Monday, September 08, 2014

ode to a f*cked generation


medium |  Hi!! Smile!!

This generation is fucked.

Not just minor-league mini-fucked. Not a little bit cutesy aww Pikachu feels sad levels of fucked. This generation is full on holy bazoly did that really just happen ZOMG WTF kthxbye degrees of fucked.

Here’s what you already know. If you’re under the age of 35ish, you, many of your friends, and most of your acquaintances are probably living at home (or supported by the parentals); underemployed; overeducated; working for peanuts; obeying the orders of sociopathic, high-fiving Neanderthals in handmade suits (who, in case you thought it couldn’t get any worse, by next year will be…robots); at “jobs” that resemble modern-day servitude more than gainful employment, if by “gainful employment” you mean work by which you actually gain something lasting and which makes the most of you.

Like many, they probably wonder: “What the fuck! When will my life…actually begin?”

They feel stuck. Waiting for their first “real” job, home, break, gig, deal, family, career, chance. As if they’ve been marooned. By their elders. By “opportunity” (whatever the fuck that word means, anyways. The chance to clean the toilets of a super-rich asshole with the soul of a serial killer? Wow, thanks for knocking, “opportunity”!!). By the lives they were supposed to have.

They are stuck. They’re probably going to keep waiting. Forever. For most, their lives will neverbegin”; in the sense of meeting one’s expectations. This is their life.

Hey you!!! Smile!! Stay positive!!!!!

This is the first generation in the rich world that’s going to be worse off than its parents.

Not just temporarily. Permanently. Barring some kind of minor miracle, like free clean energy; or secret downloads of bitcash from Mars.

By worse off, I simply mean poorer. And by poorer, I simply mean: it will earn less.

19 comments:

ken said...

At the end of the video.. If you thought our reporting valuable please support us.... I really hope people aren't sending him enough money to keep this type of stupidity up. In this case however, hindsight always being 20/20 the officer should have handcuffed the individual with his hands behind his back, like he has every right to do, and then displayed his picture ID which this person so desperately needed to see.

The man with the camera somehow believes he has unencumbered right to all public property. Which of course is not the case. Police have every right to block a road make it unavailable to the public for a period of time. With this man's disobedience to the police officer he could have been arrested any time for civil disobedience.

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/808

CNu said...

lol, Ken, you and that authoritarian prick "mr. melungeon" are full of beans. neither one of you can define a "lawful order".

Ed Dunn said...

He is referring to Americans under 35, correct?

CNu said...

yes'sir...,

Vic78 said...

The blogger doesn't have any law credentials. It would've been better to post legal advice from any one of the hundreds of lawyers that blog. That guy doesn't even qualify as an amateur.


Here is what I'm talking about:
https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

umbrarchist said...

I tried explaining this in 1999 when the population was still 6 billion.

http://toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html



Running the economy of a planet on defective algebra is incredibly STUPID. Now we get to screw 7 billion. But then the palefaces give Nobel Prizes in economics so they must know. Right! They get to rationalize the power game based on their rules, even if it screws most of them. OOP! It's the rich versus everybody else. The race card is just another distraction.

ken said...

I was talking about when you could be handcuffed. It might be a stretch for the officer to handcuff this kid, but he probably could make a case you have someone standing in front of you not moving, not obeying you could come to the conclusion you are unsure of their motives. Which could fall under these guidelines:
"The handcuffing of an arrestee is not based on rigid criteria. It is determined by the nature of each situation as perceived by the officer." If an officer feels that placing a person in handcuffs is the best way to ensure his or her own safety, then a court would not likely find that the officer had violated the rights of the person being detained."


Although, the quote above says "arrestee", a person does not have to be arrested to be handcuffed.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/when-can-police-place-you-in-handcuffs.html

CNu said...

lol, failing in your search for a definition of "lawful orders", this weak and utterly subjective gruel was the best you could come up with. Pathetic..., if that's your standard, then anybody unlucky enough to run into Ray Albers is simply doomed http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2014/08/overseergofuckyourself-ray-albers.html

ken said...

Did I mention lawful order, I couldn't figure out why you figured I would have to link to what a lawful order is. From my perspective, the video shows us an idiot with a camera, who is asking for identification for no common sense reason except that he believes he can. Everyone can plainly see these are all cops here. I was simply putting my self in the cops position of what I might consider doing with this guy who is simply there to test and break the people's patience and then film it.


As for your element of luck, I can't believe I will ever be unlucky enough to get in cops face holding a camera and keep jawing at him to see if I can get him to break. If that's what you call luck here. It doesn't seem as random as you are trying to make it.

CNu said...

lol, your "mr. melungeon" article was titled "disobeying lawful orders". What shall we,call today's? "I'm feeling a certain type of way, so bend over so I can shackle you?"

CNu said...

Not to mention it's CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL under the 1st Amendment to film overseers at work in all 50 states! But then, men in uniforms with big belts on must effect your reason and better judgement and make you eager to submit to arbitrary, capricious, and patently unlawful instructions?

ken said...

Well you got me there, I guess I really didn't look at the title, but more into the article where the officer can handcuff as he sees fit. The truth is I thought the cops here showed incredible patience, especially understanding the video was 10 minutes long, and during the video one time it said something like "30 minutes passed". I mean really think of how many better things these two idiots could have been doing rather than disrupting police training exercises.

ken said...

So as long as you have a cell phone camera with the camera operating, your right to access supersedes any right the local government has to limit access to government owned public property for security or safety purposes. You must know that can't be the case.

CNu said...

That's the problem Ken, right there, in a nutshell! It's the overseer's fracking job "to show incredible patience" as long as the citizen hasn't broken the law, and even then, it's the overseer's job to show compassion and restraint consistent with the oath to protect and serve fellow citizens.


The exact second these barely 5th grade functioning ruh-tards were given to believe that fellow citizens under law are enemy combatants, and that their role consists of the pseudo-heroic display and use of deadly force, was the exact instance the policing institution was corrupted and ruined in America.


The fact that easily accept the degenerate state of this now deeply corrupted institution speaks volumes about your own experience and maturity level. The simple fact of the matter is that you very sadly don't know any better, don't know the law, and don't know what you and yours are entitled to. Consequently, you don't expect it or demand it for yourself, and for people you don't knpw or care about, well, they can just be damned for "behaving badly".

CNu said...

I know no such thing, and frankly, it's ridiculous and counterfactual of you to suggest that I do. What I now know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, are the limits of your knowledge, experience, and expectations. I know and understand why and to what extent you're primed to,accept and submit to flagrant fascist repression and subjugation.

ken said...

Yes its the overseer's job to be patient with citizens who follow the law. At the same time I haven't seen one element in your "nutshell" assessment in discussing this video about the responsibility of the citizen. You and me are simply talking past each other. I had to take a double take because I finally thought you were naming the bored lowly minded individuals shooting the video as "5th grade functioning ruh-tards", but no such luck, you were calling the police that.

The citizens with their camera were only their to entertain themselves and hopefully make money entertaining whoever watched their video at the tax payer's expense and whatever personal stress caused to these police officers doing their job. The police officer is not being payed by us taxpayers to provide entertainment to citizens who get a thrill out of seeing how authoritative or smart one can look arguing meaningless drivel with someone placed in authority.

Here I thought when you were talking of this generation being fucked, you were referring to the idiots in the video with nothing better to do. The experiment I guess we can learn here is how much we can interpret differently by looking at the same information.

"The simple fact of the matter is that you very sadly don't know any better, don't know the law, and don't know what you and yours are entitled to."



Well its true, I am only married to a lawyer, but you'd be surprised how many times the spouse helps out with arguments or research. Or how many current event discussion get discussed in terms of what the law says.

ken said...

It's ridiculous and counterfactual of you to suggest that I do.



Sorry for the assumption, I just figured you knew local governments had the right to block off streets looking for fugitives, or that they can restrict access crime scenes, or even when performing various exercises for safety reasons or to keep the public from knowing what methods will be used for different circumstances. They can block off areas and not allow admittance for things like hazardous spills, even evacuate private homes. Not to mention if you take it further, they can limit access to the publically owned police station, not all areas are open at the police station just because you have your cell phone camera running.

CNu said...

The young man isn't doing anything he's not supposed to do. It's his lawful right to do every single thing recorded in that video, and, it's that overpaid, donut-eating sack of oxygen thievery Overseer Principe's responsibility to respectfully not interfere with the young man's activities and to answer his lawful question about his ID.



If you have a factual claim or assertion to make, please make it. Otherwise go ask the Mrs. cause you need some help with every single thing you've asserted on this thread.

CNu said...

The local government has no such rights and moreover, no such secrets. The only time you can't record is if your effort to do so physically interferes with police work, in other words - if you're standing in the way. It's perfectly legal for you to record everything so long as you're not physically interfering. They can block off areas and not allow admittance for things like hazardous spills, even evacuate private homesSure they can, and as long as you don't cross that police line, you're free to video record anything they do.they can limit access to the publically owned police station, not all
areas are open at the police station just because you have your cell
phone camera running.There are privacy, security, and other specific factors in play at the police station. For example, I'm sure the evidence storage areas are off-limits to the public, as well as weapons storage, locker rooms, personnel records, etc...., but then, even introducing something that far off the path of this discussion merely goes to show just how completely mistaken you've been about "lawful orders" issued by police overseers to citizens, "use of force" pursuant to those purportedly "lawful orders", and finally, 1st Amendment protections enjoyed by citizens when it comes to video-recording overseer interactions with other citizens and overseer conduct in public spaces.