Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is related to the McDonalds story simply because the teen gang was almost immediately triggered and escalated things to violence. Their aggressiveness/anger is an indication their high or absurd expectations were not met.
True political change frequently results in violence but these are movements, trends, causes etc. But it seems there are many individuals trying to turn their personal beliefs and/or agenda into a national catastrophe. Because they were offended or wronged they assume everyone else was offended or wronged and should follow them even if it's illegal, unethical or criminal behavior: some might call it a pack mentality. It's the escalation and frequent use of aggressive protest. Aggressive behavior should be the last resort. A recent example occurred this weekend when the climate protestors interrupted and delayed a college football game. It was a sporting event, not a political event-is that not entitled behavior to disrupt unrelated events and inconvenience people who they have nothing to do with. Setting aside the political or right/wrong aspects of the protest who the heck are they to bring third parties into their "war".
There is difference between fighting for a highly recognized and/or accepted cause, movement, trend etc and politicizing and/or using very aggressive tactics for personal/individual beliefs, agendas, experiences etc Forcing one's personal opinion, policy or philosophy on anyone is entitlement.j Just as bad is the false expectation that everyone thinks or will think like them.
I do think climate change is a highly recognized and accepted cause. Because it's not by certain factions does not mean a thing. People who protest and fight for climate change are not doing so out of a sense of entitlement, they believe they are fighting for their and their children's lives and futures. Because you don't believe that doesn't mean they are entitled.
Our country was founded on demands and, eventually, aggression against the powers that be. Because of that history, the founding fathers made sure protest was not only allowed but encouraged. Dumping a shipload of tea into Boston Harbor was pretty aggressive, was it not?
I don't think the McDonalds story is relevant. Yes, that guy had a sense of entitlement. I don't know how you think that relates to people protesting for political change, it doesn't. That guy is probably not even up on political events let alone going out to protest for them.
Poor already get free healthcare. Why do we need to do anything?
It's a uniquely American problem that people are rendered poor *because* of outrageous medical costs. Where else in the world are people losing their homes, life savings and being subjected to unethical collection tactics in order to pay for the costs of often routine medical treatment?
OP, I find it odd that you're conflating political issues with thuggery. I guess we'll never know what the assailants were thinking, and what motivated them. The article didn't say if they've been identified. Surely there were surveillance cameras?
What's just as disturbing about this incident, is that none of the employees called 911, while their co-worker was apparently being beaten to within an inch of her life. The McD staff wouldn't have had any idea how far the beating would go, and they had no excuse to not call for help, because most of the assault took place outside the restaurant. This story needs a LOT of follow-up; there's much that the media aren't telling us, for some reason. IMO police should have taken the rest of the staff in for questioning, as potential accessories to the crime.
I do think climate change is a highly recognized and accepted cause. Because it's not by certain factions does not mean a thing. People who protest and fight for climate change are not doing so out of a sense of entitlement, they believe they are fighting for their and their children's lives and futures. Because you don't believe that doesn't mean they are entitled.
Our country was founded on demands and, eventually, aggression against the powers that be. Because of that history, the founding fathers made sure protest was not only allowed but encouraged. Dumping a shipload of tea into Boston Harbor was pretty aggressive, was it not?
I don't think the McDonalds story is relevant. Yes, that guy had a sense of entitlement. I don't know how you think that relates to people protesting for political change, it doesn't. That guy is probably not even up on political events let alone going out to protest for them.
Protesting climate change or other issues is a right. But is it their right or 'ok' to force third un-associated parties into a personal struggle. Or is it even practical to use that option. But that's where the entitlement comes in because protestors who have zero problem bringing third parties into their war are showing their sense of entitlement right there. Wether it's arrogance or presumptiveness to assume those third parties will all of the sudden support of follow just using that tactic is showing entitled behavior. True they can use it but they also must realize that everyone will not agree or support them.
I'm more familiar with protesting than these college kids being part of a union and have walked basic strike/picket lines, informational picket lines and participating in full fledged protests. And believe me as many people that say they are 'ok' with the cause they are not ok with a protest interfering with their business or day.
Entitlement protesting isn't about the first amendment, free speech etc it's about the choice of tactics to advance a personal agenda. Especially when forcing aggressive tactics on non associated parties. Not every cause or issue is tea party worthy, that's what the entitled are missing.
Protesting climate change or other issues is a right. But is it their right or 'ok' to force third un-associated parties into a personal struggle. Or is it even practical to use that option. But that's where the entitlement comes in because protestors who have zero problem bringing third parties into their war are showing their sense of entitlement right there. Wether it's arrogance or presumptiveness to assume those third parties will all of the sudden support of follow just using that tactic is showing entitled behavior. True they can use it but they also must realize that everyone will not agree or support them.
I'm more familiar with protesting than these college kids being part of a union and have walked basic strike/picket lines, informational picket lines and participating in full fledged protests. And believe me as many people that say they are 'ok' with the cause they are not ok with a protest interfering with their business or day.
Entitlement protesting isn't about the first amendment, free speech etc it's about the choice of tactics to advance a personal agenda. Especially when forcing aggressive tactics on non associated parties. Not every cause or issue is tea party worthy, that's what the entitled are missing.
I don't think the McDonald's example is anywhere similar to wanting Universal Health Care or things like that. That is a matter of wanting a say where our tax dollars go. Some believe health care should be a right of all citizens and would prefer to see our tax dollars go to that than gifts for billionaires. Your saying that as an example of entitlement is no different that saying people are "entitled" because they expect free military defense or free police. Neither are "free" just because we don't pay directly for it, and neither is Universal health care.
But our constitution specifically gave powers of the federal government to declare war and maintain armed forces, "free" healthcare is not covered.
I do believe there is actually a segment of the population (the ones who reap the benefits but have never paid into the system) who do think universal health care is exactly like expecting free food from Micky D's.
We would all like to have a say in where our tax dollars go. Thats why we have the right to vote in representatives who will speak for us or not. But whose voice should be the loudest regarding where tax dollars go, the ones who pay taxes, the most taxes or those who pay little or no taxes. The kid who is working at Micky D's and contributing or the unemployed thugs that walk off the street.
Or are they just selfish and ignorant street thugs who will do anything to get what they want.
One can also look at the tone of many of these political events, protests, demonstrations, rallies etc. It's like one must agree to and follow their way or else. Many stances are extremely one sided. Even worse are demanding or insisting their way is the best or only way.
It's becoming a 'demand' culture. These are my demands. This is what I want. This is what should be.
Is all this just an unwieldy sense of entitlement or just selfishness and/or ignorance?
It's just them. These types of people have been around for decades. The average person isn't like this.
But our constitution specifically gave powers of the federal government to declare war and maintain armed forces, "free" healthcare is not covered.
I do believe there is actually a segment of the population (the ones who reap the benefits but have never paid into the system) who do think universal health care is exactly like expecting free food from Micky D's.
We would all like to have a say in where our tax dollars go. Thats why we have the right to vote in representatives who will speak for us or not. But whose voice should be the loudest regarding where tax dollars go, the ones who pay taxes, the most taxes or those who pay little or no taxes. The kid who is working at Micky D's and contributing or the unemployed thugs that walk off the street.
I don't think those are the people calling for Universal Health Care. And again, "free" health care is not any different than "free" police, or "free" K-12 school. It's just a matter of priorities. People who expect elementary school and police to be "free" aren't entitled and neither are those who want universal health care. I don't know why you think thugs have anything to do with it at all. I pay plenty of taxes, and I already wrote a long essay a couple of pages ago on why universal health care is important for the middle class and people like me. The kid working at Micky D's most likely A. Doesn't even think about health insurance, and B. Probably qualifies for Medicaid. Same with the "unemployed thugs". LOL if you think "thugs" think about health insurance at all let alone fight for it.
The McDonald's incident is a microcosm of the larger issue OP mentioned. I can't believe some of you don't see that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
or not. But whose voice should be the loudest regarding where tax dollars go, the ones who pay taxes, the most taxes or those who pay little or no taxes. The kid who is working at Micky D's and contributing or the unemployed thugs that walk off the street.
