[Snowplow]

Did you ever stop and think maybe the reason they are out doing it in the first place is because a friend or a loved one was struck by a car recklessly driving on the sidewalk.

[Frontenac]

(02-16-2015 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 08:11 AM)Frontenac Wrote:  

I love this kind of stuff, but one day they are going to stop the wrong person and end up on the loud end of an AK.

Doesn't look like it. The people appear to support the kids. The guy who pulled out the AK in one of the videos (so funny!) showed up to get the guy off the sidewalk.

I really question the guys here who display insane amounts of cowardice. You won't stand up to people breaking the laws because you're afraid of being hurt? If I had sons who said such things I'd consider slapping them in the face for being such weaklings.

Agreed, the people look like they support these guys wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, all you need is one asshole to go off the deep end and you're dead, and no public support can help you.

It's rare these days to see idiots getting called on their bullshit. I think that's why I've enjoyed these videos as I have.

[Roosh]

Quote:

I read a bit about Moscow's subway systems, and they are supposedly excellent, and far faster and cheaper than driving. Which makes you wonder - why do people insist on driving?

Moscow is quite big with many exurbs, and the metro covers a relatively small profile of the city. The buses are nothing to get excited about using.

[Carlos100]

I assume the people are ducking the punches because they know they're getting it on video so they can charge the person with assault later.

[Samseau]

(02-16-2015 02:44 PM)dreambig Wrote:  

Quite surprised to see people espousing such blue pill ideas here.

You want to sacrifice yourself for a "society" that doesn't give a shit about you? Over some traffic violations? Go right ahead.

Redpill lesson: You ARE society. What the men do makes others follow. Your words and actions have consequences.

You can't fix the world, but you can fix your neighborhood.

As for not doing something for a society that doesn't care about you - why the hell are you in a society that doesn't care about you in the first place? Go somewhere you would actually fight to protect.

[Kickb]

You guys like these fools? If anything it seems they are the "douchebags".

In the second video, the guy listened to them, yet they still got in front of his car and tried to put a dumb sticker on the hood.

[turkishcandy]

They are just a gang of bullies. They do this in groups of at least 3 or 4 so that no one can physically stop them. This is nothing but mob violence. If it's against the law to drive on the sidewalk, it's more unlawful to stick big stickers on the front windows of driving cars. There is nothing noble about it. They catch their victims outnumbered 1 to 6 and then they put a giant sticker on the front window that are virtually impossible to remove. What happens if one of those drivers hit someone later because they can't see because of the sticker? Is that less dangreous than driving on the sidewalk?

This group is not very different from those SJWs who show up inside the restaurants and disturb people eating by loudly protesting against eating meat. It's the same faggoty mentality.

If everyone took the justice into their own hands, there would be chaos. You would have a SJW standing in your face every day preventing you from doings they think you shouldn't do.

I hope one of them gets their teeth kicked in.

[Snowplow]

(06-23-2015 06:35 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

They are just a gang of bullies. They do this in groups of at least 3 or 4 so that no one can physically stop them. This is nothing but mob violence. If it's against the law to drive on the sidewalk, it's more unlawful to stick big stickers on the front windows of driving cars. There is nothing noble about it. They catch their victims outnumbered 1 to 6 and then they put a giant sticker on the front window that are virtually impossible to remove. What happens if one of those drivers hit someone later because they can't see because of the sticker? Is that less dangreous than driving on the sidewalk?

This group is not very different from those SJWs who show up inside the restaurants and disturb people eating by loudly protesting against eating meat. It's the same faggoty mentality.

If everyone took the justice into their own hands, there would be chaos. You would have a SJW standing in your face every day preventing you from doings they think you shouldn't do.

I hope one of them gets their teeth kicked in.

Did you watch all of the video? They give everyone a chance to stop and reverse before they put a sticker on the car.

[turkishcandy]

Ah, that makes it all okay then.

[Snowplow]

I'm glad I helped clear that up for you and that you have a better understanding of the entire issue.

[H1N1]

(06-23-2015 06:35 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

They are just a gang of bullies. They do this in groups of at least 3 or 4 so that no one can physically stop them. This is nothing but mob violence. If it's against the law to drive on the sidewalk, it's more unlawful to stick big stickers on the front windows of driving cars. There is nothing noble about it. They catch their victims outnumbered 1 to 6 and then they put a giant sticker on the front window that are virtually impossible to remove. What happens if one of those drivers hit someone later because they can't see because of the sticker? Is that less dangreous than driving on the sidewalk?

This group is not very different from those SJWs who show up inside the restaurants and disturb people eating by loudly protesting against eating meat. It's the same faggoty mentality.

If everyone took the justice into their own hands, there would be chaos. You would have a SJW standing in your face every day preventing you from doings they think you shouldn't do.

I hope one of them gets their teeth kicked in.

They do it in groups for their own physical safety. In several of the videos, those they confront try to fight them, with weapons. Having other people to ensure you don't get beaten with 12" of rebar is just good sense.

They only put the sticker on once the person driving has refused to be reasonable and rejoin the traffic. They are unthreatening in their initial approach, and only one of them goes to speak to the driver. If the driver is unreasonable, they get the sticker stuck on. This is not wanton vandalism, this is reasonably mild dispensation of token justice.

Your whole post is one giant fallacious argument, but the bit about the 'sjws who show up to restaurants to protest people eating meat' and the 'faggot mentality' are just ridiculous. One of the significant reasons for the historical success of Western European culture is a firm belief in law and order, and civic duty to uphold reasonable laws even where that may risk causing you harm. Taking pride in, and investing in, your society by ensuring reasonable laws are upheld is exactly how you maintain a culture worth living in. The fact that we have allowed an attitude of 'not my problem' to prevail, is a large factor in the poor social standards we now have to deal with.

[Dr. Howard]

and I thought driving in chicago and toronto was bad.

[turkishcandy]

Quote:

this is reasonably mild dispensation of token justice.

No, this is breaking the law. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't just go out there end enforce traffic laws by jumping on driving cars and sticking stickers however you like. You don't have the authority. You talk about civil duty and laws but you are essentially trying to justify vigilantes. The reason we have created society is so that people can't punish unlawful behavior by themselves and they give up this right to objective and independent courts of law. So your ''civil duty'' exists in order to prevent vigilantes.

On one hand we have drivers driving on the side walk, on the other hand we have a gang damaging property, endangering the lives of others by blocking the view of drivers with large stickers that won't come off. If you put these on a scale, the latter one would outweigh. There is an imbalance between the ends you're trying to achieve and the means you are resorting to. These so called crime fighters don't only peacefully protest. They respond with violence when a driver goes out and fights them. One guy is a wrestler and he just tossed the guy onto the ground. They are trying to pick up fights like that so they could get more views.

[Seadog]

(06-23-2015 08:22 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Quote:

this is reasonably mild dispensation of token justice.

No, this is breaking the law. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't just go out there end enforce traffic laws by jumping on driving cars and sticking stickers however you like. You don't have the authority. You talk about civil duty and laws but you are essentially trying to justify vigilantes. The reason we have created society is so that people can't punish unlawful behavior by themselves and they give up this right to objective and independent courts of law. So your ''civil duty'' exists in order to prevent vigilantes.

On one hand we have drivers driving on the side walk, on the other hand we have a gang damaging property, endangering the lives of others by blocking the view of drivers with large stickers that won't come off. If you put these on a scale, the latter one would outweigh. There is an imbalance between the ends you're trying to achieve and the means you are resorting to. These so called crime fighters don't only peacefully protest. They respond with violence when a driver goes out and fights them. One guy is a wrestler and he just tossed the guy onto the ground. They are trying to pick up fights like that so they could get more views.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but where do you draw the line then? Just because someone is in my home raping my wife, doesn't give me the right to intervene and assault him? Afterall that would be taking the law into my own hands.

Driving a car on the sidewalk is a direct threat to people who are just trying to walk from point A to point B. To do that in the first place reeks of arrogance. How would you handle the situation? Merely tip your hat and get out of the way whilst complimenting them on their reckless driving?

They start off reasonable, it's only when the 'holier than thou, who are you to tell me not to run people down on the sidewalk' attitude comes out they raise the stakes.

[TheWastelander]

Does Russia have traffic cops who'd actually go after these people, though? I've never seen anything like this in America since it seems dangerous and the driver would get severely punished for it.

[General Stalin]

I say bravo. So many deaths are caused every year by negligent operation of motor vehicles I think it's a good thing to keep these irresponsible and ignorant motorists in check. Looks to me like an act of civic pride and consideration for others and the law. Nothing grinds my gears more than shitty, irresponsible, and selfish drivers.

The notion that it's "blue pill" to voluntarily take on civic duty and responsibility is absurd. I'm not saying only "real men" take it upon themselves to uphold the law and put others on the spot for being negligent assholes, but every great society in history was certainly not made great by a bunch of people going "not my problem"

[H1N1]

(06-23-2015 08:22 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Quote:

this is reasonably mild dispensation of token justice.

No, this is breaking the law. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't just go out there end enforce traffic laws by jumping on driving cars and sticking stickers however you like. You don't have the authority. You talk about civil duty and laws but you are essentially trying to justify vigilantes. The reason we have created society is so that people can't punish unlawful behavior by themselves and they give up this right to objective and independent courts of law. So your ''civil duty'' exists in order to prevent vigilantes.

On one hand we have drivers driving on the side walk, on the other hand we have a gang damaging property, endangering the lives of others by blocking the view of drivers with large stickers that won't come off. If you put these on a scale, the latter one would outweigh. There is an imbalance between the ends you're trying to achieve and the means you are resorting to. These so called crime fighters don't only peacefully protest. They respond with violence when a driver goes out and fights them. One guy is a wrestler and he just tossed the guy onto the ground. They are trying to pick up fights like that so they could get more views.

Actually this is not true. This is a very recent, state-centric, city dweller view of how civilization works that is not borne out by history, or by reality. Men have handled business since time immemorial. I still spend time with several old time country men from round me who used to accompany the local police man when there was a crime spree, and help him clobber the criminals. These blokes would shoot the dogs of poachers and trespassers, and give them a good hiding, before calling the police and getting a handshake and the policeman's thanks for dealing with the situation appropriately.

Your point of view is demonstrably false, and relies on a police force capable of tacking or preventing every single crime (even in the US and UK this is a laughable notion). It is incumbent upon all parties within a civilized society to uphold the law, and to take appropriate measures when they see those laws being broken. My father's generation would have been given a clip round the ear by a stranger if they'd been seen littering, and if he'd gone home and complained about it, he'd have got another clip round the ear from his father, both for littering, and for letting his father down in the eyes of society. That is how men from the 'greatest generation' handled their shit, and you can be damn sure that if someone drove down the pavement in front of them they would haul the bloke out of the car and teach him some manners in a very blunt way.

[TheWastelander]

(06-23-2015 09:17 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 08:22 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Quote:

this is reasonably mild dispensation of token justice.

No, this is breaking the law. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't just go out there end enforce traffic laws by jumping on driving cars and sticking stickers however you like. You don't have the authority. You talk about civil duty and laws but you are essentially trying to justify vigilantes. The reason we have created society is so that people can't punish unlawful behavior by themselves and they give up this right to objective and independent courts of law. So your ''civil duty'' exists in order to prevent vigilantes.

On one hand we have drivers driving on the side walk, on the other hand we have a gang damaging property, endangering the lives of others by blocking the view of drivers with large stickers that won't come off. If you put these on a scale, the latter one would outweigh. There is an imbalance between the ends you're trying to achieve and the means you are resorting to. These so called crime fighters don't only peacefully protest. They respond with violence when a driver goes out and fights them. One guy is a wrestler and he just tossed the guy onto the ground. They are trying to pick up fights like that so they could get more views.

Actually this is not true. This is a very recent, state-centric, city dweller view of how civilization works that is not borne out by history, or by reality. Men have handled business since time immemorial. I still spend time with several old time country men from round me who used to accompany the local police man when there was a crime spree, and help him clobber the criminals. These blokes would shoot the dogs of poachers and trespassers, and give them a good hiding, before calling the police and getting a handshake and the policeman's thanks for dealing with the situation appropriately.

Your point of view is demonstrably false, and relies on a police force capable of tacking or preventing every single crime (even in the US and UK this is a laughable notion). It is incumbent upon all parties within a civilized society to uphold the law, and to take appropriate measures when they see those laws being broken. My father's generation would have been given a clip round the ear by a stranger if they'd been seen littering, and if he'd gone home and complained about it, he'd have got another clip round the ear from his father, both for littering, and for letting his father down in the eyes of society. That is how men from the 'greatest generation' handled their shit, and you can be damn sure that if someone drove down the pavement in front of them they would haul the bloke out of the car and teach him some manners in a very blunt way.

That's exactly how you keep society functioning and orderly.

[General Stalin]

People that bitch about how haphazard these individuals are and how "faggoty" their resolve is may be more apt to just let some motorist drive them off the side walk then type up a mean FB post or tweet about it and be consoled by a steam of likes and virtual pats on the shoulder. That is what's wrong with our modern society.

[turkishcandy]

Quote:

It is incumbent upon all parties within a civilized society to uphold the law, and to take appropriate measures when they see those laws being broken.

You guys are talking about civilized society AND taking the law into your own hands in the same sentence. Unbelievable. These two are mutually exlusive.

Civilized society is a society where people agree upon some laws and they choose an authority (state) to enforce those laws and another seperate authority (courts) to punish the offenders. Human's natural state was when there were no laws, only power and conscience. People were able to protect their only right, their property, as much as their strength allowed them. And each individual punished the other individual according to his conscience. This is considered a state of chaos by many philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. Individuals can't be objective about their own rights being violated. They abandon rationality and give in to anger. That's why they crated state, a high authority that is objective and independent. State can be as small as a tribe chief and can be as unnecessarily big as USA. Only when they created state were they able to live together in order, that's how civilization started, with the first social contract.

According to your logic, if everyone punishes those who break the law ''appropriately'' meaning according to their own conscience and whims, we are by definition abandoning a civilized society and going back to our natural state. Then only the physically strongest can ''punish appropriately'' and we no longer have the basic rights. Everybody buys a gun and take watches in their houses in case someone breaks in.

This seems like exaggeration by I'm only following your logic and extending it. You have no right to go around and shoot down murderers. You have no right to catch thieves and beat up douchebag drivers. Your rights go as far as self defense, report crimes, protest and choose politicians to pass laws you think should be passed. By living in a society and paying taxes you have agreed to this social contract. You have abandoned your freedom to punish outlaws in exchange for more protection and order. The fact that the police in Russia is incompetent or negligent doesn't give you any right to go out and stick stickers on driving cars.

[TheWastelander]

(06-23-2015 09:50 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Quote:

It is incumbent upon all parties within a civilized society to uphold the law, and to take appropriate measures when they see those laws being broken.

You guys are talking about civilized society AND taking the law into your own hands in the same sentence. Unbelievable. These two are mutually exlusive.

Civilized society is a society where people agree upon some laws and they choose an authority (state) to enforce those laws and another seperate authority (courts) to punish the offenders. Human's natural state was when there were no laws, only power and conscience. People were able to protect their only right, their property, as much as their strength allowed them. And each individual punished the other individual according to his conscience. This is considered a state of chaos by many philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. Individuals can't be objective about their own rights being violated. They abandon rationality and give in to anger. That's why they crated state, a high authority that is objective and independent. State can be as small as a tribe chief and can be as unnecessarily big as USA. Only when they created state were they able to live together in order, that's how civilization started, with the first social contract.

According to your logic, if everyone punishes those who break the law ''appropriately'' meaning according to their own conscience and whims, we are by definition abandoning a civilized society and going back to our natural state. Then only the physically strongest can ''punish appropriately'' and we no longer have the basic rights. Everybody buys a gun and take watches in their houses in case someone breaks in.

This seems like exaggeration by I'm only following your logic and extending it. You have no right to go around and shoot down murderers. You have no right to catch thieves and beat up douchebag drivers. Your rights go as far as self defense, report crimes, protest and choose politicians to pass laws you think should be passed. By living in a society and paying taxes you have agreed to this social contract. You have abandoned your freedom to punish outlaws in exchange for more protection and order. The fact that the police in Russia is incompetent or negligent doesn't give you any right to go out and stick stickers on driving cars.

You absolutely do have a right to catch thieves and if the police ask you to (or even command you in some states) you could be asked to help stop a murderer or assist them in all sorts of other ways. This used to be more commonplace but as American society became more atomized, lawsuit-happy opportunists ruined it.

Furthermore, I'm sure these kids probably called the police many times. I could be wrong, but I doubt they give much of a shit in Russia.

You can have all the laws on the books you want but if the government's unable or unwilling to enforce them they might as well not even exist. At that point you have to do what you need to do within reason to put a stop to irresponsible, dangerous criminal behavior. If this includes publicly shaming these people by putting them on camera and slapping stickers on their car, that's fine with me.

If they didn't drive on the fucking sidewalk like assholes there wouldn't be a problem.

[General Stalin]

(06-23-2015 09:50 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Quote:

It is incumbent upon all parties within a civilized society to uphold the law, and to take appropriate measures when they see those laws being broken.

You guys are talking about civilized society AND taking the law into your own hands in the same sentence. Unbelievable. These two are mutually exlusive.

Civilized society is a society where people agree upon some laws and they choose an authority (state) to enforce those laws and another seperate authority (courts) to punish the offenders. Human's natural state was when there were no laws, only power and conscience. People were able to protect their only right, their property, as much as their strength allowed them. And each individual punished the other individual according to his conscience. This is considered a state of chaos by many philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. Individuals can't be objective about their own rights being violated. They abandon rationality and give in to anger. That's why they crated state, a high authority that is objective and independent. State can be as small as a tribe chief and can be as unnecessarily big as USA. Only when they created state were they able to live together in order, that's how civilization started, with the first social contract.

According to your logic, if everyone punishes those who break the law ''appropriately'' meaning according to their own conscience and whims, we are by definition abandoning a civilized society and going back to our natural state. Then only the physically strongest can ''punish appropriately'' and we no longer have the basic rights. Everybody buys a gun and take watches in their houses in case someone breaks in.

This seems like exaggeration by I'm only following your logic and extending it. You have no right to go around and shoot down murderers. You have no right to catch thieves and beat up douchebag drivers. Your rights go as far as self defense, report crimes, protest and choose politicians to pass laws you think should be passed. By living in a society and paying taxes you have agreed to this social contract. You have abandoned your freedom to punish outlaws in exchange for more protection and order. The fact that the police in Russia is incompetent or negligent doesn't give you any right to go out and stick stickers on driving cars.

Granted I do not know the Common Law practices in Russia, in the USA and most all Western nations you can make Citizen's Arrests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_...ted_States

The practice dates back to medieval times and is still codified and honored today. If you see someone breaking the law you can turn them in. It's ridiculous to think that law enforcement is at arms reach at all times and extending this responsibility to the citizenry dates back as far as written history. Like I said - if you're walking along the sidewalk and some ignorant prick dives up on you would you have something to say or just move out of the way?

[turkishcandy]

True that you can catch someone when you witness a crime and turn them in to the police. It's also called called citizen's arrest in Turkey. But in the videos these guys go beyond that, they have created their own task force to fight traffic law violaters. They are not turning people in, they are punishing.

We can throw around some examples that justify taking the law into your hands. Most of you have seen Law Abiding Citizen. I can also counter with a few of my own examples. How would you like for some white knights to come punish you after a girl accuses you of rape and asks for help? How would you like some cashier to beat you up when he accuses you of stealing something? How would you like someone to shoot you if you one day get accused of murder? Starting to punish those who you deem guilty starts us on a dangerous path. For starters, ''guilty until proven otherwise'' principle vanishes because as soon as you are accused of doing something you get your punishment handed by the closest witnesses. You lose your right to a fair trial, right to attorney, right to be heard by an objective authority.

Also, though I'm not sure, driving on the sidewalk in Russia doesn't cause arrest because it's probably a misdemeanor. So even if they only turned the drivers in, they still wouldn't be justified.

[General Stalin]

(06-23-2015 10:44 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

True that you can catch someone when you witness a crime and turn them in to the police. It's also called called citizen's arrest in Turkey. But in the videos these guys go beyond that, they have created their own task force to fight traffic law violaters. They are not turning people in, they are punishing.

We can throw around some examples that justify taking the law into your hands. Most of you have seen Law Abiding Citizen. I can also counter with a few of my own examples. How would you like for some white knights to come punish you after a girl accuses you of rape and asks for help? How would you like some cashier to beat you up when he accuses you of stealing something? How would you like someone to shoot you if you one day get accused of murder? Starting to punish those who you deem guilty starts us on a dangerous path. For starters, ''guilty until proven otherwise'' principle vanishes because as soon as you are accused of doing something you get your punishment handed by the closest witnesses. You lose your right to a fair trial, right to attorney, right to be heard by an objective authority.

Also, though I'm not sure, driving on the sidewalk in Russia doesn't cause arrest because it's probably a misdemeanor. So even if they only turned the drivers in, they still wouldn't be justified.

Given your stance on this I'm curious what your opinion is on aspects of the manosphere and this community. Are you against shaming tactics to correct people's behavior in general including slut shaming and fat shaming? The brand of "justice" shown in this video is completely non-violent as opposed to your extreme examples you cite of people assaulting someone based on rape/murder/theft accusation. The only time there is violence is toward the group of defenders when the offenders react violently to the peaceful protest (which is also illegal).

Is your problem mainly that they put a sticker on the windshield? Trying to get at the linchpin of your disagreement here.

[Wreckingball]

Basically they are being dicks to other dicks that put people in severe danger.
They get my approval.