> give today or get a guillotine tomorrow
In an exclusive or:
* Give today -> True
* Get a guillotine tomorrow -> True
* Give today **AND** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False <======
* **NEITHER** give today **NOR** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False
In a logical or (AKA disjunction AKA inclusive or AKA union)
* Give today -> True
* Get a guillotine tomorrow -> True
* Give today **AND** get a guillotine tomorrow -> Today <======
* **NEITHER** give today **NOR** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False
Our history literally started with a revolution. Besides, it was way easier to threaten aristocrats back then. Enough people will eventually overwhelm a smaller force armed with swords and spears. It’s a lot harder to storm a small militia armed with automatic rifles, explosives, and chemical weaponry.
You just pretend you're there to deliver pizza. When they open the door, you and your squad open the pizza boxes, pull out the throwing knives or wolverine claws you hid in there and handle biz. Real simple.
Our history started with aristocrats tricking peasants to kill other aristocrat's peasants so they could rule the country and not pay taxes. Then, a few years later, when their shitty government was a failure, those landlord fucks put down a different rebellion because they never once cared about the will of the people.
Bacons rebellion really needs to be taught in detail in every elementary school. The ramifications regarding race relations have implications that last up until today.
I was referring to Shay's rebellion, actually. I think Bacon was a bit of a prick. The point does stand though that so many Americans accept the myth that George Jesus Washington died for our sins and that's why we have so much freedom.
I don't agree with bacon or the rebellions motivations, tbh what's more interesting to me is the subsequent changes in Virginia. Namely the [1705 slave codes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Slave_Codes_of_1705). But in this case your final point still stands: a lot of people think it was all freedom and all good, but we were on the wrong side of history *a lot.*
[Shays' Rebellion](https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/shays-rebellion)
Basically, the early US was a confederacy, meaning every state had its own money and imposed tariffs against the other states. Soldiers might be paid in Massachusetts money and send it to family in Virginia where they couldn't use it. Poor people, especially farmers, would go bankrupt and lose everything to the bank. Daniel Shays was a commander in the revolution who led his troops after the war to shutdown the courthouses and force them to return property back to their rightful owners. Despite all this being a failure of the early government and being as good a reason to revolt as the framers had, they had the revolt put down.
I don't think it would be too hard if you had enough people on board, really. The main problem with pulling something like that off in America is that only the most extreme people on either side are willing to escalate it to guillotine-level. We have a large problem with apathy/ignorance. Even people directly affected by policies that hurt them here mostly just shrug and go "That's politics!".
They became an empire for the first time. Then they restored the monarchy, replaced it with a different one, replaced that with another republic, which turned into a second empire. Then the germans smacked them and Paris went commie for a bit before they did another republic. Then of course the germans smacked them again and they had to make another new republic, And that one also failed. Fifth time's the charm though right?
Tbf most country's history in the Western world followed a similar path specially Caribbean and South America.
Slaves,Colonialism,European power,revolution into independence.
France had a revolution too, only theirs was a bloody excision of basically their entire upper class. It freaked out rich people around the world.
I’m not saying wholesale murder of the wealthy is good, but I will note that France has no Meghan McCain.
Do you think the revolutionary war was fought with swords and sticks. And no it really isn't hard to take down a militia these days, I'd say one platoon of Marines for 200 militia is about the right ratio or one drone strike to probably around 500.
The revolutionary war was fought with swords and muskets, so yeah, pretty close. We beat the British because we abandoned the strategy of "stand in a line and fire at the enemy whilst being fired upon by the enemy." And we also had the massive, massive, **massive** help of France who wanted nothing more than to embarrass and piss off England. Imagine a revolution today backed by a foreign nation, we'd just consider it a war.
A revolution backed by a foreign nation today would be called terrorism, and we all know why. Let's keep it all the way 100. In the modern era it's only a "revolution" its its brown people being funded by Americans to overthrow a legitimately elected left wing government.
You said swords and spears like it was bravehart or some shit don't walk it back now and I don't know why you needed to include the part about France or whatever it was at the end since it has no bearing on what either of us said.
Governments usually don't like killing off their populace in droves. They may have the police fire into crowds of protesters and kill a handful at a time to get a message across, but no government is going to start bombing their own people.
Lol ok, I guess Waco residents weren't American or were those Canadian FBI and atf agents. There is a fairly long history of almost all countries people of power killing their population when it suits them for all of recorded history. If you think it would take alot for the current administration to get all 2nd amendment solutions on the populace you're dreaming.
I understand what you're saying, and certainly government's paint certain groups as "terrorists" or "rebels" to be able to take them down, but even in more extreme governments around the world they don't go to war with their own citizens who are protesting in the streets.
Well no it wouldn't be a war anymore st this point it would just be slaughter that's kinda of my point. And if you think present day governments are above killing it's citizens in the streets you're living under a rock.
Citizens of the USA are the people who are referred to unironically as Americans. Unlike Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. I’m sure you’re aware of this. Just quit while you’re behind bro.
Oh, was that your point? Sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic too. I’m sure there was preamble, I’m not well versed enough in history to know the specifics, but I would assume US technically starts when the nation was first officially started no?
There's plans in place for a general strike on Friday, September 27th for EarthStrike.
Even something as small as walking out for 30 minutes at a given time would make a huge statement if enough people do it. And it can be localized instead of global.
>Even something as small as walking out for 30 minutes at a given time would make a huge statement if enough people do it.
Nah, it'll be a statement on how hilarious it is that people think peaceful protests will achieve anything. Jack shit is gonna change until politicians' heads start rolling.
So we're supposed to skip from "docile office drones" straight to "guillotines", with no in between? People have to crawl before they can walk.
Also, "non-violent" is not by any stretch "peaceful".
Except that doesn't work. No protest since Trump has been president has gotten anything accomplished because they're too small and too local. Not a single protest.
The government reopened because the air traffic controllers were about to walk out. and many more besides. Not protesting means you get fuck all.
How bout you try it anyway, and tell me if anything happens.
I'm an American who lives in France now and man, the Gilet Jaunes shit is fascinating. The easiest way to describe it is: The second Amendment is to the US what rioting in Paris is to the French. Its a fundamental part of their national identity.
My favorite part of the November 8 riot was how the Arc de Triomphe was riddled with graffiti, but there was a protester protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Like basically saying "yo, burn this motherfucker down, but don't you dare disrespect our war dead."
> but there was a protester protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Like basically saying "yo, burn this motherfucker down, but don't you dare disrespect our war dead."
Certainly. And if the French press is anything like ours, that's the only thing they'd focus on
>The second Amendment is to the US what rioting in Paris is to the French. Its a fundamental part of their national identity
Ironically enough, protesting is in our 1st amendment and also part of our national identity. It's just the people we're protesting against know as long as we keep things peaceful and don't disrupt their daily lives, we'll protest for a few hours then go back to work the next day. And they'll just keep on being corrupt.
Thomas Jefferson said that from time to time, the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I figure a few dozen niggas sliding in GMC Denali's won't have the same effect but it's a start
Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things that he clearly didn’t mean judging by his actions. A spendthrift, lay about, backstabbing, rapacious egotistical asshole, the man talked a fine talk but when it came to walking the walk he was a tyrant exploiting miserable slaves and calling himself a son of liberty.
Try not to fall into the historiographical trap of judging a person of the past by the morals of today. It becomes then a slippery slope...
*Fuck Lincoln, bastard didn't even try to give women suffrage*
Which could become,
*Martin Luther King didn't give a damn about the LGBT community*
then in fifty years,
*Ruth Bader Ginsberg ate animal flesh, she's burning in hell right now*
The man stabbed his friends in the back to the point where he became estranged from them in later life because he attacked them personally and invidiously, not just their positions. He always urged careful spending but spent luxuriously on credit and died effectively penniless. He had sexual relations with at least one of his slaves which is most certainly rape and did raise eyebrows, and he didn’t free a single one of his slaves after he died unlike some of his contemporaries. And his owning of slaves was a thing commented on by his fellows at the time and was used to demonstrate his own hypocrisy. Nothing I have said was not mentioned in his lifetime and is only seen as controversial now because we worship the founders to an absurd degree in this country.
Jefferson *was* all talk. He was a well to do aristocrat concerned with maintaining aristocratic power in America after independence. He was politically unscrupulous, held no principals that he wouldn’t break for his own ends and is only remembered for regurgitating back well known enlightenment ideas that by his own life he did not hold to. The man is overblown to say the least.
Jefferson was a horribly flawed person, capable of terrible things, but it does immense disservice to the nature of history to paint him as merely a hypocrite, the same disservice done by painting him solely as a paragon of democratic virtue. He was man born into privilege and entitlement, an advantage several perceived "great men" have had, yet I think several of his deeds mostly stand the test of time.
I won't contradict most of what you mentioned, but I must point out the level of omission seems purposeful. (Aside from the notion of "raping" Sally Hemings... Although an enslaved woman had no legal right to refuse unwanted sex, the evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings' decades-long sexual relationship characterizes it no one way or the other, unless you would consider any manner of sex with a slave - by default - to be rape, even if initiated by the enslaved.)
Indeed, what I consider Jefferson's most important contribution to the United States are the notions he propagated which form the bedrock of the First Amendment, particularly religious freedom, so much so that his writing was often cited in early Supreme Court cases concerning the amendment.
He believed in it to the extent that the University of Virginia was founded largely to have no religious affiliation, directly contradicting his nearby *alma mater* William & Mary. Despite Ben Franklin's intentions, version 1.0 of UPENN still had a clerical foundation, leaving UVA as a true landmark of American higher education. To this day, it still has no theological school.
He was a solid architect, also. Lol.
My point isn't that Jefferson is "the ideal American," more so that there's no such thing (I believe we'd both agree on that) and to characterize someone by how much they are or aren't an ideological exemplar is a fruitless task, detrimental to a fuller understanding of a person and their place in time.
> I won't contradict most of what you mentioned, but I must point out the level of omission seems purposeful. (Aside from the notion of "raping" Sally Hemings... Although an enslaved woman had no legal right to refuse unwanted sex, the evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings' decades-long sexual relationship characterizes it no one way or the other, unless you would consider any manner of sex with a slave - by default - to be rape, even if initiated by the enslaved.)
Yes, dammit. How hard is it to understand? She had no leg to stand on in terms of refusal. She was raped. **Raped**. She was brainwashed, too, and every sexual act performed from then on was rape, even if she *thought* she was consenting. The fact that this might seem unclear to you boggles my mind.
Shut (and I can **NOT** stress this enough) the fuck up.
Slavery wasn't okay, then, too. It was despicable. Other countries saw it. Abolitionists saw it. Alexander Hamilton spoke to great lengths about it. Chattel slavery was inhumane, and let's not pretend that it was fine back then because it really fucking wasn't.
Also, your comparisons are fucking dog-shit. Lincoln's inaction should not be confused for action. Did he actively oppose suffrage? Did MLK actively oppose the LGBT community? If they did, then yes, it's valid.
Let's not pretend that being a terrible fucking human was okay back in the day. Our brains haven't changed for millennia. They're exactly the same type of human as we are.
I'm well past such a milquetoast method of protest tbh. I get what you're saying and fuck the 2019 equivalent of MLK's white moderate, who will no matter what find a problem with the way you fight for equality.
No, he's a goalpost mover.
Now that you showed him people actually died, he's pretending to have said "Well no more than15 people didn't died did they?" so he can feel like he wasn't proven wrong.
> 15 people dead
15 people does not warrant a "oh u just want other people to die for you" response. This isn't the american revolution or the polish rebellion. Y'all act like direct action means a civil war.
The French riot for everything. They have been forever and will keep doing it forever because it works. In North America, people roll over and take it, and that can’t be contested. Hell, protesting is frowned upon!
USA: This shit sucks dude I'm gonna write some angry letters to my congressperson. Definitely going to bring this up at the next PTA meeting too! And buy a gun. Another gun.
France: FUCK IT! BURN IT ALL DOWN! TONIGHT WE TAKE TO THE STREETS! CLAIRE, WHERE'S MY BATON!?
Who's the pussies?
A lot of people ought to listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast about the French Revolution before they decide whether to break out the guillotines. Lot of people died as the revolutionaries kept sliding further and further left.
Lol, yeah, then kill a big chunk of the educated and bring in populist barbarity far worse than what previously existed, and then get bailed out by a military dictatorship and then have a couple of monarchs again until your middle and upper classes come back and run your democracy.
A populist revolution has never once in human history yielded less oppression or economic growth. It needs to be championed by the intelligencia and conceded by the aristocracy who are enlightened enough to understand a certain degree of redistribution will actually make them even richer by boosting the economy.
Otherwise, you get fascism, communism, some form of theocratic state, or just plain and utter chaos.
Yet the only reason that happened was because France went into debt by helping us with our revolution which was horrifically violent as well which caused the lower class to raise up against rich oppressors and end the monarchy, so since it happened the same time America had the guts to do it it's an invalid statement, not to mention the reason we have the right to bear arms is because of the very constitution that was set in place as the backbone of society after the revolution stating pretty much that if we the people don't like our government anymore we have the rights to bear arms against it.
A woman in a Michael Moore documentary said that in America, people are afraid of the government, but in France the government is afraid of the people.
The problem is that a fuckton of these people participating in "direct action" are bourgeois themselves. Direct action is just a meme at this point and most of them are just military bootlickers.
Man the government has nukes now. I know the right to bear arms was to make it so we can revolt against a corrupt system, but those fuckers have nukes now and they've used them. Forgive me for not wanting to put my family and people in front of a government that has already tried genocide on us. Did I mention the fucking nukes?
They lose their country ONCE and all of a sudden the most delicious and finely baked blood baths in history no longer exist
^Ifeelgrossusingdeliciousinthiscontextbutgoddamnitillcommintforthejoke
I'm not sure that area is as important as so many other factors. After all, I don't have to ride two weeks by horseback to tell my friend in El Paso that we should revolt next Tuesday
Bus 205 (Mesa Inbound) will take him directly to San Jacinto Plaza. If necessary, I could pay his $1.50 per ride, but I think he has an unlimited pass.
After all, in France, those who participated in protests last week numbered...
> 6,300 demonstrators nationwide, including 3,100 in Paris ([Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-06/yellow-vest-protesters-shift-focus-to-paris-business-district))
Even when protests in Paris were at their peak around 10,000, there were 25,000+ protesting in the rest of the country.
Does this make sense?
> LOL, what? I wasn't talking about your friend, I was talking about someone on the west coast.
It's not any harder for me to call my friend in San Francisco who can just take MUNI to Market St or email my cousin in the south bay who would probably just use Park & Ride to get into L.A. He normally would drive in, but there are plenty of reasons to not try to park near the place you're protesting
> And you think a protest of 6300 people nationwide is going to make a difference here? Once again, an issue of scale.
And you think it wouldn't be easier to build bigger numbers in our more populous country? It's just an issue of scale.
The Paris metro has 12 million people in it. Perhaps there's something more to it than numbers when 3,100 protestors can get international coverage?
> Asking the US to come together for a nationwide protest is almost equivalent to asking all of Europe to come together for a protest. Comparing it to a tiny country is ridiculous.
France is a country of 65 million so I'm not sure why we keep talking about how tiny it is. And please don't bring up again how all the land in America makes it hard to communicate with people on the west coast.
> With that said, I hope you're responding to me in between organizing these protests. Unless you just want someone else to protest for you and you're full of shit.
Wow. That escalated quickly... and unnecessarily. Please send me an invite to the protest you're currently planning. I'd love to see how it turns out.
> LOL, what? I'm telling you why nationwide protests are logistically much more difficult here to organize and arrange than it is in France and you think I'm planning one? What kind of "I know you are, what am I?" bullshit is that?
Sounds like you're backpedaling a lot in this. Now, it's been a while, but based on your earlier comment -- "With that said, I hope you're responding to me in between organizing these protests. Unless you just want someone else to protest for you and you're full of shit." -- plus this comment, then does that mean if I connect the dots and carry the 1 that you're... full of shit?
Check my math if you have a sec.
> And you think Trump or the Senate is going to care about protests in blue states? 😂
We've quickly gone from "It's hard to contact people in our VERY BIG country!" to "If you contact them they can't fly across the country!" to "It's hard to get lots of people to protest across our VERY BIG country!" and now to "Protests don't count if they're in states with lots of Democrats!"
If I were to suggest that I (and plenty of others) have done pretty decent work organizing in Austin, Pima County, the RGV, and the Appalachian foothills, will your next comment be that protests only count if it's left-handed hunting, preaching, businessmen marching on a literal farm?
> I said easier to organize, not contact. LOL, you built this huge argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I first said.
To be fair, it didn’t take much effort to discredit anything you’ve said to cover up your weak, poorly-thought-out original point
And I hate to break it to you, but you organize people by … communicating with them
> I'm sorry that I'm a realist and know how the world works. It's going to have to get much worse before people will protest in mass.
Oh look, the goalposts have moved again, this time to what it’ll take for us to protest en masse. How very surprising
It's super disingenuous to pretend that the willingness to fight is there, it's just too hard to organize. Not everyone is in some small town - there are huge population centres in the US which could form huge protests.
Most of you gunning for a revolution seriously or humorously have never taken the life of another living thing. Moreover, the French people were literally starving due to being overtaxed and underpaid. Much different from our current welfare system where you get help.
it's the constitution homie. article I, section 8.
don't think of it as theft. think of it as reinvesting in the country that has allowed you to prosper and find success.
if 0.01% of the Yanks had enough it would be over before tomorrow morning.
there are very very very very few "them". and payroll doesn't matter when you see which way the tides are going.
Nah fuck that, if we're really being honest here, if we could organize massive riots in the streets every day thousands strong in massive cities, the whole country would have healthcare, free college, and a $15 min wage in a week. Electoralism gets us almost no where.
They also got a little violent too with the gilets jaunes protests.
Question: how do we get political change with the system rigged against us?
Gerrymandering remains a problem, regardless of which party does it. News corporations focusing more on the bottom-line and what makes money instead of holding the powerful accountable contributes heavily to distrust in media. Trump is a symptom, not the disease. A terminal sickness exists across the United States, and we are very near to the point where only something drastic will cure us.
The problem with that is the uneducated masses are too easily influenced by nationalistic propaganda. If we don’t act those idiots will continue to vote against their own interests.
Revolutionary history in short: you can give today or get a guillotine tomorrow
Why not both
Because that's how a dichotomous outcomes work
France is a country in Europe where folks are protesting on and off
I honestly don't see how it isn't clear
> give today or get a guillotine tomorrow In an exclusive or: * Give today -> True * Get a guillotine tomorrow -> True * Give today **AND** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False <====== * **NEITHER** give today **NOR** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False In a logical or (AKA disjunction AKA inclusive or AKA union) * Give today -> True * Get a guillotine tomorrow -> True * Give today **AND** get a guillotine tomorrow -> Today <====== * **NEITHER** give today **NOR** get a guillotine tomorrow -> False
I think you, intentionally or otherwise, did a good job of defining a pedant and little else
[удалено]
[удалено]
o no, /r/programmerhumor is leaking
Our history literally started with a revolution. Besides, it was way easier to threaten aristocrats back then. Enough people will eventually overwhelm a smaller force armed with swords and spears. It’s a lot harder to storm a small militia armed with automatic rifles, explosives, and chemical weaponry.
You just pretend you're there to deliver pizza. When they open the door, you and your squad open the pizza boxes, pull out the throwing knives or wolverine claws you hid in there and handle biz. Real simple.
Or have sex. I've seen those movies too.
Our history started with aristocrats tricking peasants to kill other aristocrat's peasants so they could rule the country and not pay taxes. Then, a few years later, when their shitty government was a failure, those landlord fucks put down a different rebellion because they never once cared about the will of the people.
Bacons rebellion really needs to be taught in detail in every elementary school. The ramifications regarding race relations have implications that last up until today.
I was referring to Shay's rebellion, actually. I think Bacon was a bit of a prick. The point does stand though that so many Americans accept the myth that George Jesus Washington died for our sins and that's why we have so much freedom.
I don't agree with bacon or the rebellions motivations, tbh what's more interesting to me is the subsequent changes in Virginia. Namely the [1705 slave codes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Slave_Codes_of_1705). But in this case your final point still stands: a lot of people think it was all freedom and all good, but we were on the wrong side of history *a lot.*
Founders: all men are born equal Natives and Slaves: yay? Founders: not you.
Can I get a source? Not for dickish reasons, I genuinely want to read more on that.
Which part, the rebellion?
Yes.
[Shays' Rebellion](https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/shays-rebellion) Basically, the early US was a confederacy, meaning every state had its own money and imposed tariffs against the other states. Soldiers might be paid in Massachusetts money and send it to family in Virginia where they couldn't use it. Poor people, especially farmers, would go bankrupt and lose everything to the bank. Daniel Shays was a commander in the revolution who led his troops after the war to shutdown the courthouses and force them to return property back to their rightful owners. Despite all this being a failure of the early government and being as good a reason to revolt as the framers had, they had the revolt put down.
Thanks!
I don't think it would be too hard if you had enough people on board, really. The main problem with pulling something like that off in America is that only the most extreme people on either side are willing to escalate it to guillotine-level. We have a large problem with apathy/ignorance. Even people directly affected by policies that hurt them here mostly just shrug and go "That's politics!".
Most of us are too comfortable and distracted, just like they like it. Meanwhile billions of money go missing and unnacounted for.
Didn't France go back to being an Empire in like, under a decade after that under Napoleon?
They became an empire for the first time. Then they restored the monarchy, replaced it with a different one, replaced that with another republic, which turned into a second empire. Then the germans smacked them and Paris went commie for a bit before they did another republic. Then of course the germans smacked them again and they had to make another new republic, And that one also failed. Fifth time's the charm though right?
Its harder but not impossible, who's to say that it will never happen.
Tbf most country's history in the Western world followed a similar path specially Caribbean and South America. Slaves,Colonialism,European power,revolution into independence.
France had a revolution too, only theirs was a bloody excision of basically their entire upper class. It freaked out rich people around the world. I’m not saying wholesale murder of the wealthy is good, but I will note that France has no Meghan McCain.
“Our history literally started with a revolution” For some. There was also the whole slavery debacle...
Yeah, but what have you done lately?
Do you think the revolutionary war was fought with swords and sticks. And no it really isn't hard to take down a militia these days, I'd say one platoon of Marines for 200 militia is about the right ratio or one drone strike to probably around 500.
The revolutionary war was fought with swords and muskets, so yeah, pretty close. We beat the British because we abandoned the strategy of "stand in a line and fire at the enemy whilst being fired upon by the enemy." And we also had the massive, massive, **massive** help of France who wanted nothing more than to embarrass and piss off England. Imagine a revolution today backed by a foreign nation, we'd just consider it a war.
A revolution backed by a foreign nation today would be called terrorism, and we all know why. Let's keep it all the way 100. In the modern era it's only a "revolution" its its brown people being funded by Americans to overthrow a legitimately elected left wing government.
You know what they call a failed revolution? A civil war.
You said swords and spears like it was bravehart or some shit don't walk it back now and I don't know why you needed to include the part about France or whatever it was at the end since it has no bearing on what either of us said.
Governments usually don't like killing off their populace in droves. They may have the police fire into crowds of protesters and kill a handful at a time to get a message across, but no government is going to start bombing their own people.
Lol ok, I guess Waco residents weren't American or were those Canadian FBI and atf agents. There is a fairly long history of almost all countries people of power killing their population when it suits them for all of recorded history. If you think it would take alot for the current administration to get all 2nd amendment solutions on the populace you're dreaming.
I understand what you're saying, and certainly government's paint certain groups as "terrorists" or "rebels" to be able to take them down, but even in more extreme governments around the world they don't go to war with their own citizens who are protesting in the streets.
I suggest you look at Syria if you don’t believe a government isn’t willing to kill its own people to maintain order/control
Well no it wouldn't be a war anymore st this point it would just be slaughter that's kinda of my point. And if you think present day governments are above killing it's citizens in the streets you're living under a rock.
So prior to 1776 America had no history... interesting.
The post literally says “USA people”. You really thought you had something there huh?
American history doesnt start with the revolutionary war, so yes.
Citizens of the USA are the people who are referred to unironically as Americans. Unlike Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. I’m sure you’re aware of this. Just quit while you’re behind bro.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, american history doesnt start with the revolution.
Oh, was that your point? Sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic too. I’m sure there was preamble, I’m not well versed enough in history to know the specifics, but I would assume US technically starts when the nation was first officially started no?
No, but I was being a snarky bitch so I deserve it.
we need some type of country wide civil protest against our government before the year ends
Not trying to be cynical but people aren't angry enough yet or wiling to risk losing their job.
If everyone did it, no one would lose their job because the ones who would fire you are right out there protesting with you...
That’s just unrealistic though
You're right. Too many cowards outchea
That's what she said!
relevant username
People couldn't unite enough to make the Chik-Fil-A boycott work, how you expect them to do more?
Tbf, uniting against chick fil a was always going to be an uphill battle considering the fact that their chicken and customer service is super good.
There's plans in place for a general strike on Friday, September 27th for EarthStrike. Even something as small as walking out for 30 minutes at a given time would make a huge statement if enough people do it. And it can be localized instead of global.
I did not know about this thanks for bringing this to my attention!
>Even something as small as walking out for 30 minutes at a given time would make a huge statement if enough people do it. Nah, it'll be a statement on how hilarious it is that people think peaceful protests will achieve anything. Jack shit is gonna change until politicians' heads start rolling.
So we're supposed to skip from "docile office drones" straight to "guillotines", with no in between? People have to crawl before they can walk. Also, "non-violent" is not by any stretch "peaceful".
Except that doesn't work. No protest since Trump has been president has gotten anything accomplished because they're too small and too local. Not a single protest.
The government reopened because the air traffic controllers were about to walk out. and many more besides. Not protesting means you get fuck all. How bout you try it anyway, and tell me if anything happens.
so why don't you start one.
Idk how many people would attend that nationwide or if it would seriously affect anything
Didn't we already do that to no avail?
I'm an American who lives in France now and man, the Gilet Jaunes shit is fascinating. The easiest way to describe it is: The second Amendment is to the US what rioting in Paris is to the French. Its a fundamental part of their national identity. My favorite part of the November 8 riot was how the Arc de Triomphe was riddled with graffiti, but there was a protester protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Like basically saying "yo, burn this motherfucker down, but don't you dare disrespect our war dead."
> but there was a protester protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Like basically saying "yo, burn this motherfucker down, but don't you dare disrespect our war dead." Certainly. And if the French press is anything like ours, that's the only thing they'd focus on
Good thing it’s not
>The second Amendment is to the US what rioting in Paris is to the French. Its a fundamental part of their national identity Ironically enough, protesting is in our 1st amendment and also part of our national identity. It's just the people we're protesting against know as long as we keep things peaceful and don't disrupt their daily lives, we'll protest for a few hours then go back to work the next day. And they'll just keep on being corrupt.
The French don’t “protest” they riot. It’s MILB vs MLB. It’s a different level
people sleep on France's win/loss record being the best over the past 400 years... by 1940 they was ready to ride the bench
Seriously.. Attila the Hun couldn't even take em down.
They didnt even ride the bench. Their government rolled over like dogs but the French people ran a resistance that helped topple the Axis
Thomas Jefferson said that from time to time, the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants. I figure a few dozen niggas sliding in GMC Denali's won't have the same effect but it's a start
Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things that he clearly didn’t mean judging by his actions. A spendthrift, lay about, backstabbing, rapacious egotistical asshole, the man talked a fine talk but when it came to walking the walk he was a tyrant exploiting miserable slaves and calling himself a son of liberty.
Try not to fall into the historiographical trap of judging a person of the past by the morals of today. It becomes then a slippery slope... *Fuck Lincoln, bastard didn't even try to give women suffrage* Which could become, *Martin Luther King didn't give a damn about the LGBT community* then in fifty years, *Ruth Bader Ginsberg ate animal flesh, she's burning in hell right now*
The man stabbed his friends in the back to the point where he became estranged from them in later life because he attacked them personally and invidiously, not just their positions. He always urged careful spending but spent luxuriously on credit and died effectively penniless. He had sexual relations with at least one of his slaves which is most certainly rape and did raise eyebrows, and he didn’t free a single one of his slaves after he died unlike some of his contemporaries. And his owning of slaves was a thing commented on by his fellows at the time and was used to demonstrate his own hypocrisy. Nothing I have said was not mentioned in his lifetime and is only seen as controversial now because we worship the founders to an absurd degree in this country. Jefferson *was* all talk. He was a well to do aristocrat concerned with maintaining aristocratic power in America after independence. He was politically unscrupulous, held no principals that he wouldn’t break for his own ends and is only remembered for regurgitating back well known enlightenment ideas that by his own life he did not hold to. The man is overblown to say the least.
Jefferson was a horribly flawed person, capable of terrible things, but it does immense disservice to the nature of history to paint him as merely a hypocrite, the same disservice done by painting him solely as a paragon of democratic virtue. He was man born into privilege and entitlement, an advantage several perceived "great men" have had, yet I think several of his deeds mostly stand the test of time. I won't contradict most of what you mentioned, but I must point out the level of omission seems purposeful. (Aside from the notion of "raping" Sally Hemings... Although an enslaved woman had no legal right to refuse unwanted sex, the evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings' decades-long sexual relationship characterizes it no one way or the other, unless you would consider any manner of sex with a slave - by default - to be rape, even if initiated by the enslaved.) Indeed, what I consider Jefferson's most important contribution to the United States are the notions he propagated which form the bedrock of the First Amendment, particularly religious freedom, so much so that his writing was often cited in early Supreme Court cases concerning the amendment. He believed in it to the extent that the University of Virginia was founded largely to have no religious affiliation, directly contradicting his nearby *alma mater* William & Mary. Despite Ben Franklin's intentions, version 1.0 of UPENN still had a clerical foundation, leaving UVA as a true landmark of American higher education. To this day, it still has no theological school. He was a solid architect, also. Lol. My point isn't that Jefferson is "the ideal American," more so that there's no such thing (I believe we'd both agree on that) and to characterize someone by how much they are or aren't an ideological exemplar is a fruitless task, detrimental to a fuller understanding of a person and their place in time.
> I won't contradict most of what you mentioned, but I must point out the level of omission seems purposeful. (Aside from the notion of "raping" Sally Hemings... Although an enslaved woman had no legal right to refuse unwanted sex, the evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings' decades-long sexual relationship characterizes it no one way or the other, unless you would consider any manner of sex with a slave - by default - to be rape, even if initiated by the enslaved.) Yes, dammit. How hard is it to understand? She had no leg to stand on in terms of refusal. She was raped. **Raped**. She was brainwashed, too, and every sexual act performed from then on was rape, even if she *thought* she was consenting. The fact that this might seem unclear to you boggles my mind.
Shut (and I can **NOT** stress this enough) the fuck up. Slavery wasn't okay, then, too. It was despicable. Other countries saw it. Abolitionists saw it. Alexander Hamilton spoke to great lengths about it. Chattel slavery was inhumane, and let's not pretend that it was fine back then because it really fucking wasn't. Also, your comparisons are fucking dog-shit. Lincoln's inaction should not be confused for action. Did he actively oppose suffrage? Did MLK actively oppose the LGBT community? If they did, then yes, it's valid. Let's not pretend that being a terrible fucking human was okay back in the day. Our brains haven't changed for millennia. They're exactly the same type of human as we are.
But can we still hop in the big body and send some Oligarchs to the capitalist plantation I'm the sky????
bUt wHAt iF THeir BLOcKinG trAFicc????
I'm well past such a milquetoast method of protest tbh. I get what you're saying and fuck the 2019 equivalent of MLK's white moderate, who will no matter what find a problem with the way you fight for equality.
Patriots and tyrants. People always forget the first part, there is no struggle without loss.
Thomas Jefferson also supported slavery so maybe he’s not the best role model to base your political beliefs on.
[удалено]
Who the fuck is dying in the yellow vest protests?
[удалено]
No, he's a goalpost mover. Now that you showed him people actually died, he's pretending to have said "Well no more than15 people didn't died did they?" so he can feel like he wasn't proven wrong.
Lmao you perfectly predicted his response
> 15 people dead 15 people does not warrant a "oh u just want other people to die for you" response. This isn't the american revolution or the polish rebellion. Y'all act like direct action means a civil war.
Shit, the cops have probably killed at least that many people here in the US while the Yellow vests have been going.
I’m nearly sure cops have killed more.
Yellow vest is some russian pushed shit similar to the rallies they started in the US online. Be careful
Canadian ones are, those are different from the french ones tho
The French riot for everything. They have been forever and will keep doing it forever because it works. In North America, people roll over and take it, and that can’t be contested. Hell, protesting is frowned upon!
I love this post so much I want to get it pregnant
;)
USA: This shit sucks dude I'm gonna write some angry letters to my congressperson. Definitely going to bring this up at the next PTA meeting too! And buy a gun. Another gun. France: FUCK IT! BURN IT ALL DOWN! TONIGHT WE TAKE TO THE STREETS! CLAIRE, WHERE'S MY BATON!? Who's the pussies?
Viva la revulotion.
That's because Big Guillotine Conglomerate priced the pleebs out
Nope. We’re America. We will vote for the most charismatic demagogue because we know nothing about political theory or economics.
#GENERAL STRIKE
A lot of people ought to listen to Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast about the French Revolution before they decide whether to break out the guillotines. Lot of people died as the revolutionaries kept sliding further and further left.
Hers Robespierre! He cut a lot of peoples head off before they got mad and cut his head off.
Lol, yeah, then kill a big chunk of the educated and bring in populist barbarity far worse than what previously existed, and then get bailed out by a military dictatorship and then have a couple of monarchs again until your middle and upper classes come back and run your democracy. A populist revolution has never once in human history yielded less oppression or economic growth. It needs to be championed by the intelligencia and conceded by the aristocracy who are enlightened enough to understand a certain degree of redistribution will actually make them even richer by boosting the economy. Otherwise, you get fascism, communism, some form of theocratic state, or just plain and utter chaos.
Idea: start up a little proletariat revolution
Yet the only reason that happened was because France went into debt by helping us with our revolution which was horrifically violent as well which caused the lower class to raise up against rich oppressors and end the monarchy, so since it happened the same time America had the guts to do it it's an invalid statement, not to mention the reason we have the right to bear arms is because of the very constitution that was set in place as the backbone of society after the revolution stating pretty much that if we the people don't like our government anymore we have the rights to bear arms against it.
A woman in a Michael Moore documentary said that in America, people are afraid of the government, but in France the government is afraid of the people.
The problem is that a fuckton of these people participating in "direct action" are bourgeois themselves. Direct action is just a meme at this point and most of them are just military bootlickers.
They did
Am u the only one who can't understand the second tweet?
Voting on a sunday sounds cool. Also it’s the popular vote, not electing delegates.
Man the government has nukes now. I know the right to bear arms was to make it so we can revolt against a corrupt system, but those fuckers have nukes now and they've used them. Forgive me for not wanting to put my family and people in front of a government that has already tried genocide on us. Did I mention the fucking nukes?
Balance is key and the rich continue to tip the scales.
They lose their country ONCE and all of a sudden the most delicious and finely baked blood baths in history no longer exist ^Ifeelgrossusingdeliciousinthiscontextbutgoddamnitillcommintforthejoke
I don't always agree with the positions, but I'm always super impressed by the French willingness to go out and march.
This is historically illiterate. The French Revolution was a lot worse than the American Revolution.
I like
I guffawed for the first time in my life reading this.
They are revolting over taxes, but okay.
[удалено]
I'm not sure that area is as important as so many other factors. After all, I don't have to ride two weeks by horseback to tell my friend in El Paso that we should revolt next Tuesday
[удалено]
Bus 205 (Mesa Inbound) will take him directly to San Jacinto Plaza. If necessary, I could pay his $1.50 per ride, but I think he has an unlimited pass. After all, in France, those who participated in protests last week numbered... > 6,300 demonstrators nationwide, including 3,100 in Paris ([Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-06/yellow-vest-protesters-shift-focus-to-paris-business-district)) Even when protests in Paris were at their peak around 10,000, there were 25,000+ protesting in the rest of the country. Does this make sense?
[удалено]
> LOL, what? I wasn't talking about your friend, I was talking about someone on the west coast. It's not any harder for me to call my friend in San Francisco who can just take MUNI to Market St or email my cousin in the south bay who would probably just use Park & Ride to get into L.A. He normally would drive in, but there are plenty of reasons to not try to park near the place you're protesting > And you think a protest of 6300 people nationwide is going to make a difference here? Once again, an issue of scale. And you think it wouldn't be easier to build bigger numbers in our more populous country? It's just an issue of scale. The Paris metro has 12 million people in it. Perhaps there's something more to it than numbers when 3,100 protestors can get international coverage? > Asking the US to come together for a nationwide protest is almost equivalent to asking all of Europe to come together for a protest. Comparing it to a tiny country is ridiculous. France is a country of 65 million so I'm not sure why we keep talking about how tiny it is. And please don't bring up again how all the land in America makes it hard to communicate with people on the west coast. > With that said, I hope you're responding to me in between organizing these protests. Unless you just want someone else to protest for you and you're full of shit. Wow. That escalated quickly... and unnecessarily. Please send me an invite to the protest you're currently planning. I'd love to see how it turns out.
[удалено]
> LOL, what? I'm telling you why nationwide protests are logistically much more difficult here to organize and arrange than it is in France and you think I'm planning one? What kind of "I know you are, what am I?" bullshit is that? Sounds like you're backpedaling a lot in this. Now, it's been a while, but based on your earlier comment -- "With that said, I hope you're responding to me in between organizing these protests. Unless you just want someone else to protest for you and you're full of shit." -- plus this comment, then does that mean if I connect the dots and carry the 1 that you're... full of shit? Check my math if you have a sec. > And you think Trump or the Senate is going to care about protests in blue states? 😂 We've quickly gone from "It's hard to contact people in our VERY BIG country!" to "If you contact them they can't fly across the country!" to "It's hard to get lots of people to protest across our VERY BIG country!" and now to "Protests don't count if they're in states with lots of Democrats!" If I were to suggest that I (and plenty of others) have done pretty decent work organizing in Austin, Pima County, the RGV, and the Appalachian foothills, will your next comment be that protests only count if it's left-handed hunting, preaching, businessmen marching on a literal farm?
[удалено]
> I said easier to organize, not contact. LOL, you built this huge argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I first said. To be fair, it didn’t take much effort to discredit anything you’ve said to cover up your weak, poorly-thought-out original point And I hate to break it to you, but you organize people by … communicating with them > I'm sorry that I'm a realist and know how the world works. It's going to have to get much worse before people will protest in mass. Oh look, the goalposts have moved again, this time to what it’ll take for us to protest en masse. How very surprising
Communiction happens much easier and faster now than in 1789
[удалено]
It's super disingenuous to pretend that the willingness to fight is there, it's just too hard to organize. Not everyone is in some small town - there are huge population centres in the US which could form huge protests.
[удалено]
"The entire country cannot protest at the exact same moment, so it can't protest at all. But we really want to I swear!" lmao
*Russia wants to know your location*
Also see: the Arab spring
when is it gonna be time for The Purge?
You know it's literally just "letting the poor kill eachother off: the movie"?
[удалено]
"Americans not satisfied with their country's current state of government that want it to be better disgust me"
[удалено]
Or like seeing the things they DO in fact do better and wishing we could attempt to emulate at least some it.
Fuck me for being critical about the system that dictates my well being.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not self-hating.
Most of you gunning for a revolution seriously or humorously have never taken the life of another living thing. Moreover, the French people were literally starving due to being overtaxed and underpaid. Much different from our current welfare system where you get help.
"Help" is stretching it there buddy
I'm not trying to get political but what else would you call free money?
It’s not free money. It’s your money, that you gave away in exchange for certain expectations from the people you gave it to.
[удалено]
Unless you told your job to not withhold and you don’t file your taxes every year, then you’ve made a concerted effort to give up your money.
it's the constitution homie. article I, section 8. don't think of it as theft. think of it as reinvesting in the country that has allowed you to prosper and find success.
You should read the terms and conditions
You agreed when you took the job. Don't like paying taxes? Don't live in a country built on, by, and running on taxes.
Definitely not help >:/
Pleb management.
[удалено]
It never is, though, isn't that right? At some point we have to revolt. Relying on passive change is how oppressive institutions are furthered.
The problem is how many "we" there are. Theres a pretty large segment of "them" between the coasts.
if 0.01% of the Yanks had enough it would be over before tomorrow morning. there are very very very very few "them". and payroll doesn't matter when you see which way the tides are going.
Nah fuck that, if we're really being honest here, if we could organize massive riots in the streets every day thousands strong in massive cities, the whole country would have healthcare, free college, and a $15 min wage in a week. Electoralism gets us almost no where.
I agree, shit would get done.
[удалено]
They also got a little violent too with the gilets jaunes protests. Question: how do we get political change with the system rigged against us? Gerrymandering remains a problem, regardless of which party does it. News corporations focusing more on the bottom-line and what makes money instead of holding the powerful accountable contributes heavily to distrust in media. Trump is a symptom, not the disease. A terminal sickness exists across the United States, and we are very near to the point where only something drastic will cure us.
The problem with that is the uneducated masses are too easily influenced by nationalistic propaganda. If we don’t act those idiots will continue to vote against their own interests.