4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: No I didnt Mockery = ridicule =hatred Look in the mirror if your basement has one The more you write the closer to the anarchists you sound, violent, and hatred are the hallmark...you got them big time. Likely your theme is "let them eat cake", Laughter = violence? Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, GG said: Because obviously it's never been implemented properly. Or maybe we're not mature enough yet. When I imagine all of humankind as a single organism, I imagine us like a 4-year-old just barely come conscious, prone to emotional tirades, pointless destructive behavior and the like, and not caring properly for our brothers and sisters. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that when humankind is more mature, a system of government that did not work when we were an ignorant child could work when we are more emotionally/spiritually developed. After all we as individuals need different forms of guidance at different points in our life, so why not the same for us collectively? edit- come to think of it, this is Sean McDermott's "growth mindset" taken to its logical conclusion. It's about seeing things as in process, or developing, rather than fixed. Edited June 21, 2020 by 2020 Our Year For Sure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 The populist establishment tacked up two revolutionaries on each side of this Dude. And still the people demand Barabbas. Have you learned your lesson? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Happy said: Revolutionaries always say this, but it ends up being anything but. Didn't the Pilgrims copyright that phrase... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted June 21, 2020 Author Share Posted June 21, 2020 50 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Laughter = violence? Got it. If it is suppose to be sarcasm it should be clear. One never knows what it us when it comes from posters who only have limited views. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted June 21, 2020 Author Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lurker said: Didn't the Pilgrims copyright that phrase... How do the truly understanding, mainstream, supporters of a better way get heard, with a news media and commentators only listening to the loudest anarchist ( to quote gg),. In the 60s you could not get the Panthers off the pages. Some of that was druven by the establishment...John Dean participated in Democratic Convention on his way to the Whitehouse. Today it is the same violent factions, with only greed and destruction as a guide. Even the Pres leans that way. How do the masses get heard...how does our society accomplish peaceful societal changes. Politics only knows money and power.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) The point of nonviolence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give man a decent place to stand. - Joan Baez Without a direct action expression of it, nonviolence, to my mind, is meaningless. -Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1948 I want to point out also that there is a subtle but important difference between non-violent resistance and "peaceful protest". Peaceful protest, if it is just marching around in circles or sitting on the lawn with signs, is unlikely to affect change. Non-violent resistance, on other hand -- actions which, without inflicting violence, disrupt the system (traffic, commerce, etc), usually do more to affect change. To use your example of the 60s Civil Rights struggle: It wasn't peaceful protest that changed anything. It was the images of black Americans being beaten, sprayed with fire hoses, and having dogs unleashed on them, that garnered the sympathies and attentions of most Americans. And the actions that brought about those violent repercussions were typically non-violent, disruptive, direct actions. Furthermore, it was on the seventh night of nationwide riots resulting from Martin Luther King's assassination that the Civil Rights bill was finally signed. I'm not advocating for riots, mind you, though I do advocate for non-violent, disruptive, direct action. There is value in both "sides" of the revolution, I suppose: The Civil Rights struggle needed Martin AND Malcolm. It's a very interesting, and age-old question. How much direct action is needed for a revolution to succeed? Edited June 21, 2020 by Logic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 24 minutes ago, Lurker said: Didn't the Pilgrims copyright that phrase... Not sure. I wasn't on the Mayflower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted June 21, 2020 Author Share Posted June 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Happy said: Not sure. I wasn't on the Mayflower. Santa Maria or Pinta perhaps? Could you been a greeter of the pilgrims?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 32 minutes ago, Logic said: The point of nonviolence is to build a floor, a strong new floor, beneath which we can no longer sink. A platform which stands a few feet above napalm, torture, exploitation, poison gas, A and H bombs, the works. Give man a decent place to stand. - Joan Baez Without a direct action expression of it, nonviolence, to my mind, is meaningless. -Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1948 I want to point out also that there is a subtle but important difference between non-violent resistance and "peaceful protest". Peaceful protest, if it is just marching around in circles or sitting on the lawn with signs, is unlikely to affect change. Non-violent resistance, on other hand -- actions which, without inflicting violence, disrupt the system (traffic, commerce, etc), usually do more to affect change. To use your example of the 60s Civil Rights struggle: It wasn't peaceful protest that changed anything. It was the images of black Americans being beaten, sprayed with fire hoses, and having dogs unleashed on them, that garnered the sympathies and attentions of most Americans. And the actions that brought about those violent repercussions were typically non-violent, disruptive, direct actions. Furthermore, it was on the seventh night of nationwide riots resulting from Martin Luther King's assassination that the Civil Rights bill was finally signed. I'm not advocating for riots, mind you, though I do advocate for non-violent, disruptive, direct action. There is value in both "sides" of the revolution, I suppose: The Civil Rights struggle needed Martin AND Malcolm. It's a very interesting, and age-old question. How much direct action is needed for a revolution to succeed? You could write 1000 more pages of this, you can quote the Beatles and Woody Guthrie and any number of bearded academics you'd like and collectivism still won't work. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: You could write 1000 more pages of this, you can quote the Beatles and Woody Guthrie and any number of bearded academics you'd like and collectivism still won't work. Exactly. May not be the best example, but look at what is happening to CHAZ or CHOP or whatever the next name is. Most of these socialist/revolutionary types have no idea how to make a government work nor do they have the proper mentality to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 You can’t have a revolution without violence. At least I can’t think of an example where that occurred. But if any country has the structures in place to accomplish that, it’s ours. Assuming, of course, that everyone has an equal opportunity to utilize those structures. Which we don’t have and which some are in the process of further trying to deny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 43 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: You could write 1000 more pages of this, you can quote the Beatles and Woody Guthrie and any number of bearded academics you'd like and collectivism still won't work. Yep, there are always going to be those who want more than their share for effort that is less than their share. Just for an experiment I would love to place a couple dozen of these lefty's on a deserted island and see what the state of affairs are after a few years has elapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Yep, there are always going to be those who want more than their share for effort that is less than their share. Just for an experiment I would love to place a couple dozen of these lefty's on a deserted island and see what the state of affairs are after a few years has elapsed. The topic at hand is "the place of violence in revolutions", not "why you think leftists and socialists are wrong". I'm sure there are plenty of people in the PPP that would love to take potshots at leftists, if that's what you're after. Edited June 21, 2020 by Logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: You could write 1000 more pages of this, you can quote the Beatles and Woody Guthrie and any number of bearded academics you'd like and collectivism still won't work. Weird. Here I was under the impression that MANY of the freedoms we enjoy today came as a result of revolutions, rebellions, and strikes, put together most often by what you'd refer to as "collectivists". I guess revolutionaries all over the world should just quit trying to work towards a better, more equitable world, since their efforts have historically never achieved anything whatsoever. Besides, it's quite clear that modern, late stage capitalist, materialism-worshipping America is doing just fine in all respects and doesn't require any change anyway. Our American individualism is working ESPECIALLY well as it relates to COVID-19. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Logic said: As long as we're ALSO allowed to place a couple dozen "righties" on a deserted island and see what the state of affairs are after a few years has elapsed, as well. And as far as "people who want more than their share for effort that is less than their share"...I assume you're talking about CEOs that make billions, despite not doing nearly as much on a day-to-day basis as their lowest paid workers? In any event, the topic at hand is "the place of violence in revolutions", not "why you think leftists and socialists are wrong". Go to the PPP for that type of stuff. There would be problems on "righty" island as well but my feeling is there will be far fewer problems in comparison. I kind of lived a scaled down version of this experiment when I lived at a "co-op" student residence while at Cornell. Not going to dispute billionaire CEO's but then again they are a small percentage of American society as they should be. I saw a point where I could jump in to make a contribution. If I can make a contribution as to the main topic I will and perhaps after some time to com-template. I don't t believe that "violence" is worlds apart from "wrong" for the sake of discussion. While I took a couple of history courses at Cornell I never dipped into Poly-Sci so I am at somewhat at a disadvantage but I believe that I will survive just fine. PS This thread should be in PPP as without politics there would be no motivation for the revolutions the OP mentions. Edited June 21, 2020 by RochesterRob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted June 21, 2020 Author Share Posted June 21, 2020 Why do people who wanted peace and to end the war machine and the war economy have to be the evil socialist or God forbid a dam communist. Why can you deal with them as citizens. I was not a commie pinkos like Meathead Stivic. Why do people sho just want our society to treat all people equally have to labeled like that. Cannot you believe in MAGA and also be in favor of a just society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, RochesterRob said: Yep, there are always going to be those who want more than their share for effort that is less than their share. If this is in reference to your 'socialism' boogeyman you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: If this is in reference to your 'socialism' boogeyman you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Could you make more vague responses and then disappear into the fog of the internet? You should know since you responded that I was responding to a post that mentioned collectivism. Are you trying to say that collectivism has been implemented with success? That both the people and the government which were impacted by collectivism were happy with the results? That you yourself would be happy if the government came along and subtracted "Y" from your "X?" Even if you owned a 1500 square foot home and were paid 15 dollars per hour you would be happy if the government decided some less fortunate person needed half of your living area and that your employer should pay that person part of your salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Logic said: The topic at hand is "the place of violence in revolutions", not "why you think leftists and socialists are wrong". I'm sure there are plenty of people in the PPP that would love to take potshots at leftists, if that's what you're after. I thought we were having meaningful discussion on social-political experiments. Why retract your comment about righty's? You're right about both "societies" being quite a ways removed from being perfect. What do you envision happening on righty island over the span of a few years? Edited June 21, 2020 by RochesterRob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts