-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tru gangster takes his anger out on car
- Thread starter element
- Start date
- Status
Just watched the video-- that guy needs to be beaten senselessly and THEN thrown in jail for the rest of his life (note: only slight hyperbole). Obviously a career criminal judging by his own garbled words at the beginning of the video. You can't see who's in the car, but I'd wager it's a female, because I can't imagine any guy allowing that to happen without trying to fight back somehow-- either by getting out and fighting or by running him over with the car. I mean, most people have "The Club" for their car, and that is about as big and weighty as whatever it was he was using to pound on the car; I'd most likely have grabbed that and gotten out to mete out some justice.
People are just savages nowadays. And (believe it or not), people claim that the world, and our society, is no worse today than it was 40-50 years ago. Shyeah, ok. Shit like this JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN 50 years ago. Ever. Anybody who thinks differently or takes issue with that statement is free to go talk to anybody over 60-65 years of age as to what our society was like in terms of violence and crime back then. Drugs have a lot to do with it, sure (as do myriad other factors, ranging from entertainment to education to job/recreational opportunities), but that guy didn't seem hopped up to me. He just seemed like an angry young man. This sort of stuff wouldn't be tolerated in a sane society. Somebody who does something like that needs to go away for a good long while, despite the fact that nobody was physically injured.
People are just savages nowadays. And (believe it or not), people claim that the world, and our society, is no worse today than it was 40-50 years ago. Shyeah, ok. Shit like this JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN 50 years ago. Ever. Anybody who thinks differently or takes issue with that statement is free to go talk to anybody over 60-65 years of age as to what our society was like in terms of violence and crime back then. Drugs have a lot to do with it, sure (as do myriad other factors, ranging from entertainment to education to job/recreational opportunities), but that guy didn't seem hopped up to me. He just seemed like an angry young man. This sort of stuff wouldn't be tolerated in a sane society. Somebody who does something like that needs to go away for a good long while, despite the fact that nobody was physically injured.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Loki said:
Oh please... Violence is not getting worst it has been with us since Cain and Able
Sure we have cute little video cameras now so we can document it. We can press rewind and Shock and Awe at our evil ways... but it is the same level of SHIT
take your Video Camera to July 14, 1789 Paris or any other time you will find violence
naz said:
Of the type we have today and to the extent that we have it today (not mere numbers, I'm referring to the senseless nature of much of today's violent acts)? I don't think so-- in fact, I know so.
Like I said, instead of telling me "oh please" and dismissing me, go talk to anybody over 65 years of age and ask them if shit like this EVER happened, or if kids used to get raped to the extent that they do today. When they tell you no, be sure to tell them that they're delusional. I await the results of your informal survey. People apparently like to bury their heads in the sand to absolve themselves of some measure of culpability for helping to create a society where such things happen. Predictable. Do you think stuff like this happens as frequently in Switzerland or Norway or Denmark or Belgium as it does here? If not, then we should look at WHY not and begin addressing those root causes, not cover our eyes and insist that nothing is wrong, as you tacitly do above. That's just ignorance on your part, quite frankly.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Loki said:
*cough*
My point is very simple and does not need a GED to prove
All Kinds of VIOLENCE you speak of existed somewhere in this world 70 years ago, nuff said...
Just because you speak to one little segment of the human population does not mean
that stupid senseless violence did not exist 70 - 80 years ago.
Ask a Black man who got lynched in Alabama 70 years ago about "Senseless Violence"
http://users.bestweb.net/~rg/lynchings/THE LYNCHING CENTURY 2.htm
My point is we have the media to document and report it Today.
Do you think little kids getting raped by priest would even make the newspapers 70 years ago? Does not mean it never took place 70 years ago, but 70 years ago things like that just went unspoken.
naz said:
Sorry to say that you're mistaken. People didn't regularly get killed for their sneakers or jacket 50 years ago, and parents used to let their kids flit around without supervision in the neighborhoods because they didn't have to worry about abduction and molestation. Fact. You're tragically mistaken, sorry to say.
And about the obvious racism and oppression of minorities in the past, well...way to miss the point. Can't say that I'm surprised (I actually knew beforehand that somebody would bring that up). But anyway...get back to me after you've spoken to some people over age 65. Thanks.
If you think it's all a matter of increased media scrutiny, I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong. Just go ask people who lived during those times. What I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with "media exposure" (media exposure has its effects, but is not relevant to the particular point I'm making)-- just go ask someone over 65 years of age if they ever knew somebody who got carjacked or jacked for their wallet/jacket/insert-item-here, or beaten senselessly just for kicks. I can guarantee that (outside of obviously racist incidents) you will not be able to find a single person who even KNEW (as a friend o acquaintance) of somebody who that happened to. Yet I myself know several, as do ALL the other people I know. What does that tell you? Oh, wait-- I guess friends didn't talk amongst themselves back then either about stuff that happened to people they know. <rolleyes> Sure.
For your own sanity's sake, I hope you remain in denial over all this. Seriously.
demon said:
Another person in clear denial. Like I told naz, go talk to anybody over 65 years of age and try to find any anecdotes of any kids they knew getting raped/molested/kidnapped, or any of their friends getting jacked or beaten or worse for trivial shit. You won't find a single one. There are SYSTEMIC reasons for that-- that's my point. I'm not positing that someho people are inherently more "evil" or malicious nowadays; I'm saying that we should address the root causes of conduct such as this as far as possible, NOT deny that a crisis even exists, because-- as I noted-- that is tragically mistaken.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
HalfPastNoon said:
I'd like it if the "evidence" came from someone WITHOUT a clear agenda against me (as you have), thanks. Obviously you can say anything, and I'll never be able to prove whether you're lying or not. Anybody who thinks that you're unbiased in this sense has obviously not witnessed your disturbing trend of heckling me and creating entire topics about well-reasoned posts that I've made here on other forums for your own amusement (which garnered not one response in support of your horribly skewed view of me, btw). You're borderline obsessed with me, and clearly have an agenda to make me look bad (for no good reason, I might add). So I'll pass on your "evidence".
If any of the other posters who DON'T have a vendetta against me would care to talk to ANYONE they know over 65 years of age regarding these issues, I would welcome their comments.
just shut the fuck up.
you're an arrogant fucking asshole, and im tired of you talkign down to people.
you dismiss naz's CLEAR evidence because in your holier than thou view, *YOUR* anecdotal evidence trumps all.
guess what, asshole, i dont care if you think i'm out to get you or not, but regardless what my grandparents say to the question, i'll post it.
although i wouldn't be surprised to see you jump on the "I WAS RIGHT" bandwagon should htey provide the answer you firmly believe in.
you're an arrogant fucking asshole, and im tired of you talkign down to people.
you dismiss naz's CLEAR evidence because in your holier than thou view, *YOUR* anecdotal evidence trumps all.
guess what, asshole, i dont care if you think i'm out to get you or not, but regardless what my grandparents say to the question, i'll post it.
although i wouldn't be surprised to see you jump on the "I WAS RIGHT" bandwagon should htey provide the answer you firmly believe in.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Loki said:
Loki I'm sorry that little video clip got your panties in a bunch... the video is truly sad
a sad case of humanity, but the only one in denial is you... maybe you lived in comfort in a nice part of town, but this stuff happens, it is not new so don't get your panties so soiled over it.
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Again, you're missing the point. Such violence as you note was the result of a SYSTEMIC malignancy (racism/oppression), as is the violence we currently witness (though our present mindless violence has more complex causes imo; it's not just "get darky" anymore). My point is that such systemic causal factors must be remedied instead of ignored by people who would like to believe that "nothing is wrong". That is patently FALSE.
Anyway, I have to eat lunch.
Apharmd Battler
Member
Geez....
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Loki said:
Racism was not the point I was trying to allude to. The fact of the matter is that the rationale in that Till case and this case are pretty much the same. I don't think anyone here is stating that nothing is wrong. But, you are incorrect to think that 50-60 years ago America was a place free of mindless violence. The violence may not have been from the effect of mass consumerism on the have-nots and drugs but, there was violence that was senseless nonetheless.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Gangs of New York was based off some serious events in New York
when the movie came out the History Channel had a documentary of what really happened
and for Historical Documents what really took place was more violent and senseless.
http://www.herbertasbury.com/gangsofnewyork/
when the movie came out the History Channel had a documentary of what really happened
and for Historical Documents what really took place was more violent and senseless.
http://www.herbertasbury.com/gangsofnewyork/
naz said:
I know this stuff happens-- that's my very point. My point is that it never USED to happen. Now we should look at why it didn't happen.
My my...so much anger. I must really get under your skin somehow, despite the fact that I HAVE NEVER DIRECTED A POST AT YOU without your doing so first (in your typically boorish manner). In fact, I have been very supportive of you and your condition over the years, and have not once poked fun at your condition, even on Opa-Ages; in fact, no more than a week ago I made a post in support of you in that "please pity me" thread you made here DESPITE your clear history of abuse against me. Because, quite honestly, I'm just that nice of a guy. You, on the other hand....well, the evidence is front and center. I'd like to see whether anybody thinks that I'm more abrasive, or more discourteous, or even more condescending and pompous than you are. People are free to speak their minds right here and now on this matter, and I won't hold it against anyone.
Do I make some seemingly smug pronouncements at times? Sure-- but we ALL do on this forum. I differ from most in that I at least TRY to provide sound argumentation and reasoning for ANY post that I make, and the length of mosts of my "serious" posts bears that out. I doubt many peopl here will agree with your assessment of me, and it's certainly not because they're afraid-- I'm not a mod, after all. In fact, the reason my posts are longish is precisely BECAUSE I don't want to give off that sort of vibe. After all, it would be amazingly easy to just stroll in and say "you're wrong and you suck", and be done with it. But that would make me a troll and an idiot; in short, it would make me you.
And btw, what "CLEAR" evidence did naz provide? All he provided was a racially motivated incident; in response, I said he was missing the point (which he-- and you-- are). That's not evidence. Like I said, I await the results of his informal survey with people over 65 years of age. I don't, however, await yours, regardless of what your grandparents say. I don't gloat, Lonestar-- you obviously have me confused with yourself.
Do me a favor and keep your petulant, insecure, puerile mouth shut about me next time. People can see which of us is the child here....trust me. Kthnxbye.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Loki said:
:lol now I have to find some senseless violence that happened exactly 50 years ago
damn jOo Stooopid
naz said:
Everything in Gangs of New York really happened. Just not all of the characters were around at the same time and did exactly what happened in the movie. Like William Cutting(Bill the Butcher) was really named William Pool and wasn't alive for the draft riots. Little things like that, but most of if it is pretty accurate. That time-period is just kind of glossed over. STUPID IRISH! >O
erm, and i've never taken you to task over my condition. that's not the point, i just dont like your pompous attitude in dealings with other posters, as evident in this thread.
"FACT."
"I KNOW IM RIGHT."
seemingly nothing will be able to refute your claims, so just continue to ramble on.
"FACT."
"I KNOW IM RIGHT."
seemingly nothing will be able to refute your claims, so just continue to ramble on.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
naz said:
And it has to be on film because as we all know all hoodlems carried cameras around with them in the 50s and 60s.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Oh Noos!
anyway by any means 50 years ago umm 1954?
1950s: Rise in youth crime and juvenile delinquency prompts congressional hearings on television violence.
June 1952
First congressional hearings on violence in radio and television and its impact on children and youth held by House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee.
1954
Sen. Estes Kefauver, (D-Tenn), chairs hearings of Judiciary Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency on role of TV shows in youth crime. Networks say no link.
1960's: Urban violence prompts more congressional hearings and government funding of research on TV violence.
1967
University of Pennsylvania begins monitoring television programming.
Sept. 23, 1969
Report of National Commission on the Causes mid Prevention of Violence cites TV violence as contributor to society's violence problem.
source: http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article415.html
this one is cool
Major Episodes of Political Violence 1946-2002
http://members.aol.com/cspmgm/warlist.htm
Stuggernaut
Grandma's Chippy
I think it is just as disturbing that nobody else tried to stop him....I guess people are too afraid of "gangsters" with guns now. I mean if the guy pulled her out of the car and started beating her, then would someone else out of the many surrounding vehicles have stepped out to help her?
Reminds me of the final Seinfeld episode for some reason.
Reminds me of the final Seinfeld episode for some reason.
All of you saying the type of violence that occurs today happened with the same regularity (or at all) decades ago ARE wrong. I'm sure its comforting to believe otherwise, but ignorance often is comforting. I blame it on the increasing absence of family personally (OMG TEH CONSURFATIV!!!!).
Shit like that video is why I carry a gun. I would put a bullet in his head without regret. That is pure bullshit.
Shit like that video is why I carry a gun. I would put a bullet in his head without regret. That is pure bullshit.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Boomer said:
I Beg to Differ
Wow that guy is beating up a car and he now he owns the title as MOST VIOLENT ACT IN HISTORY EVER! Things like this never happened before!
^^^(is pure bullshit)
70 years ago is what 1934?
The 1934 National Firearms Act was the first federal law to regulate possession of firearms. It was aimed at controlling gangster weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns, silencers and fully automatic weapons used in a wave of violence during the Prohibition era. The law stipulated that any individual purchasing one of the regulated weapons had to undergo a background check and gain approval by a local law enforcement officer. In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act required that manufacturers, dealers and importers of firearms be licensed so that the government could better regulate the interstate commerce of guns.
Prohibition Era had it's violence
Why would they have Prohibition in the first place I wonder... What did Drunk ass gangbangers beat up cars in 1930?
1934
I wonder what happened to the Jews, did cars get beat up where they lived in 1934?
http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1934tbse.htm
Stop the bullshit!
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE COME OUT AND SAY IT!
He owns the TITLE for most Violent person in History ever because he is Black (maybe)?
HalfPastNoon said:
Pompous? How do you figure? My posts are consistently well-reasoned, and I defy a SINGLE other person besides yourself to assert that they aren't, whether they agree with me on the particulars or not. Like I said, I could have just said "you're wrong" and left it at that-- THAT would have been pompous. But to say that someone is mistaken when they clearly are? There's nothing wrong with that at all.
In fact, the only thing "evident" here is your penchant for groundlessly berating others and attacking my character, personally. Your obsessive thread-making about me on a forum I don't post at anymore is further evidence of your childishness.
And what will be able to "refute my claims" is if somebody-- anybody-- can tell me that they've spoken to people over 65 years of age (not one, several) who have corroborated the supposed fact that stuff like this (outside of racially motivated incidents) "always happened". If anybody does that (honestly, and without an agenda against me), then I will concede the point. Ask them if they even KNEW somebody who was robbed for their jacket or sneakers, or was beaten senselessly to the edge of death for "looking at somebody wrong", or whether they knew of any kids who were kidnapped and/or raped, or whether they worried where their kids were when they were out playing. Find the answers to these questions from the people who lived through it and get back to me. Like I said, if the weight of "evidence" is then against me, I will have NO PROBLEM conceding the argument. But until then, you're mistaken.
Tommie Hu$tle said:
First off, I'm not "stoopid"; for you to assert as much is incredible, really. So because you disagree with me, I'm stupid? Because you have not gone and done what I asked of you in order to provide corroboration for your point, I'm stupid? Ok, sure. I'm stupid. Are you by any chance taking the "HalfPastNoon" insult course? If we take my IQ, divide it by 4 and add 17, we get yours. So I'm not the "stupid" one here. Ooh, wait, was that too "pompous" of a statement, Lonestar? :lol I suppose I should just let people insult me for no good reason-- after all, that's what everyone else around here does (/sarcasm).
FYI, the reason I mentioned 50 years ago and not 120 years ago was because, like I said, we made progress as a society in many areas, and now I feel we have regressed in many ways (while making great strides in other areas, such as civil rights etc.; this doesn't discount my argument, however). The situation in the latter half of the 19th century in some urban areas (as seen in somewhat exaggerated fashion in "Gangs of New York") can be attributed to various factors, not the least of which is the lack of centralized authority, rampant poverty, lack of centralized education, and corruption at all levels of government, as seen in the movie. Many of these systemic deficiencies were later remedied towards the end of the century, though some persisted into the early decades of the 19th century. At any rate, the nation progressed along many of those lines, which led to a more sane, liveable society. In the latter third of the twentieth century onward, I personally feel that we've regressed in many of those same areas and in others, which contributes to the current climate vis-a-vis senseless violence.
As for why I'll only admit of "anecdotal" evidence (which is usually a no-no in arguments, I'm well-aware), it is because the distinction I'm making is more of a qualitative one than anything else-- it'll do no good to point out that the murder rate in NY is the lowest it's been since the late 60's, because that has nothing to do with my point. I'm speaking herein about the nature of the violence and other criminal acts we witness presently, not necessarily their frequency (though the frequency of some of the most heinous criminal acts, such as child molestation/rape, have increased dramatically since then). The only way to get at the crucial details of precisely why (that is, what SORT of) crime happened back in the 40's-60's (short of doing a periodical search and reading every article regarding every murder/assault that occurred) is to ask the people who were living at the time. That's all I'm saying.
Obviously, to point out to me that violence has "always happened" is to suppose that I'm some sort of 80 IQ idiot who has never read a history textbook. Contrary to (seemingly) popular belief, I'm not. My point is more along these lines: wherever epidemics of violence have sprouted up throughout history ("regular" violence, not insurgency or anything), there can be discerned certain commonalities between the conditions in the societies where it occurred; we witness many of these very same conditions today, namely poverty, an overly stratified society, lack of education/opportunity/social mobility, and a breakdown of the family unit's efficacy in properly socializing children (which is itself due to various factors, from divorce, to the need for two incomes etc.). Even still, you'd be hard-pressed to find comparable crimes to the sort we have today in any but the most chaotic times and places. To say that "things have been worse at some point" is not a valid counterargument to what I'm saying, because that's not exactly something we should aspire to or implicitly "measure" our current society's failings against. We should measure ourselves against the BEST our society and culture has produced, not the worst. To do otherwise is to engage in specious, selective reasoning and to bury your head in the sand as our society devolves before our eyes.
But yeah...I'm "st0opid".
Fair enough point (regarding the cause of much of our present-day senseless violence), but still ultimately mistaken. I am saying that-- even if we take racially motivated senseless crime such as lynchings/beatings into account-- we have an order of magnitude more senseless crime today than we did 50 years ago. Now, if we discount those purely racially motivated crimes (not discount their tragedy, obviously, but to realize that they were the result of a systemic, pervasive cultural blight), the disparity between then and now along these lines is even greater.
I suppose the larger point I should be making is that most incidents of senseless violence, either then (in the case of lynchings etc.) or now, is the result of one's explicit or implicit indoctrination into some warped mentality (e.g., racism, materialism, selfishness etc.) that is overtly (in the case of racism back then) or tacitly (in the case of materialism now) condoned or supported by society. These are examples of the failings of a society; in the past, as in the case of racism/civil rights, some people had enough sense to REALIZE that this was a systemic failure and work to induce positive change along those lines. Yet now-- as evidenced by this very thread-- you have people who will not only NOT work to effect change, but will outright deny that a societal problem exists entirely, despite clear and presence evidence to the contrary. And that is just as wrong now as it was 60 years ago when people buried their heads in the sand regarding the evils of denial of civil rights.
Just my opinion on things.
Luscious LeftFoot
Member
Tommie Hu$tle said:
I've never seen the "after" image before.
Jesus...
naz said:
Who said that?
To the extent that they do now? Nope.
To imply racism on the part of those who are disagreeing with you is the worst sort of argument. That makes you "teh st0opid". I personally take great offense at what you're implying. The freaking idiot suburban white college kids or white city-dwellers who riot and cause destruction and injury after their sports team wins a bowl/championship game are JUST AS WRONG as this moron in the video is. Oh wait, maybe I'm "racist" against whites too.
Btw, what exactly do you think all those headlines that you posted prove? If anything, they speak directly to my point. Btw, "rise in youth violence" is a relative term-- there may have been a rise in 1952 as compared to the previous years, which prompted authorities to take notice, but you're kidding yourself if you think that it was ANYTHING like what we have today. Also, take note of the fact that people RECOGNIZED and EXAMINED the problem (at the ver least), instead of pretending that it didn't exist, which has been half my point in this thread concerning our present society and people such as yourself who refuse to confront the facts about the failures of our society as a whole. It would have been just as easy for them to say "hey, this has always been the case and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves"; they could have pointed to isolated, random youth crime of years past to bolster their "argument"-- hell, Lizzie Borden did carve up her parents, after all, right? Sure, they could have done that, but they would have been missing the forest for the trees, just as you're doing right now.
Admitting that our society has utterly FAILED our children and its other constituents is NOT a sin, you know; we should strive to ameliorate the situation as far as possible as opposed to pretending that it's "always been this way". It hasn't been-- not qualitatively or to the same extent. And even if you CAN point to times in our nation's history or in other nations where things have been similar, it does a man no good to point to an absolutely DEPRAVED time in order to paint his own society in a better light or gloss over its failures. To do so is just...wrong. Progress is not something to be derided, but rather to be embraced. Much like the 12-step program, admitting there's a problem is the first step to a more sane, equitable, and humane society. Period.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Loki you may be NO Racist but you 4sho Damn Stooopid /sarahcasm
besides my comment was mostly towards that Gun Having YAHOO who's reply for violence is violence
"All of you saying the type of violence that occurs today happened with the same regularity (or at all) decades ago ARE wrong. I'm sure its comforting to believe otherwise, but ignorance often is comforting. I blame it on the increasing absence of family personally (OMG TEH CONSURFATIV!!!!).
Shit like that video is why I carry a gun. I would put a bullet in his head without regret. That is pure bullshit."
LOKI IF you just calmed down a bit and try to see someone else's views and points besides your own then I might start to think you have wisdom within you long ass paragraphs
all that you have claimed as fact have been proven false
*except for Gee I can't find a fool beating up a car in 1954*
/sarahcasmbesides my comment was mostly towards that Gun Having YAHOO who's reply for violence is violence
"All of you saying the type of violence that occurs today happened with the same regularity (or at all) decades ago ARE wrong. I'm sure its comforting to believe otherwise, but ignorance often is comforting. I blame it on the increasing absence of family personally (OMG TEH CONSURFATIV!!!!).
Shit like that video is why I carry a gun. I would put a bullet in his head without regret. That is pure bullshit."
LOKI IF you just calmed down a bit and try to see someone else's views and points besides your own then I might start to think you have wisdom within you long ass paragraphs
all that you have claimed as fact have been proven false
*except for Gee I can't find a fool beating up a car in 1954*
- Status