Tumblr has a shoplifting fandom?? O_O *lots of pics

Status
Not open for further replies.
My friend always steals candies from the pride but that's because he has no money.
Edit: you're not making a statement by stealing from stores lol
 
I feel like most of this discussion ignores the fact that odds are strong most of these people are teenagers. Shoplifting and the justification of it long predate Tumblr. I remember watching my friends, and then my sisters, do the same thing. Seemed like it was always girls.
 
Also I love how mad we are getting at this compared to idk, the actual consequential plundering and stealing currently taking place globally?

Is this where a bunch of internet posters are gonna stake their moral claim to? The equivalent of the riot after things have reached the breaking point?

Anyone can find the worst examples of something, and tumblr provides them all on a pretty platter, but this thread feels like it has a little too much inconsequential?(lol) conviction over it. You know, given the full context.

Ah, is this the "Why get mad at x, when you should be mad at y?" post that occasionally pops up that assumes people can't be mad at multiple things concurrently or that assumes that some things are worth 100% effort in tackling while others are worth 0?

I'm honestly asking before I decide how to respond.
 
You're a disingenuous asshole who is blatantly twisting my words

You are advocating committing crimes because you don't like capitalism. I don't think you're in any position to be determining who the asshole here is.

Also, everything he has written is 100% what you are implying. You have caught yourself in this circle of lying and justification that has allowed you to rationalize everything and anything you say.

I know that nothing we, or quite frankly anyone, says will make this any different.

So let's just leave it off with the facts.

Shoplifting is a crime in the United States of America.

Regardless of how you feel it can be morally justified, nothing in the eyes of the law can actually justify shoplifting, at any point.

You are advocating people shoplift, and thus directly encouraging people break the law as a statement against capitalism, while simultaneously admitting it's not actually all that effective in doing anything.

You feel you are a martyr, trying to stop a grave injustice.

The rest of us feel you are just a petty thief who cannot come to terms with yourself.
 
Ah, is this the "Why get mad at x, when you should be mad at y?" post that occasionally pops up that assumes people can't be mad at multiple things concurrently or that assumes that some things are worth 100% effort in tackling while others are worth 0?

I'm honestly asking before I decide how to respond.

No, its more a comment on the nature of specific threads of conversation in the thread itself.
 
"What are you in for"

"I destroyed the system that allows Wal-Mart to exist"

LOL


I'm sure people know deep down they are not really fighting for communism or making a statement about small businesses when they shoplift. But y'all are not gonna solve that particular cognitive dissonance in this thread. I bet that shit runs DEEP.
 
Also I love how mad we are getting at this compared to idk, the actual consequential plundering and stealing currently taking place globally?

Is this where a bunch of internet posters are gonna stake their moral claim to? The equivalent of the riot after things have reached the breaking point?

Anyone can find the worst examples of something, and tumblr provides them all on a pretty platter, but this thread feels like it has a little too much inconsequential?(lol) conviction over it. You know, given the full context.

I can stake my moral claim to many things at once. Hell this is a videogame forum where people stake their moral claim to whether Bethesda wronged gamers by only having 4 dialog selections in Fallout 4. There's probably been 10,000 posts about it. It doesn't mean that those people also don't feel strongly about other moral issues throughout the world.

It's the internet. This is a thread about people being proud of stealing and we happen to have someone who is proud of himself for stealing.
 
Also I love how mad we are getting at this compared to idk, the actual consequential plundering and stealing currently taking place globally?

Is this where a bunch of internet posters are gonna stake their moral claim to? The equivalent of the riot after things have reached the breaking point?

Anyone can find the worst examples of something, and tumblr provides them all on a pretty platter, but this thread feels like it has a little too much inconsequential?(lol) conviction over it. You know, given the full context.

You entered a thread about shoplifting and you're surprised that the conversation going on said thread is about specifically shoplifiting?
 
ITT: criminal defends criminal activities, thread digs endlessly

Wonder how this ones gonna shake out, Cotton.
 
How big does a company have to be until I no longer give a shit that I'm stealing from them?
 
No, its more a comment on the nature of specific threads of conversation in the thread itself.

It's easier for people to digest and address those that specifically steal an item from a store than multinational corporations that work in often duplicitous and generally more complex ways I guess.

If the owner of Wal-Mart was posting on NeoGaf, you can bet your ass people would be getting very angry at them. But short of that, it's people just discussing amongst themselves about the ills of a 3rd party organization.
 
I can't really decide on which is more perplexing.
The fact that people are unaware that idolising shoplifting is a thing and has been for ages.
Or that people think this is a tumblr thing. It precedes tumblr by decades.
Or that people still do the "lol nuke tumblr owthedge" thing.

Give us time, we recently discovered ay lmao
 
D4ZEa4N.png


Or would you....?

Naw, I'll just go 3-D print a car
 
Tumblr is a site where anyone can make a blog and post to it. What you see there is what you follow, or what you are linked to. It is not a hivemind, or a singular culture. If you only follow artists blogs on Tumblr, then to you Tumblr is an art site with a ton of art. If you go looking for garbage on any site and fixate only on that, then any site is nothing but garbage.

I don't get why this is still weird to people, it's like, how does the internet work.
Thank you. It's a great site for artists and illustrators, I go there a lot and I've never encountered any of this crazy shit that people complain about. (and rightfully, but still)

It's like how people complain about stupid people on Facebook. No, it just means that you're friends with fucking idiots.
Honestly not everyone in tumblr is into questionable stuff, like most stories that brake claim. Its mostly an image forum for people to blog about what they like and share pictures of what they enjoy. Its actually fairly similar to neogaf or pretty much any forum you have ever visited, the problem is that it got so big and so popular that its a place for all kinds of people to meet up, and that includes said questionable stuff.

When you join tumblr you can pick and choose what you want to see and who you want to follow, I'll argue its even safer than facebook in that its rare you are going to look at stuff you are not into.
Yeah, one would think this kind of attitude wouldn't be as prevalent on a forum of internet savvy people, but alas. And I agree about it being better than Facebook (and most social media sites) when it comes to filtering trash and only getting the good stuff.

A lot of serious artists use it because Tumblr's system is very convenient for a variety of things, including exposing your work through reblogs and tags. I mean, even Neil Gaiman has a blog on tumblr where he posts frequently, but I guess the site is garbage and should be nuked etc.
 
I'm glad you've never done anything illegal ever, right?

Never sped? Never smoked pot? Never skipped class in high school?

Most people aren't proud of being criminals and try and justify why it's okay.

Also, lol @ comparing being a thief with smoking pot or skipping school.
 
I'm glad you've never done anything illegal ever, right?

Never sped? Never smoked pot? Never skipped class in high school?

Here's the difference.

"I once sped down the highway above the speed limit. I was fully aware I broke the law, and as a general statement do believe in speed limits, however I weighted the risk of being caught versus the chance of me being late to my destination, and decided it was worth it."

This is not at all the same as

"I break the law shoplifting because FUCK WALMART"

You are RATIONALIZING why people should commit a crime as if it's for the greater good. People who speed down the highway are breaking the law for their own personal gain, and are fully aware and accepting that they should be punished for doing so.

You however seem to think otherwise.

Lenin himself couldn't probably convince you otherwise at this point.
 
I don't think stealing from Wal-Mart particularly matters, but I do think that people who shoplift are largely immature and myopic, and I pretty much instantly lose respect for people when I learn they do it. I once stopped in to my work with a friend to grab my schedule, and I found out a few hours later that while I was in the back getting it, my friend had shoplifted a shirt. I love him, but he could have gotten me fired just to get his stupid little rush.

It's true that Wal-Mart has committed plenty of wrongs, but it's also true that the principle that you should not take something to which you are not entitled, according to whatever system of norms a society has in place to govern that, is a solid principle for judging people's overall ethical character.
 
people exposing they don't know truancy is actually illegal.

also any crime is apparently justifiable in the right context because "everybody speeds sometimes".
 
I don't think stealing from Wal-Mart particularly matters, but I do think that people who shoplift are largely immature and myopic, and I pretty much instantly lose respect for people when I learn they do it. I once stopped in to my work with a friend to grab my schedule, and I found out a few hours later that while I was in the back getting it, my friend had shoplifted a shirt. I love him, but he could have gotten me fired just to get his stupid little rush.

It's true that Wal-Mart has committed plenty of wrongs, but it's also true that the principle that you should not take something to which you are not entitled, according to whatever system of norms a society has in place to govern that, is a solid principle for judging people's overall ethical character.
But someone told me that shoplifting is a victimless crime and that companies are too big to bother punishing workers for it.
 
So you are advocating slavery and forcing people to live under the political and economic system you think is best. That seems pretty selfish when you could remove yourself from the oppression you claim to hate.

Why wouldn't you support a freedom of movement where if people want to reject capitalism they can move to their own society and do so.

Communism is about the state allocating resources capitalism is about the free market allocating resources. One assumes people will do what is best for the good of everyone and the other assumes people will do what is in their own best interest. It is no surprise the latter wins.

I don't know about jackissocool, but most commies I know, myself included, don't want to force anybody into an economic system. They want communism to come about through the voluntary action of the working class, and for the resulting economic system to be run by the workers for the workers. You talk of best interests, but can you deny that it's in the worker's best interest to remove the owning class that takes much of the value they create as their own, so that workers can receive the value that their work is worth? How is that any less valid from a self-interest point of view than capitalists paying workers the lowest wages they can so they can maximize their profit margin?

You also seem to believe that all communism is a tyranny of the state, which is understandable given most people's perception of the 20th century. While communism is defined as a stateless, classless society by Marx, Marx did mention that the government will still be used as a tool of the working class following the communist revolution. Much of what occurred in the 20th century is an absolute shame, and has clearly set the ideals of communism back many, many years as seen by the dismissal of such ideas in this thread. But humans are not beyond learning from their mistakes. The working class will have to organize the economy in a more efficient way this time around, perhaps using a system where the workers themselves allocate resources rather than giving the state the unilateral power to do so. Communism is meant to be the self-activity of a free association of producers, who organize voluntarily for the benefit of themselves, not a state tyranny.

The state's functions that it performs today might still be performed initially, but would gradually dissipate as the working class learns to take over the state's duties for itself. The state, like it does today, would also defend the working classes' interests, by removing possible threats to the new economic paradigm (like countries that still wish to remain capitalist and exploit their workers), as the state does today and has done in the past. But, as stated before, it's important to not allow this state to not become all-powerful as it was in some 20th century communist countries. The way to prevent this from occurring is to educate the working class on what the state shouldn't be, ie a dictatorship, and to give the working class the tools to fight back if necessary, ie the right to bear arms. Communists don't want the state to be kept around forever, but understand that it will have its uses in the initial post-revolutionary world as a military arm and service provider while the working class gets their bearings on how to best organize this new world.
 
I'm glad you've never done anything illegal ever, right?

Never sped? Never smoked pot? Never skipped class in high school?

Those crimes are not crimes that infringe on another persons rights. By stealing you are infringing on another persons rights by taking their property.
 
Those are CRIMES

It's illegal

No it's not. Skipping classes tends to be against the RULES of the school, but it's not a LAW that you can't skip classes. So if you skip classes you can't be persecuted by the law as you never committed a crime, but the school has the right to suspend or expel you for breaking its rules.
 
Wait, GAF didn't know about this? This has been a thing sense like late 2014. And they get serious when you disagree with them. Sometimes they become down right bullies.
 
I'm glad you've never done anything illegal ever, right?

Never sped? Never smoked pot? Never skipped class in high school?

Three thoughts about this idiotic post:

1) Skipping class in high school is not illegal. As far as I know, there are no school systems that would punish you as a criminal for truancy. Maybe you'll get detention.

But that's beside the point.

2) Justifying your own illegal activity because somebody else, somewhere, has committed a crime is stupid. In so far as you've couched your shoplifting behind wanting to change the system, hating capitalism, or ending oppression, I'm curious: In your ideal society, where does this "Somebody has committed a crime therefore I can commit a crime" fall into? For instance, should a corporation steal from it's employees 401k pension because you stole hair elastics from Target in a form of anti-capitalist protest? Remember, this is in your ideal society. "No, of course not, those are two totally different things!" Ok, so where is the line drawn? Where does one become acceptable (Committing a crime because someone, somewhere, has committed a crime) and where does it become unacceptable?

3) There's a difference between committing infractions, however deliberate (for instance, speeding up to get through a traffic light), and then committing infractions and taking to the internet to boast about them. We probably all commit infractions every day, I'm sure today I went 70mph on the highway going to work. It's something I did, but it's not something I'm bragging about. I don't think that I'm changing the system by going 70 in a 65mph zone and I don't try to act like I am on the internet.

If you admitted that you had stolen before, most people probably wouldn't care, and your insignificant post would have been forgotten back on page 1. But because you couched it in moralistic justifications at every turn, expounding on the evils of capitalism in a thread where you admit to stealing, you're being castigated.
 
people exposing they don't know truancy is actually illegal.

As far as I know in the States, it's not illegal in every State, and many are just enforced as school code rather than an actual state or federal level crime.

1) Skipping class in high school is not illegal. As far as I know, there are no school systems that would punish you as a criminal for truancy. Maybe you'll get detention.

Up until recently (like 2015 recently), I want to say it was illegal in Texas.
 
people exposing they don't know truancy is actually illegal.

also any crime is apparently justifiable in the right context because "everybody speeds sometimes".

Only one person used the speeding example, and the point was that it wasn't "justified", it was a crime that the person in the example willingly commited for personal gain.
 
I don't know about jackissocool, but most commies I know, myself included, don't want to force anybody into an economic system. They want communism to come about through the voluntary action of the working class, and for the resulting economic system to be run by the workers for the workers. You talk of best interests, but can you deny that it's in the worker's best interest to remove the owning class that takes much of the value they create as their own, so that they can receive the value that their work is worth? How is that any less valid from a self-interest point of view than capitalists paying workers the lowest wages they can so they can maximize their profit margin?

You also seem to believe that all communism is a tyranny of the state, which is understandable given most people's perception of the 20th century. While communism is defined as a stateless, classless society by Marx, Marx did mention that the government will still be used as a tool of the working class following the communist revolution. Much of what occurred in the 20th century is an absolute shame, and has clearly set the ideals of communism back many, many years as seen by the dismissal of such ideas in this thread. But humans are not beyond learning from their mistakes. The working class will have to organize the economy in a more efficient way this time around, perhaps using a system where the workers themselves allocate resources rather than giving the state the unilateral power to do so. Communism is meant to be the self-activity of a free association of producers, who organize voluntarily for the benefit of themselves, not a state tyranny.

The state's functions that it performs today might still be performed initially, but would gradually dissipate as the working class learns to take over the state's duties for itself. The state, like it does today, would also defend the working classes' interests, by removing possible threats to the new economic paradigm (like countries that still wish to remain capitalist and exploit their workers), as the state does today and has done in the past. But, as stated before, it's important to not allow this state to not become all-powerful as it was in some 20th century communist countries. The way to prevent this from occurring is to educate the working class on what the state shouldn't be, ie a dictatorship, and to give the working class the tools to fight back if necessary, ie the right to bear arms. Communists don't want the state to be kept around forever, but understand that it will have its uses in the initial post-revolutionary world as a military arm and service provider while the working class gets their bearings on how to best organize this new world.


Wait, the workers themselves will allocate resources?

How will they go about coordinating it?
 
I don't know about jackissocool, but most commies I know, myself included, don't want to force anybody into an economic system. They want communism to come about through the voluntary action of the working class, and for the resulting economic system to be run by the workers for the workers. You talk of best interests, but can you deny that it's in the worker's best interest to remove the owning class that takes much of the value they create as their own, so that they can receive the value that their work is worth? How is that any less valid from a self-interest point of view than capitalists paying workers the lowest wages they can so they can maximize their profit margin?

You also seem to believe that all communism is a tyranny of the state, which is understandable given most people's perception of the 20th century. While communism is defined as a stateless, classless society by Marx, Marx did mention that the government will still be used as a tool of the working class following the communist revolution. Much of what occurred in the 20th century is an absolute shame, and has clearly set the ideals of communism back many, many years as seen by the dismissal of such ideas in this thread. But humans are not beyond learning from their mistakes. The working class will have to organize the economy in a more efficient way this time around, perhaps using a system where the workers themselves allocate resources rather than giving the state the unilateral power to do so. Communism is meant to be the self-activity of a free association of producers, who organize voluntarily for the benefit of themselves, not a state tyranny.

The state's functions that it performs today might still be performed initially, but would gradually dissipate as the working class learns to take over the state's duties for itself. The state, like it does today, would also defend the working classes' interests, by removing possible threats to the new economic paradigm (like countries that still wish to remain capitalist and exploit their workers), as the state does today and has done in the past. But, as stated before, it's important to not allow this state to not become all-powerful as it was in some 20th century communist countries. The way to prevent this from occurring is to educate the working class on what the state shouldn't be, ie a dictatorship, and to give the working class the tools to fight back if necessary, ie the right to bear arms. Communists don't want the state to be kept around forever, but understand that it will have its uses in the initial post-revolutionary world as a military arm and service provider while the working class gets their bearings on how to best organize this new world.

but will there be dragons

i would like a dragon please
 
That seems to be exactly whats happening here except now they getting external validation. Add the echo chamber of approval from like minded people and you end up with self justification!

You know what's funny? Our relationship ended because she stole from me, her and a friend. That girl was a mess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom