Violent revolution

^^^ I was offering counterpoint that money does not hold the biggest sway in politics.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

The claim isn't that their goals are objectionable, it's that what they do in service of those goals is.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Please don't tell me that was the introduction to another conspiracy theory. Fine. What do they do in the name of their goals, Tze?

Because tiny as Belgium is, it's actually made up of two whole separate groups. Turns out they can't stand each other. And so, with a complete lack of sympathy for mapmakers and schoolchildren around the world, they want to make two new, miniscule little countries.

edited 24th Jan '11 3:57:32 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

The tvtropes article is kind of misinforming on that element. While there are elements to that regard they are treated with large indifference or derision. That said, the issues between the Flemish side and Walloon is that the latter is where most of the money goes and the former is where most of the money is made. Thus, the Flemish extremists want to be their own country but Walloon, aside from some radical dipshits, don't want this. Nor does Belgium really.

To be honest, The party was largely known for because of its anti-foreigner and anti-muslim views, regardless of how it appears this is the sad reality. I voted for it, and evidently so did many Belgians, was because voting is mandatory and it was either out of protest, you believed them, or, like me, you thought why not.

That said, I do truly love Belgium as a culture its just that its fucked up politically.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

I was only commenting on the misunderstanding in your post.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Well, if you want to play that game, I'd argue that the end result of Wal-Mart's actions are what matters, not the actions themselves. But this is getting off-topic.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I am not sure what you mean...

To use an example we can probably agree on, activities of manufacturers back in the bad ol' days of the US were pretty despicable. Child labor, no compensation if you accidentally put your arm through a meat grinder, cancerous environments, etc. It's not like corporations set out to be dicks to their employees, but they ended up doing so, because that was more profitable.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I'd say that we have to look at the standards of the time.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

And then unions and strikes made it less profitable. Capitalism, come to save the day from... well, capitalists.

The point is, thanks to a combination of private property rights for the owners, and right to assemble/demonstrate/speechify for the workers, the system righted itself.

@Fighteer: Strawmanning?

^Not arguing that.

So you think that their behavior was okay or what?

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I didn't say that but judging the people of the past with modern virtues is pretty retarded.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

Fix'd it for you. It's an ongoing process, and will require ongoing pressure.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Well, since I can't exactly put dead people in jail, I usually see fit to judge past actions on whether I'd be okay with them now. And the answer is no.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Well I dunno I guess there are levels of violent revoltion. Lone conservative gunman going around shooting people isn' cool. But in Tunsia it looks like the country might change for the better.

A wish is never free.

@tzetze: Enjoy your fruitless and pointless judgment of people who abides by a different set of virtues, a different world that they lived in, and a different set of things that they accepted or understand as knowledge.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

It's not fruitless, because I can use it as an example of bad behavior, as in my earlier post.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

But it's not as bad, because each of those individuals (and take note, they're individuals, not some shadowy evil conspiracy) was brought up under different values. Judging them by modern standards won't give you an accurate picture. I'm not saying using child labor was justified, I'm saying it was not as black and white as we see it today.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

@Wanderhome: "Hell, have you even visited Earth, or are you just going off the Martian broadcast analyses?" That's an ad hominem and uncalled for. I suppose I chose the wrong word.

@Ralph Crown and others: Wal-Mart is not evil in the sense that that they are seeking out ways to bring misery to people. Their sin, if you call it that, is indifference to that which does not maximize profits. This is why we have regulations, unions, consumer watchdog groups, and the like.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@tzetze: Yes its bad behavior today, but not back then. To say that your views of morality, today in a civilized society in the year 2011, and can be applied to all periods of time and culture throughout history seems rather dangerous, doesn't it?

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

"Fix'd it for you. It's an ongoing process, and will require ongoing pressure."

Well, yes, unions have done about all the good they're going to do, and (in most cases) are now extraneous at best and outright obstructive at worst. We can't exactly outlaw them, though. That would bring us right back to square one. Most of the problem is leftist politics, anyway, not the unions themselves.

@Fighteer My point was that the notion of the American military supporting some sort of rightist revolution is patently ridiculous. I can't imagine anyone with even passing familiarity with the US military believing that, hence the increasingly hyperbolic questions about what perspective he was looking from.

When the income disparity gap has grown expansively over the last few decades along with blue collar workweeks and a shrinking of the workforce, then either the unions aren't doing their job, there's not enough unionization to do the job, or something has gone horribly wrong in a manner the unions couldn't fix. I'm curious to imagine how leftist politics could be to blame for that.

I had a thought on one way unions could be rendered superfluous. Approaches like what I linked are a big part of the reason I consider violent revolution pointless; a few new business models and a new way of looking at the economy, and you can turn things upside down without guns.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

At least in California and Belgium, the Unions are massively corrupt or the leaders have a conflict of interest in that they get a better deal by giving the workers a lesser deal.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

"When the income disparity gap has grown expansively over the last few decades along with blue collar workweeks and a shrinking of the workforce, then either the unions aren't doing their job, there's not enough unionization to do the job, or something has gone horribly wrong in a manner the unions couldn't fix. I'm curious to imagine how leftist politics could be to blame for that."

I don't have numbers on income disparity, but as for the shrinking American workforce, that has to do with unions doing their job well. Since unions helped raise the wages of the American worker so much, it's cheaper to produce things overseas, where the workers aren't unionized and will work for less.

As for leftist politics, they aren't, in general, to blame for that. They just aren't doing anything to fix it, but instead focusing on expensive social welfare projects that treat the symptoms of it, while allowing the general trend to continue.

In the case of the U.S., the federal system, I suspect, would work against a violent rebellion.

1. If you took out the federal government, you'd still have 50 state governments to deal with, plus individual military units, which would have to decide whether to acknowledge you as leader or refuse on account that since you did not take over by constitutionally legal processes, you aren't the commander - in - chief.
2. If you took over individual states, then you'd have feds on your case. In other words, you're talking secession from the union. That didn't work out well the last time.
3. Worst case, the financial or other crisis becomes so bad civilization itself starts to collapse. Cities start to break down and state and federal governments can't pay the personnel called in to control the riots. Pretty soon they can't afford to feed them. Anarchy takes over large portions of the country before managed combat begins. I'm guessing Europe would stay out of it while Iran, North Korea, etc. party in the streets; I'm not sure how Israel, Japan, and China would react.
4. I expect that if (3) started to occur, there would be an attempt at (2) simply to escape the chaos.

Edit: spelling.

edited 25th Jan '11 10:31:21 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

I think that's heading towards a discussion better meant for this old thread.

edited 25th Jan '11 10:41:57 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.