#deleteuber

[nostradumbass]

Leftists are pissed at Uber for picking up rides at JFK while the cabs decided to go on strike during the protests. They wanted Uber drivers' support in trying to shut down business and create a mess, and now they are urging people to delete their Uber apps and boycott because the individual drivers still wanted to make a living while the snowflakes threw a tantrum instead of leaving everyone at the airport without a ride. Ironically, a shit ton of the NYC Uber drivers the leftists now want to put out of business are from the middle east, so they want them all to come here, but they don't want them to earn any money if they don't go along with all their political protests. The left wanting more people unable to make a living and needing more welfare, shocker.

http://www.businessinsider.com/delete-uber-hashtag-jfk-airport-taxi-strikes-2017-1

 

[EvilWasLittle]

I'm using Uber more now after hearing this.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Heard about this. This is my favorite story to come out of it

In the “Share Details” field, users told Uber why they were leaving, with those reasons including countless variations on “Stop colluding with fascists,” plus “This aggression will not stand” and the complete script to Jerry Seinfeld’s Bee Movie.

 

[Pwent]

If people cared about cab companies they wouldn't have Uber in the first place

 

[AviatorShades]

We all know how real their "boycotts" are and how they never make a dent unless it's some small ma 'n' pa bakery who refused to bake a transvestite bondage wedding cake.

None of them really end up boycotting Apple, Starbucks, Uber, etc.

 

[7437]

They will get over it. Convinience generally trumps principles for all people.

 

[nostradumbass]

If people cared about cab companies they wouldn't have Uber in the first place

Exactly. I read the one @Kafir-kun linked and it basically started like Dana's "Stitch was never my friend", saying people have hated Uber for a long time for trying to strong-arm gov't officials and sending drivers who could hit you with a hammer. The whole reason Uber exists is because immigrants used to be able to paint "taxi" on the side of a used car and be in business, and the gov't got involved with the taxi industry, and now those damn medallions on cabs cost $1M so nobody could do it unless they worked for a cab company who took a huge cut, until Uber showed up, and now they are trying to bully Uber out of town so the taxi industry takes control again.

And the Uber drivers could "hit you with a hammer", even though the drivers all have ratings from passengers that don't exist in cabs.

We all know how real their "boycotts" are and how they never make a dent unless it's some small ma 'n' pa bakery who refused to bake a transvestite bondage wedding cake.

None of them really end up boycotting Apple, Starbucks, Uber, etc.

I just today saw Dave Rubin interviewing Dennis Prager and he said when he was working at the young turks, they did this long tirade about Chik-fil-a and how homophobic they are and nobody should eat there, and during the piece one of the producers was behind the camera ripping into a chicken sandwich and waffle fries.

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't understand what punishing people at the airport by not letting them get a cab has to do with Trump's immigration policy. What am I missing?

 

[KOQ24]

Get dat paper, Uber!

 

[dza76wutang]

I don't understand what punishing people at the airport by not letting them get a cab has to do with Trump's immigration policy. What am I missing?

It's like stampeding a brunch or blocking a major highway.

Inconveniencing people who are not concerned with your cause is a great way to make them reflect on the daily inconvenience of institutional racism and the patriarchy. This gets them off of the proverbial fence and on your side because nothing persuades like annoying people into compliance.

If the inconvenience is not persuasive enough, the other person is failing to reflect. Reminding them of their privilege or attacking their character, e.g., call them racist, should finally motivate reflection and conversion.

Finally, for those rare cases where ad hominem fails to win an argument or sway a neutral observer, wanton destruction of property will help them see how frustrated their lack of reflection and compliance is making you.

 

[dontsnitch]

It's like stampeding a brunch or blocking a major highway.

Inconveniencing people who are not concerned with your cause is a great way to make them reflect on the daily inconvenience of institutional racism and the patriarchy. This gets them off of the proverbial fence and on your side because nothing persuades like annoying people into compliance.

If the inconvenience is not persuasive enough, the other person is failing to reflect. Reminding them of their privilege or attacking their character, e.g., call them racist, should finally motivate reflection and conversion.

Finally, for those rare cases where ad hominem fails to win an argument or sway a neutral observer, wanton destruction of property will help them see how frustrated their lack of reflection and compliance is making you.

It just seems very arbitrary. I guess it's symbolic to go to the airport, but you might as well protest at Burger King.

 

[EGarrett]

I don't understand what punishing people at the airport by not letting them get a cab has to do with Trump's immigration policy. What am I missing?

A lot of people are realizing for the first time that when you get in the business of forcing other people to do what you want, someone else can take that power and force you to do the opposite, and it's terrifying.

So instead of recognizing that it's the acceptance of force that creates the problem, they're just desperately trying to use the inferior amount of force they have access to.

 

[Teppodama]

There is a fine line between protesting crowds and mobs. Too many people today are fine with escalating from one to the other.