrity. The problem (as I alluded to in another thread) is that many humans can't manage to do this. So whilst I agree in theory with the others, I also agree with yourself in that without another mechanism to fall back on the stupids will flourish.

[alcatraz]

Leftist ideas work for a family, but they don't scale to larger societies. Parental instincts quickly become counterproductive on a larger scale. I'd say somewhere at the point where you stop knowing who the people are. So somewhere between a village and a town. Vote left at your own risk. 

[alcatraz]

And no, I'm not excited to vote for the opposition either because most parties are a shit sandwich but, the basic idea of conservatism and libertarianismn is sound. I vote for that idea, not the party people representing it. Pretty much all of them do a poor job of representing it.

[The Brahan Seer]

"Snitches get stitches"

The problem with snitching to me is it creates a kind of society and people who think its good getting people into trouble and undermines trust.

"Tell tale tit, your mammy cannae Knit"

 My granny had a black cat. When I was around 3 or 4 I pulled its tail, very hard. It swiftly bit me on the hand and drew blood. Lesson learned!

Discipline and warnings using pain is not a bad thing and mother nature uses it all the time.

The problem though is some misuse and abuse it. But that is a different thing.

Some say the psychological pain we are causing kids nowadays without emotional boundaries is much worse than a slap on the bum. 

 

 

 

 

 

[onewheelkoregro]

13 hours ago, alcatraz said:

And no, I'm not excited to vote for the opposition either because most parties are a shit sandwich but, the basic idea of conservatism and libertarianismn is sound. I vote for that idea, not the party people representing it. Pretty much all of them do a poor job of representing it.

Well generally "conservatism" is synonymous with authoritarianism because what they are "conserving" is old values that don't necessarily translate to today. Being from another country and traveling around the world I have found Authoritarianism to be a western phenomenon that has taken hold in South Korea. But to each their own. The more you try to control people they more the rebel. Anyone with kids will tell you that

[MadVlad]

11 minutes ago, onewheelkoregro said:

Well generally "conservatism" is synonymous with authoritarianism because what they are "conserving" is old values that don't necessarily translate to today. Being from another country and traveling around the world I have found Authoritarianism to be a western phenomenon that has taken hold in South Korea. But to each their own. The more you try to control people they more the rebel. Anyone with kids will tell you that

A healthy society needs a balance of conservatives and progressives, the progressives keep it from stagnating, the conservatives keep it from changing too quickly and uncontrollably. Modern day US is a perfect example of what happens when there is an imbalance, where the liberal progressive mind is wrecking itself trying to find something else to "rebel against", some new way to "be a victim". Not everything old is bad, not everything new is good, especially when you wreck things without having a reasonable alternative in place, lots of unintended consequences as well. Here is a simple example: say we make rape a capital offense, most people, especially liberal progressives would likely say "great, kill those monsters" ... except now the rape charge and the murder charge carry the same punishment, and so every rape turns into a murder by default because the rapist doesnt want to leave a witness. Not an improvement, good intentions leading to horrible results. 

[onewheelkoregro]

3 hours ago, MadVlad said:

A healthy society needs a balance of conservatives and progressives, the progressives keep it from stagnating, the conservatives keep it from changing too quickly and uncontrollably. Modern day US is a perfect example of what happens when there is an imbalance, where the liberal progressive mind is wrecking itself trying to find something else to "rebel against", some new way to "be a victim". Not everything old is bad, not everything new is good, especially when you wreck things without having a reasonable alternative in place, lots of unintended consequences as well. Here is a simple example: say we make rape a capital offense, most people, especially liberal progressives would likely say "great, kill those monsters" ... except now the rape charge and the murder charge carry the same punishment, and so every rape turns into a murder by default because the rapist doesnt want to leave a witness. Not an improvement, good intentions leading to horrible results. 

Life is all about balance. I don't like discussing politics because everyone has different experiences and ideas. But I hear what you are saying and I agree with some of it but historically people, in general, resist change. If things stayed the same we would still be riding around on horses with buggies instead of these wonderful machines. There is no one size fits all to governing an entire population. Different societies demand different things that's all I was trying to say. But I agree with you on the point that things need to be balanced. The world as a whole has been becoming more and more unbalanced in the last 75 years. But recklessness is usually rewarded by swift consequences which is the original subject of this thread and I have no idea how it evolved into an allegory for society as a whole

[onewheelkoregro]

19 hours ago, Planemo said:

I've been following this discussion but decided not to reply until I saw this. On the whole, I had disagreed with most of what you were saying but this post actually carries a lot of truth. I and many others go down the rabbit hole of trying to be 'lefty', nice, non violent and think that we can make the world a utopia of friendliness where everyone gets on, is truthful, honest and carries integrity. The problem (as I alluded to in another thread) is that many humans can't manage to do this. So whilst I agree in theory with the others, I also agree with yourself in that without another mechanism to fall back on the stupids will flourish.

There is a difference between being "harmless" and "peaceful". My whole life I have been in combat sports, that does not mean I go out looking for fights, but if a fight comes to me I know how to defend myself. People in society, especially in Western ones, usually equate strength with the willingness to do violence. When in actuality strength is the ability to withhold violence. It is easy to let your emotions control you and strike out, it is much harder to take a couple of seconds and asses the situation and see if it truly deserves violence. That's just my two cents, but in my experience people who act aggressively all the time aren't the brightest crayon in the box

[MadVlad]

40 minutes ago, onewheelkoregro said:

There is a difference between being "harmless" and "peaceful". My whole life I have been in combat sports, that does not mean I go out looking for fights, but if a fight comes to me I know how to defend myself. People in society, especially in Western ones, usually equate strength with the willingness to do violence. When in actuality strength is the ability to withhold violence. It is easy to let your emotions control you and strike out, it is much harder to take a couple of seconds and asses the situation and see if it truly deserves violence. That's just my two cents, but in my experience people who act aggressively all the time aren't the brightest crayon in the box

I completely agree, your post made me think of this skit for some reason hahah

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by MadVlad

[UPONIT]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:02 PM, MadVlad said:

Bingo. When I was a kid many of us had guns, we had fights, 0 of those fights ended with a shooting. Win or lose, it was settled. Today it seems that much of the time shooting is the first thing kids go to, many adults as well. We can debate on the reasons for this, but I think everyone can agree that its not an improvement. The community had a way of weeding out kids that caused problems, disrespected others, etc. Today it seems like the community tends to bully people instead, weeding out the unfortunate souls that had something embarrassing that happened to them captured on video, and turning them into pariahs. Then the kid snaps and either commits suicide or brings a gun to school ... and nobody can figure out what happened, its a mystery! For all this talk about this being a better society ... I dont see it.

A nuance to the view that society isn't improving: are you aware that violent crimes in the US have been on a steady decline for the last four/five decades? Life expectancy is now in the 80s. Hunger/malnutrition in the US has steadily fallen (until recently). The environment is FAR cleaner than it was in the 70s.

I'd call that an improvement. Yes, there is a lot left to fix. But still...

On 8/22/2023 at 3:20 PM, MadVlad said:

Once again: that is not what I wrote. Violence was a response to snitching, as in going to the police after the situation was settled. I never said it was right, or the best way to handle it, but thats how it was, and thats what kept most people from doing stupid things. If you remove a mechanism, you better have something ready to replace it with, because people are people, they tend to do all sorts of bad things. What you are talking about is a theory that is not connected to reality. Believe it or not, many people, given a chance, will walk all over you, some of them actually enjoy hurting people, it brings them physical pleasure, so when you say violence is never a justified response to words, you better understand that those words might be a test to see if you do anything in response, if you stand up for yourself, and if you dont, then you are about to get stepped on. Thats reality.

And thats before we get into things like the "Standford Prison Experiment", the various conformity experiments, the Marina Abramovic experiment etc. When you express a theory and form a plan based on that theory, you better take human nature into the equation, and then figure out a way to modify it/channel it to make your idea possible. 

You have misunderstood what I said from the very beginning. If someone punches you, of course you have the right to defend yourself. But if it were possible to keep every person on Earth from ever being the first to throw the punch, the world would be better. Not perfect. Better.

But you have correctly identified the core problem. People are endlessly varied on all sorts of spectrums. Mentally, physically, ethically, etc. There are some people who are just "bad" by nature. I don't know the solution. I just try to avoid being part of the problem.

I don't put my hands on anyone first. 

20 hours ago, Planemo said:

I've been following this discussion but decided not to reply until I saw this. On the whole, I had disagreed with most of what you were saying but this post actually carries a lot of truth. I and many others go down the rabbit hole of trying to be 'lefty', nice, non violent and think that we can make the world a utopia of friendliness where everyone gets on, is truthful, honest and carries integrity. The problem (as I alluded to in another thread) is that many humans can't manage to do this. So whilst I agree in theory with the others, I also agree with yourself in that without another mechanism to fall back on the stupids will flourish.

Left/Right... meh. Melodrama at the extremes. I'll take logic, reason and deciding issues on a case by case basis, not dogmatic adherence to labels. 

Note: Is that the new definition? Left= nice nonviolent. Right = violent and mean? I don't think those are true and comprehensive. But one definitely sounds better?

4 hours ago, MadVlad said:

A healthy society needs a balance of conservatives and progressives, the progressives keep it from stagnating, the conservatives keep it from changing too quickly and uncontrollably. Modern day US is a perfect example of what happens when there is an imbalance, where the liberal progressive mind is wrecking itself trying to find something else to "rebel against", some new way to "be a victim". Not everything old is bad, not everything new is good, especially when you wreck things without having a reasonable alternative in place, lots of unintended consequences as well. Here is a simple example: say we make rape a capital offense, most people, especially liberal progressives would likely say "great, kill those monsters" ... except now the rape charge and the murder charge carry the same punishment, and so every rape turns into a murder by default because the rapist doesnt want to leave a witness. Not an improvement, good intentions leading to horrible results. 

Since when is the US in any way shape or form "liberal progressive?" You must be joking. This isn't the place for that discussion. 

But your rape/murder thought experiment reminds me of the SNL sketch where instead of having a party where you enact a Murder Mystery, with victim and criminal and lots of detectives, they had a Rape Mystery party. Though murder is clearly the worse offense, the rape party was uncomfortable and disastrous, of course. It says something about the way we view sex and violence...

[MadVlad]

57 minutes ago, UPONIT said:

A nuance to the view that society isn't improving: are you aware that violent crimes in the US have been on a steady decline for the last four/five decades? Life expectancy is now in the 80s. Hunger/malnutrition in the US has steadily fallen (until recently). The environment is FAR cleaner than it was in the 70s

I will make it short: most of the improvement happened between the 70s (with the wave of crisis that happened back then) and the 90s when US hit its 2nd highest point following the post WW2 period. Since the late 90s, one could argue since 9/11, we have been on a steady decline that is accelerating, and thats in every metric. Half the cities that were once amazing are now garbage dumps (literally). So no, we havent been improving, not for well over a decade. As a matter of fact: we are in serious trouble.

Edited August 24, 2023 by MadVlad

[Planemo]

3 hours ago, UPONIT said:

Left/Right... meh. Melodrama at the extremes. I'll take logic, reason and deciding issues on a case by case basis, not dogmatic adherence to labels.

'Extreme melodrama' lol. I'd love to know what your label is for something far more serious than my post (joke, seriously, don't bother answering that).

3 hours ago, UPONIT said:

Note: Is that the new definition? Left= nice nonviolent. Right = violent and mean? I don't think those are true and comprehensive.

Oh dear. You seem easily triggered. Odd considering your almost pacifistic views.

If you don't agree that extreme left generally refers to descriptors like friendly, tolerant, decent, humane etc and extreme right normally refers to nasty stuff I won't go into, I don't think it's worth bothering to go any further. ATB in continuing to be a fully paid up member of the semantic police.