The USA secession from Great Britain resulted in genocides, land theft, and the continuation of racialized chattel slavery. Intentionally. Like, oooh, Robespierre, big fucking deal.
Aurora Police Defend ‘Stand Down’ Orders; Twice Walked Away From Arresting Man Who Terrorized Apartment Residents
- Thread starter Houseman
- Start date
Right, that all makes sense. But lacking resemblance to the US police force, it would still be functionally fulfilling the societal function of a police force. That seems to be distinct from what Eacaraxe & Kae were advocating, if I'm understanding right.
So we should be removing the heads of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington out of Mount Rushnoore since they are guilty of those things huh?
Anyway I stand corrected, fuck Revolutions. They only bring misery in the end. They cause more problems then they fix.
I'm just saying, my dude, that it's generally not the leftists who are insisting that the only possible alternative to a surveillance state is violent anarchy. Nor are they ones arguing in favor of said surveillance state.
Or maybe ask the local indigenous people, since it was their sacred mountain we vandalized.
Carving faces into Mt. Rushmore was vandalism apart from the fact that TJ and George aren't worthy of reverence.
The French and Soviet revolutions were worth trying whether or not they would ultimately deliver on all their promises and opportunities. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a tragedy; the idea that the people of those countries are better served by oligarchic capitalism is farcical. The Cuban revolution produced what is in some ways quite an admirable society, and definitely one that is better than what existed before or what would have occurred without a revolution. "Fuck Revolutions" is fundamentally a power-serving position-- fairly obviously-- and the reasoning you've described to arrive at that conclusion gives existing ruling classes a veto on political change simply by their own violent opposition to it.
Russia and France had revolutions that were about destroying the local governments and coming up with someone else. The US had a war to get the British government to go away and stop bothering them, but leaving the local social structure more or less intact (AFAIK).
Of course, there was lots of genocide afterwards, but that wasn't due to the revolution, and British colonies did that without revolutions.
Its because I am bit pessimistic about any positive societal change, and history seems to have failed me in that regard depending on what history we are talking about.
And I fear that any attempt bring about Positive Change my be spoiled.
All this spilling of blood to bring about positive change only to be spoiled by someone who has dreams of power.
Basically, I'm more or less the Donkey from Orwell's Animal Farm.
Perhaps in the short term and directly, but several nations in europe that did away with monarchy and came out as well functioning democracies only did so as easily because of the french revolution. The aristocrats in scandinavia would not have surrendered as much power as easily if not for seeing how bad it could become, and the monarch certainly wouldn't have agreed to create a constitution.
Perhaps the french revolution was not good for the french people right then and there, but a couple hundred years down the line I'd say it is one of the central reasons europe is a series of democratic states, not monarchies.
USA
People will needlessly suffer and die, and the wealthy who will have their own private
Any "founding father" not named Alexander Hamilton and John Adams at any rate.
And I see I'm being talked about behind my back in this thread, yet again. Anyone have any questions about comments and statements I've made in the past they'd like to make now that I'm here?
I for one have never talked about you behind your back FYI, even if you do not like me telling you that your plan to eliminate police is insane and delusional.
Slight exaggeration maybe? If you look at historic revolutions like the French one it actually turned against the people it claimed to represent. That is because 'poor' people are no better than 'rich' people. It's just a matter of perspective. Human nature is human nature and that is often ugly. That is why we have rules, laws, institutions etc in place. To safeguard against mob rule.
No, not at all. The wealthy are currently forcing the poor into starvation, homelessness and ever more desperate situations in the US as we speak. That isn't an exaggeration. Desperate people will resort to desperate actions. This is the current state of wealth inequality in the US and getting worse:
America's billionaires have become even richer since Donald Trump became president, and it says a lot about the country's record-high wealth gap
Household wealth has remained relatively flat over the past 30 years. In 2018, the gap between the rich and the poor widened to an all-time high.
www.businessinsider.com
Of course when you force people into starvation and despair you expect them to fight back and not just go crawl off and die quietly. The wealth have all the power and money so they will just continue to buy ( since they already do employ armed security) armed forces to suppress the people and eliminate their ability to be bothered by them at all. Out of sight out of mind. They can't be bothered by them on the other side of the wall right?
Trump Wants to Abolish Birthright Citizenship. Can He Do That? (Published 2019)
The president reasserted his wish to do away with automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States. Here is what he, legal experts and the Constitution have to say on the subject.
When the wealthy control the government, they get to decide what the laws are.
Not my problem if you don't listen; don't pay attention to the whole-ass century and a half of prima facie evidence cops' jobs are not what you think they are; keep vomiting the same handful of unsolicited, uncritical, cable news-fed talking points like a chat bot in every single thread; rely exclusively on slippery slope, straw man, and red herring arguments to make half-baked arguments you can't even defend, and either have to pigeon-chess or change the subject to avoid being cornered.I for one have never talked about you behind your back FYI, even if you do not like me telling you that your plan to eliminate police is insane and delusional.
But, please, do go on buying into this half-century old racist, dog whistle, lie all you have to do is reform the police just a little bit and suddenly, mystically, magically everything will be all better in perpetuity. Because doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results is totally a rational and justified way of determining public policy, and not just you being led by the nose by captured politicians who have anything but your best interests as a citizen at heart. Stop being a fake-ass bleeding heart simp for the status quo and pretending mass-scale deployment of chemical weapons and summary executions of American citizens is necessary or proper because things "might" be worse (when the reality is they actually aren't, they're better).
That's not me liking or disliking one word you have to say about a damn single topic, that's you acting like the vague "enlightened" centrist answer to other posters on here who are decidedly fact-averse conservatives.
Now you want to have that conversation I proffered you about key Mexican economic performance indicators over the past 40 years, to see if Mexico really is better or worse off with cartel control?
You are delusional because no one will ever allow what you suggest to happen. You will be opposed by everyone from all sides and lose miserably. There is no way to realistically get from point A to point B in your plan here and it will never exist outside of a tabletop game scenario. I want realistic results now and not some wild fantasy that isn't going to help us or help anyone now or in the future. Sure you can write a scifi novel with that scenario but there is no way you would accomplish anything positive with this idea in our lifetime. You want to insult me for being realistic here and wanting to actually save people NOW and make their lives better now and have actual realistic plans to do so that have a measurable direct cause and effect. You just promote a fantasy. No one is going to revolt and eliminate the police and go live under militia/gang /cartel rule, nor do people want to. THAT IS INSANE. No one is going to take any of that seriously, so why waste your time focusing on something that will never happen instead of work to find actual viable workable solutions you can get actual support on? You are wasting your time even thinking of such crazy things in the first place.
"Buy in" no, I think Bernie's plan is better. Actually " take over" the system to change it. He tried when he was too old to get it done, he got further than I ever expected, we can finish his work after he is gone. Bernie actually wants to save as many lives as he can here, you have no intention of doing so. Your plan just gets more people killed because it helps the GOP by giving them freebie voter suppression for them without them even trying. By not voting, you are HELPING them. That is what they want you to do so you are actually helping them kill off more people we should be helping faster.
Living under cartel rule sucks btw, I have no idea why you think this is some great solution. Mexico's poverty rate is INSANE. There is a reason why most people are actually opposed to that. It is terrible. Zetas changed any delusion of balance you think may have even existed under cartel rule and US had to interfere to stop the Zetas, or did you just ignore that part? If US had not interfered, Zetas were just going to keep going after taking 11 states. There is nothing about Mexico's Cartels or government anyone should attempt to mimic here, it is ALL terrible. Just layers and layers of terrible.
Last edited:
I don't understand what you're saying. Could you create an example for me of what you would consider a correct form of police?
If the situation was one in which police would have to commit to force and they did, can you offer me anything to show that had the man in this situation died that you would not call it misuse of force?
I've started thinking you need an Atlantic Ocean between you and those you're revolting against to make things work. Not having the people you revolted against living next to you means you can't kill them.
What on earth are you talking about?
That is exactly my point that you replied on in my previous post. You might be a good, sane person who means well and just want honest living standards for everyone. I'm for that as well. But beware who your (ideological) allies are. People who want to incite revolution or violence, well, it always ended in mass tragedy. And the poor were still no better off. Like Mexico for example. Where human life is worth nothing for the insanely violent drug cartels.
You have white nationalists who want violent revolution, you have anarchists who want violent revolution, you have oppressed who want violent revolution.. We have always had these things, that doesn't affect my outlook or my plans/ policies in terms of viable solutions. I am against violent revolution and see that only those who we do not want to have power will just gain more power so it is pretty well stupid to even entertain the idea. Why bother even wasting your time on such a fantasy when we need to focus on what we can do now to actually help people as quickly as possible. Even if we cannot manage to get the end goal passed now, we can get the steps to get there done in the meantime and that should be our focus.