1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What would it take for you to get involved in a revolution?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Techno Kid, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. Techno Kid

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southeastern Ontario, Canada, Earth
    In my opinion I think there is enough reason now. With the trampling on our liberty (NSA surveillance and other constitutional assaults) and the arguable fact that the 1% and giant corporations control our governments. For me it would take about 30% or more of my province/country to be revolting for me to join them (things like occupy have been very small percents of the population).

    Having said that when would enough be enough for you?
     
  2. Simple Thoughts

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Welcome to my frame of mind, though I'm guessing you've already been there awhile xD

    For me it'd take the people. If I stand up by myself than I'd just be killed, and nothing would be accomplished. If anything like a revolution were going to be any kind of success it would need numbers. Really really really really good numbers because well military trumps regular people, except in the case of mass numbers, then again I'm sure the cowards in our government would nuke their own people along with themselves before admitting defeat so that's a thing.
     
  3. frkn frk

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Questioning
    I would have to see the American ppl would continue it and not come up with lame excuses why they won't.
     
  4. The_Poets

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2013
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    US/ Hogwarts/ vacations spent in the tardis
    Nothing I do it in a heart beat
     
  5. Simple Thoughts

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Well that makes 3 for sure. Only about 99,999,997 people to go xD
     
  6. Tectonic

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philadelphia/South Jersey, USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    It would take the trampling of the Bill of Rights. Well, that's exactly what happened when the NSA and the Obama Admin. walked all over the 4th Amendment like a door mat with the help of the Bush Admin and Congress.

    I guess it would take more than some iffy phone data collection, something like unreasonable military searches of people's homes, before people would revolt. But I'm down. Kinda thought the US government would take longer than 230 years before it decided to become like the 18th century tyrannical Great Britain.
     
  7. kageshiro

    kageshiro Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    in your soul
    it would take my boyfriend getting involved in it, or my cat. Something I really care about, or else meh
     
  8. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    A great deal, and with the right circumstances. Revolutions tend to be violent and horrible, and administrations that follow afterwards can be just as bad or even worse. And due to the general tendency for revolutionary governments to turn into the old ones or collapse and be replaced by a counter-revolution, the old regime tends to gain more legitimacy in people's eyes and its horrors ignored out of a desire for stability, so it gets restored with even more brutality and a new vigour that pumps life into archaic orders.

    In other words, next to nothing. Change must be conducted at all levels, with support of teachers, doctors, nurses, bureaucrats, tradespeople, and industrial labourers all working together with clear and achievable goals, which is more easy under democratic change than it is with a complete overthrow of a system likely to be replaced with a thinly-disguised mirror.
     
    #8 Aussie792, Feb 9, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  9. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    If Sarah Palin was president.
     
  10. Necromancer

    Necromancer Guest

    I agree with Aussie, though I'd phrase it differently. Revolution is most certainly necessary at this point, but in no way, shape, or form should it be a violent one. Situations like the US where a violent revolution end with a stable government (and there was a ton of instability in the early US, including a couple revolts, at least one of which had to be put down with military force) are exceedingly rare. Usually the successor government is just as bad or worse as what it replaced. Change needs to come by the active political pressure of the masses, not by the gun.
     
  11. Dryad

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Europe
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The active political pressure of the masses is something allowed inside the current system. It does make valuable changes but, if we're talking about a revolution, the use of guns is inevitable. Even if the whole people rises and refuses to conform with the current laws, the government will reply with guns and a war will start.
    Personally, to take part in a revolution, I have to believe in the unity of the people and of course in the purpose of it. And make sure that we use the less violence possible.
    Surely I agree that it's time for it. :thumbsup:
     
  12. Necromancer

    Necromancer Guest

    The American system is not the best form of representative democracy to be sure, but I think you severely underestimate it's tendency to respond to mass pressure. A big difference between us and, say, the Arab Spring is a very big compunction against shooting at dissidents. Up the top of my head, I can think of one incident not connected to the so called War on Terror, and that was in the 60s. The Administration is fifteen different kinds of fucked up, but it does not have any particular desire to go to that level. They aren't that bloodthirsty.

    Now, I'm sure it is very different in Greece, considering the tradition of dynastism and totalitarianism the nation has, but in the US I can't see the cops going so far. They will do lots of fucked up shit, but not that.
     
  13. leer

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    grt Manchester
    someone buys me a tank & am in
     
  14. Simple Thoughts

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Excellent point. I have to give you credit for thinking that part out a bit. I've had my mind on that for awhile. Especially given the way Egypt's revolution turned out. I think the key here relies on two different things.

    1.) That a plan is laid out before the revolution for a new system. If the people know what they're going to build once the old system is removed than the new system is in a way pre-established. You could even take it as far as organizing the revolution movement under the new system which would have people become familiar with it rather quickly. Though personally I like America's democratic system in principle it's really only lacking an improved filtering system for corruption.

    2.) Keeping out third party influence. As we've seen in Syria when revolution occurs third parties like to jump into the fight. When they do it tends to muddy the waters, and makes things get a little on the sketchy side. So I'd prefer keeping out the external influences if possible myself :slight_smile:
     
  15. justjade

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Canton, Ohio, US
    Oh, god, may that fate never befall us. :lol:

    Honestly, it would have to be a cause I really believed in. The opposition would have to be absolutely and undeniably corrupt. I couldn't fight for something I didn't think was right beyond a shadow of a doubt.
     
  16. gordilocks

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    glasgow
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    I'd happily get involved in a revolution of there was one happening.
     
  17. 7eye

    7eye Guest

    Ditto, and if people like the CEO (and employees) of A&F and Justin Bieber were our government and president/prime minister.
    Also, if American copyright laws come under worldwide influence.
     
  18. Foster

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    This. Or if society was like it is in The Hunger Games :rolle:
     
  19. AwesomGaytheist

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    6,909
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Or Ted Cruz. I think 2016 will be very interesting, as Ted Cruz will lose the Republican primary nomination and mount his own third-party candidacy. Can you imagine a three-way debate between Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz?
     
  20. Simple Thoughts

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    If those are the options hopefully Clinton would win, because Rubio and Ted Cruz just suck -.-'

    Not that Hilary is really any better. She's just pro-gay and pro-women. So it's like a step up, but not really much better.