Scenes From The Zombie Apocalypse
In the comments, Dicentra shares the video embedded below:
Are you ok with this?pic.twitter.com/iC22VLL8bo
— Dr. Clown, PhD (@DrClownPhD) June 16, 2025
Along with the comment,
There is, I think, among many, a weariness of seeing escalating levels of fucking about with too little of the customary finding out.
The driver’s actions are at least comprehensible, a response to aggression, alarm and danger. The activists’ actions, in contrast, are a deranged provocation, a twisted entertainment. A gratuitous cause of danger. And the kinds of creatures who play these unhinged, sadistic games cannot be relied on to observe normal moral boundaries.
She, the activist, and her gang of masked associates, are the ones needlessly initiating the drama. They are the ones going out of their way to aggress random strangers, creating a credible threat, and doing so with glee. It’s an in-your-face display of recreational malice. They are high on themselves, on their mob power, and they’re loving every minute of it. These are not activities indulged in reluctantly or under duress.
And the activists’ power lies in an assumption that their victims will not risk injuring their assailants.
But to insist that the victims should remain trapped, inert, and at the mercy of their aggressors, indefinitely, and while risking greater danger to themselves or their property, does not strike me as a morally persuasive position. And note that the activists typically rush from all sides, rapidly surrounding the car and its occupants, intensifying the alarm, the likelihood of panic, and drastically reducing the driver’s options. This is not accidental.
There’s an implied dare. The game being, “You won’t do what’s needed, despite our alarming and menacing behaviour, because you’re nicer than us, less vain, and not unhinged, and so we can dominate you and terrorise you, and break your stuff, for as long as we want, for shits and giggles.”
Well. I would suggest that the activists’ own actions render their wellbeing of very low importance.
Again, people who behave in this way cannot be relied on to observe normal moral boundaries. Are their victims, their chosen targets, those alarmed drivers and passengers, the ones just going about their business – are they supposed to assume that the mob of unhinged aggressors exulting in their capture and harassment will not press their advantage and do something worse?
“Now they’re only smashing the windscreen and pulling at the door handles.”
“And now they’re only…”
At what point, precisely, would one’s alarm be considered sufficient? By all means use the comments to thrash out this terribly modern moral problem.
Update, via the comments:
Drivers and passengers who suddenly find themselves being harassed by self-styled activists would be wise to consider what kind of person would aggress them in this way. They wear masks and rush in front of moving cars, and then encircle them, trapping them, in order to dominate and terrorise the occupants and thereby feel important.
Importance being conceived as having power over others.
To assume that the bedlamites who do this – who choose to do this, over and over again, exulting in each triumph – are somehow good people, or that they mean well, or that they are likely to show restraint and not violate further boundaries… seems foolish. To say the least.
I was reminded of this rather shocking incident, from Portland in 2016, showing similar ‘activist’ tactics, and in which a lone female driver is encircled by a mob of baseball-bat-wielding ‘protestors’ who are trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face while videoing her distress. For amusement purposes. And bragging rights, one assumes.
Because they’re such righteous people. Not, say, sociopaths with a pretext.
Commenter ccscientist adds,
The primary reason they’re behaving in this way is because they really do enjoy behaving in this way. Again, it’s not done reluctantly or under duress. It’s chosen. It’s a go-to activity. The rest is pretext, a fig-leaf for self-pleasuring.
It is, I think, worth pondering why it is that these supposed displays of righteousness routinely take the form of obnoxious or bullying or sociopathic behaviour, whereby random people are screwed over and dominated, and often reduced to pleading. Pleading just to get home, to children, or to work, or to get to the doctor’s surgery. Even ambulances and fire engines can be obstructed, indefinitely, with both impunity and moral indifference.
Among our self-imagined betters, it seems to be the go-to approach for practically any purported cause. Which is terribly convenient. Almost as if the supposed activism were more of a pretext, an excuse, a license to indulge pre-existing urges.
And what kind of person would have urges like that?
The driver did nothing wrong.
‘Finding out’ needs to make a comeback in a big way.
I was reminded of this rather shocking video, from Portland in 2016, of similar ‘activist’ tactics, in which a lone female driver is encircled by a mob of baseball-bat-wielding ‘protestors’ who are trying to smash her car’s windscreen into her face while videoing her distress. For amusement purposes.
Because they’re such righteous people. Not just sociopaths with a pretext.
Thing is, the drivers and passengers being menaced by self-styled activists have to consider what kind of person would aggress them in this way. They wear masks and rush in front of moving cars, and then encircle them, trapping them, in order to dominate and terrorise the occupants and thereby feel important.
Importance being conceived as having power over others.
To assume that the creatures who do this – who choose to do this, over and over again, exulting in each triumph – are somehow good people, or that they mean well, or that they are likely to show restraint and not violate further boundaries… seems foolish. To say the least.
George Romero told us how to deal with zombies.
That.
“Let my people go, let my people go!”
Not unrelated, pinhead appears perplexed finding out Egyptian laws are different.
Note the US states in which this is most often seen – blue states without “stand your ground” laws or ones based on the castle doctrine. In states like my own or even more speciically Florida – where authorities practically promise the “finding out” part – this is not seen because these sociopaths know the populace will take action and be rewarded for doing so.
Regardless of location, it needs to happen more so the sense of a credible threat is strengthened.
Also . . . what the hell is with those pants?!
The only moral question is how many times you can run them over.
From here, for those who missed it. Because life is just one big Rick and Morty cartoon.
And which, again, doesn’t exactly suggest emotionally stable people, to whom one’s wellbeing can be entrusted.
Perhaps a bumbersticker that says “My vehicle identifies as Kyle Rittenhouse?”
More FAFO, same state.
Tell the insurance that you hit a Manatee.
Bad idea. You’ll have angry Krasnovian investigators banging on your front door.
And:
Curious if any of the readers here has read this? Plays into the Simulation thing as well, apparently. A little unsure regarding the synopsis. I wouldn’t say ‘imposed’. Nor was it limited to the American culture. I’m a bit suspicious that it’s a weak book designed to undermine the point it is ostensibly trying to make. Just doing some DD before I buy.
Normalising tantrums hasn’t been conducive to decorum.
More to the motivation of these people, green shirt manbun boy, the guy and his “marketing executive” accomplice who were blocking that black mother from getting to work this weekend had previously been awarded $115,000 ostensibly for having a night stick shoved up his ass. Because of course. Obviously. Don’t ask Grok these things tho. They’re very unverified.
No, they can’t, and they often take pride in their audacity in transgressing normie norms.
I wonder what ESR, he who coined “kafkatrapping,” would call this.
In florida, they passed a law that if someone is blocking your car, you can run them over. Essentially this blocking is kidnapping with possible assault threatened, or even murder threatened.
As a political strategy to get what you want, surrounding cars and threatening the occupants does not seem likely to achieve any political goal and will certainly not bring people over to your side (except of course more recreation terrorists).
Of course, the politics is just pretextual, as can be seen by the fact that the same thugs show up at a random assortment of topical protests (i.e., what does BLM have to do with Gaza?) As an illustration, all the George Floyd riots did not achieve any positive political outcomes for anyone.
The primary reason they’re behaving in this way is because they really do enjoy behaving in this way. Again, it’s not done reluctantly or under duress. It’s chosen. It’s a go-to activity. The rest is pretext, a fig-leaf for self-indulgence, self-pleasuring.
As I said here,
And what kind of person would have urges like that?
Needless to say, there are illustrations aplenty in the item linked above.
“Aspiring rapper who raps about the problems of the world…”
My late grandfather preferred to buy Delta 88s and Impalas because he “want [sic] a car that can punch through accidents“. A 3700lb (1700kg) can do that quite effectively.
It can also reduce annoying protesters who get in its’ path to a bumper sticker. Intelligent people are aware of that fact, and therefore do not get in its’ path. Protesters are also aware of that fact, but are ignorant enough to believe it does not apply to them.
Life is hard. It’s a lot harder when you’re trying to argue with something that outweighs you by factor of 15 times or more.
Instalanche.
[ Fetches ties, breath mints, deodorant. ]
[ Slides deodorant to Muldoon. ]
There’s also “with what”?
There’s a reason this stuff doesn’t happen in Lubbock Texas, or Missoula Missouri, or where I grew up, Tipton IN.
In blue states, the driver has to weigh the very real possibility that they’ll be the ones arrested if they flee and injure one of the assailants. They have to question “Is the risk of injury or death by mob in this situation outweighed by the very real risk of prosecution and conviction should I harm someone in an attempt to get away?”
I know, where I live, the answer is easy, because it’s clearly self defense and the risk of being arrested for fleeing such danger, even if it results in the death or injury of one of the assailants, is very small…virtually nonexistent.
Which is also why the risk of an event such as that is very unlikely to occur here. In a red state, the onus is on the “protesters” to weigh the very real risk of being injured (and then arrested for false imprisonment, assault, impeding free travel and jaywalking) or killed against the benefits of “raising awareness” about an issue that they don’t actually have a vested interest in and don’t really understand in the first place.
That math is pretty easy.
Today is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
And Treason Day is less than 3 weeks away.
I wonder if leftist liberal anti-gun types are disappointed in we normies.
All these riots. All these lootings. All these menaces on the streets. And how many times are they fired on? How many Kyle Rittenhouses? Just him (and a few dodge ’em games with vehicles).
You’d think with all these guns and all these eager men itching to use them that the body count would be higher.
Maybe Nic Cage was right:
Remember that in the Charlottesville protests (tiki torches, “some fine people”) someone DID try to exit a crowd and killed someone and went to jail, though the claim was that they did it on purpose (I do not have sufficient info to judge).
Not entirely unrelated.
Regular drug testing of journalists: an idea whose time has come.
Related.
Their new advertising slogan can be “At least we’re not the New York Times”.
And the New York Times‘ slogan can be “At least we’re not the Guardian“.
While at the Guardian it should be “Aren’t you glad we don’t have any guns?”
You don’t despise journalists enough. You think you do but you don’t.
Not a hoax. Source. (How appropriate, it’s a former CBC hack.)
The intersection that this FAFO happened is 5th and Hill in downtown Los Angeles (notice the boarded-up 1st floor businesses? Even though they have roll down steal security gates, they’re not taking chances). This intersection is the NE corner of Pershing Square Park. This is not the place you want to be stopped by anyone slightly aggressive (let alone be there after dark).
The name “Reginald Denny” comes quickly to mind.
Another item in the You Can’t Hate Journalists Enough Department.
In more positive news, it sucks to be you Canada. Yet again. From Florida.
Was the decedent just standing there and he ran her over on purpose, or was she swarming the car? I don’t actually know.
Don’t kid yourself – Canadians outside of northern Alberta (and the media) hate the Oilers more than they hate the Panthers – so this is not a bad outcome. Let’s just say the Oilers represented Canada in the same way the Dallas Cowboys represent America, or ar ‘America’s team. Bollocks
McDavid really deserves to win a cup – and I hope he does it somewhere other than Edmonton. Draisaitl too – but he was fool enough to sign a long term deal with the lottery kings.
Nature is healing.
[ Post updated. ]
Told you this place was interactive. Thrilling, isn’t it?
Being buzzed would, perhaps, explain some of their stranger assumptions.
It’s NPR. They believe in magic dirt.
It’s the implied worldview, eerily common among journalists, in which just about everything – except a person’s behaviour, conscientiousness, and cognitive wherewithal – determines that person’s life trajectory.
As if there could be no correlation at all between ending up in a nice neighbourhood and living to a ripe old age and being the kind of person who makes better choices generally. As if having a desirable postcode and staying healthy in later life couldn’t possibly be related to other, apparently unmentionable, attributes.
As Mr Burkett says in reply,
It’s a worldview in which traffic cameras must be racist because no other explanation for disparities in law-breaking is allowed inside the heads of these award-winning journalists. The ones who like to tell us about their intellectual credentials. Their medals for awesomeness.
Bookmark.
(My other dog, Trudy)