Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How would a revolt in the modern United States go down?

245

Posts

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    spool32 wrote:
    If a revolt was possible, a revolt wouldn't be necessary.

    Our single largest problem is that the majority doesn't even vote, nor do they follow politics beyond the most superficial headlines. If they did the Republican party would fade into obscurity within a single election cycle and the entire political landscape would be completely different.

    This is a fantasy, and while it gets the progressive dick very very hard, that's pretty much all it's useful for.
    If the majority voted, you guys would hate this country even more than you do now. The problem is that you don't know the majority, and the people in the majority whom you do know, you sort of disrespect and dislike them. Then you come to places like this and talk about how hey maaan, if everybody was really educated, they'd never disagree with me and all our ideological opposition would just vanish like smoke.

    Yeah. Sure, maaan. It's not that people disagree with you in good faith or have different priorities or a different perspective, it's that they're all too fucking stupid to know what's good for them.

    Not too stupid, too disengaged, mostly because our election system promotes apathy (because neither party perfectly represents more than about 20% of the population)

    You can "yeah, sure" all you want. The sources I can find shows that 2008, a record election in terms of turnout, had 64% of the voting public show up at the polls.

    Edit: and yes, even Obamacare has majority support, by wide margins, if you don't call it Obamacare. High voter turnout favors Democrats - do you disagree with that? I can prove you wrong if you'd like

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    spool32 wrote:
    I don't follow your logic, Carrot. What was the point of that?

    To debunk your "silent majority" gooseshit. Polling shows that when asked in an unbiased manner, the majority of the US population actually supports radical ideas such as healthcare reform and higher taxes on the wealthy.

    Hell, people who profess themselves as republicans end up supporting these things in those types of polls because if you seperate the idea from the political party people make unbiased decisions. Whereas if you say "Well, the Democrats suggested we do X" then many people disagree entirely because of political affiliation, not the merit of the idea.

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    As someone mentioned the apocalyptic event, I could see a large dramatic stock market crash causing alot of issues and rioting in major cities. But it would more turn into what happened in ven when they had their economic crash.

    steam_sig.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    I don't follow your logic, Carrot. What was the point of that?

    To debunk your "silent majority" gooseshit. Polling shows that when asked in an unbiased manner, the majority of the US population actually supports radical ideas such as healthcare reform and higher taxes on the wealthy.

    Hell, people who profess themselves as republicans end up supporting these things in those types of polls because if you seperate the idea from the political party people make unbiased decisions. Whereas if you say "Well, the Democrats suggested we do X" then many people disagree entirely because of political affiliation, not the merit of the idea.

    I love these polls. When they aren't comical in the misleading language, they're entirely misread by Democrats. The message here isn't that Republicans support Democratic ideas, but that tons of people don't trust your party even when they agree with the shit you claim to support.

  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited December 2011
    There's no excuse for violent revolt in a liberal democracy.

    We're no where near the situation it would take for a revolt, anyway. The government is hardly as draconian as it seems and the economy is slowly recovering, not as fast as we'd like, but it is.

    The best way to revolt is to use your most powerful weapon, you'll get a chance next November.

    ..... really? This seems like a pretty naive way of thinking. I'm pretty sure the rich and comfortable in Egypt and pretty much every other revolting country in the world thought there was no excuse for a revolt, yet the poor and oppressed did it to pretty good success.... well until it comes to rebuilding that is.

    I always find it ridiculous for people to say "non-violence is the only way to do things". What if it doesn't work? Which it hasn't in the past. Or what if the oppression becomes worse? What if the situation starts affecting you as well as the poor, would you finally get off your lazy arse and see how little non-violence sometimes actually does.

    As horrible and despicable it is violent revolt does make a mark and it can make quite a difference. Every major revolution so far has been significantly violent, and acting like human beings as we are today are above it is childish.

    Johannen on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

    Nice ad hominem attack. Now answer the fucking question.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    SniperGuy wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    I don't follow your logic, Carrot. What was the point of that?

    To debunk your "silent majority" gooseshit. Polling shows that when asked in an unbiased manner, the majority of the US population actually supports radical ideas such as healthcare reform and higher taxes on the wealthy.

    Hell, people who profess themselves as republicans end up supporting these things in those types of polls because if you seperate the idea from the political party people make unbiased decisions. Whereas if you say "Well, the Democrats suggested we do X" then many people disagree entirely because of political affiliation, not the merit of the idea.

    I love these polls. When they aren't comical in the misleading language, they're entirely misread by Democrats. The message here isn't that Republicans support Democratic ideas, but that tons of people don't trust your party even when they agree with the shit you claim to support.

    No, they demonstrate that sadly, fearmongering works.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    If we didn't have a revolution after Kent State, if we didn't have a revolution even while actual revolutionaries were firebombing judge's houses and killing cops, after all the turmoil and strife of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam protests, we aren't going to have a revolution now. Hell, half the people who would support a leftist popular revolt today don't even believe it should be legal to have the tools for a revolt available to them. They support being oppressed and restricted from owning the second most important tool needed to achieve their violent revolutionary goals.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Someone from the party of Frank Luntz and Fox News whining about misleading language is pretty ridiculous.

    Captain Carrot on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

    Nice ad hominem attack. Now answer the fucking question.

    Its not a question - it's a dishonest bit of distilled snark blown through a dogwhistle, like a fine mist of bullshit-laced spittle sprayed at me. You got the only response you deserved for posting it.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Someone from the party of Frank Luntz and Fox News whining about misleading language is pretty ridiculous.

    The misleading questions and push polling are by no means located only on the left. It's pretty terrible on all fronts.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

    Nice ad hominem attack. Now answer the fucking question.

    Its not a question - it's a dishonest bit of distilled snark blown through a dogwhistle, like a fine mist of bullshit-laced spittle sprayed at me. You got the only response you deserved for posting it.

    I'm sorry - how the fuck is it dishonest to point out that the GOP has been investing in voter suppression as a key part of their electoral strategy? Or to point out that since the GOP wants less, not more, people voting, it's a sign that they are out of step with the mainstream?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    Someone from the party of Frank Luntz and Fox News whining about misleading language is pretty ridiculous.

    The misleading questions and push polling are by no means located only on the left. It's pretty terrible on all fronts.

    "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican!"

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

    Nice ad hominem attack. Now answer the fucking question.

    Its not a question - it's a dishonest bit of distilled snark blown through a dogwhistle, like a fine mist of bullshit-laced spittle sprayed at me. You got the only response you deserved for posting it.

    I'm sorry - how the fuck is it dishonest to point out that the GOP has been investing in voter suppression as a key part of their electoral strategy? Or to point out that since the GOP wants less, not more, people voting, it's a sign that they are out of step with the mainstream?

    You're not sorry, you delectable holiday centerpiece. It's dishonest because it's dishonest. A = a. It deserves no response other than the one it got, but I am now snickering at how you're pulling the same juvenile shit my 12yr old does when I tell him to stop saying mean things to his sister. "Well I just said that she's a cheating thief, I wasn't trying to be mean."

    Basically I'm saying you should go to your room until you stop honking and learn how to speak like a grownup.

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    Revolt won't happen because most people are relatively well off and relatively happy, if a bit annoyed at the current state of affairs whenever the media reminds them to be. You guys who think everything's about to explode, basically, are the 1% of angry revolution-minded agitators. Pretty much nobody agrees with you.

    It's not apathy. It's not ignorance. It's not inability. It's that the overwhelming majority of people aren't upset enough to even consider it.

    There are a solid half-dozen snarky comments I could add in here, but I think I'll just close with: all those "people" you referred to don't add up to many people, at all.

    Although I generally agree that a "revolt" won't happen, I don't know that its realistic to use "the 1% of angry revolution-minded agitators."

    Unemployment is near 10% and effective unemployment (including people who want work but have stopped looking and people who can't get enough hours) is much, much higher. That's just talking about unemployment. If you want to include people who want to see some kind of dramatic shift in government for any number of other reasons, you're looking at a considerable (and incredibly diverse) field.

    I do think what exactly a "revolt" is merits some consideration. A successful military coup? Nonsense. A large and arguably successful campaign or coordinated civil disobedience? That's not exactly a "revolt" or "revolution," but a dedicated minority can exert very significant amounts of pressure at certain points in our society. That's not a revolution, but its a far more realistic and plausible outcome, and arguably it has already occurred to a limited extent in response to both Tea Party and OWS protests.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?
    You call it voter suppression because it affects people who vote for your party. In reality, these laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, though they sometimes have unintended secondary consequences.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    I'm pretty sure we had our revolt already, it was the War Between States (aka The Civil War). This isn't to say you can only have one, but we've been there, and done that.

    No matter how bad things may seem, we're not going to revolt. Our neighbor south of the border would be closer than us, and things are complete shit down there, but even they aren't having a revolt, because Mexico has a strong middle class, and everyone has water and electricity and a free education, much like here.

    So if Mexico isn't revolting anytime soon (and it's a shit hole), we're sure as shit not even close or near that precipice in any way I can conceive, now matter how much grousing I see about Congress, or voter suppression, or unemployment.

    Edit: Man, this thread went to complete shit in almost record time.

    3lwap0 on
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?
    You call it voter suppression because it affects people who vote for your party. In reality, these laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, though they sometimes have unintended secondary consequences.

    Right, the non-existent, unproven voter fraud. That only effects people who vote for the party not proposing the legislation.

    Oh yeah, this is a real tough nut to crack. Someone call Sherlock Holmes and all those other geniuses from cop procedurals, this mysteries too much for our normal brains!

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    Those consequences are pretty intentional and secondary in name only.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?

    I'm not bothering to even go that far down the road toward a response to Hedgie. I recognize that both of us know what issue he was referring to with his dogwhistle comment, but unless you want to back up a step and somehow tie it into this comedy of being on the tipping point of a violent revolution, it's probably not worth your time or mine to pursue.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So you can't can't give any reason why my statement is dishonest besides "because I said so"? And I'm the childish one? Because I can - and have - discussed in detail things like Republican caging efforts, the national push by the GOP for voter ID laws, the push to prevent college students from voting on campus -all of which are attempts to suppress voters. It's not dishonest or wrong to talk about the truth, even if some might find it unpalatable.

    In short , will you stop telling lies about us if I stop telling the truth about you?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    spool32 wrote:
    You claim that the "silent majority" is overwhelmingly Republican. Actual polls suggest otherwise.

    Actual polls are all over the map, depending on the issue. Sometimes pretty solidly Democrat, sometimes pretty solidly Republican, and as an aggregate fall pretty well within the "moderate" definition, tipping a bit left or right depending. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, if only people would wake up and smell the coffee, the Republican party would disappear, and even less than nothing to suggest we're on the tipping point of a popular fucking revolution, or that any measurable portion of the population would support one if it somehow happened.

    If that was the case, then why has the GOP invested so much in voter suppression?

    Sometimes you are the silliest fucking goose that ever honked, Hedgie. I could literally pluck out your feathers and eat you for Christmas dinner.

    Nice ad hominem attack. Now answer the fucking question.

    Its not a question - it's a dishonest bit of distilled snark blown through a dogwhistle, like a fine mist of bullshit-laced spittle sprayed at me. You got the only response you deserved for posting it.

    are you Sean Penn?

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • Element BrianElement Brian Registered User regular
    The country is too homogeneous to be split up in any meaningful way. Yes the South is different from the North or east or west. But everyone has ties to someone else in the country. NGO's (like business, schools and churches) inside the United States tie the whole country together in such a strong way that no split would happen. Basically the US has become more and more federal in the postbellum time era, so states really have come to matter less and less, unless you're from Texas, but even with Texas, they have no difference other than thinking they're different. Yeah you can look at a political ideology map and say oh but look were so divided. But nationally were the same people, and our political differences aren't nearly as polar as in other countries.

    I like the idea of the carbonation in your pop being too much for your mormon body

    too worldly nooooo
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    You call it voter suppression because it affects people who vote for your party. In reality, these laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, though they sometimes have unintended secondary consequences.

    And yet, the backers of the bill can never actually produce evidence of all this massive voter fraud. Funny how that works.

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?
    You call it voter suppression because it affects people who vote for your party. In reality, these laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, though they sometimes have unintended secondary consequences.

    except that 'meant to' implies knowledge of the intent of those forming the bills, which no one here is actually privy to.

    Mostly republicans are in favor of ID bills, which will disproportionally affect the voting rights of democratic voters.

    These bills would also limit some forms of voter fraud.
    These forms of voter fraud seem, by and large, not to exist to any substantive degree.

    When the 'unintended' consequence is more or less assured, and the intended purpose deals with something that isn't a legitimate concern, it is kind of hard to take the statements of those who support these bills at face value.

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    But everyone has ties to someone else in the country
    Absolutely. Just with my immediate family, I have a brother in Texas and a sister in Kansas, plus numerous other relatives who live all over the place, and friends here who are similarly spread out.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Are you claiming that the dozens of voter ID bills aren't an attempt to suppress voting in demographics that are less likely to have IDs fulfilling the new criteria?
    You call it voter suppression because it affects people who vote for your party. In reality, these laws are meant to prevent voter fraud, though they sometimes have unintended secondary consequences.

    Things like students needing to vote in their home district, right, and if they're from out of state, they can't vote on policies that would affect them?

    Things like these aren't "unintended secondary consequences" and "to prevent voter fraud." They are voter suppression pretty much plain and simple. I wonder what the alignment of educated population and students are with respects to political party if we exclude wealth status?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Lets suppose voter fraud is a thing that really happens.

    What are we looking at, a 5% shift in votes to another party? Hardly worth the time to even pen the paper on such a bill.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    3lwap0 wrote:
    No matter how bad things may seem, we're not going to revolt. Our neighbor south of the border would be closer than us, and things are complete shit down there, but even they aren't having a revolt, because Mexico has a strong middle class, and everyone has water and electricity and a free education, much like here.

    So if Mexico isn't revolting anytime soon (and it's a shit hole), we're sure as shit not even close or near that precipice in any way I can conceive, now matter how much grousing I see about Congress, or voter suppression, or unemployment.
    Hmm. I think you could make a strong argument that Mexico is currently experiencing an armed revolt by the drug cartels who don't like the government's policies when it comes to their means of income.

    The Southern establishment caused an armed revolt that led to the American Civil War for very similar reasons.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Edit: let's shift this back in the direction of the OT.

    In my entirely anecdotal experience the "silent majority" that doesn't vote is democratic, but not liberal. They are mostly city folk, because population clusters in the population centers. They think they alone pay far more "too much taxes" than anyone else. They tend to be of average intelligence, but "average" is lower than you think it is. They have done illegal drugs at least once, and while christian are not "good christians™". They want gays in the military, but in a special, separate unit (like the "darkies") and sent on the riskiest missions to save our precious heterosexual master ra-er, yeah, separate units. They are bigoted but hate bigotry and spend a lot of mental effort and gymnastics convincing themselves that their bigotry doesn't exist or doesn't count. They listen to conservative media because it's ALL conservative media.

    And most of all, when approached with a question sans previous propaganda and prejudice most of them swing left, but the media spin and their own laziness (laziness is WHY they are the "silent" majority in the first place) at investigation swings them right.

    Also, they consume a LOT.

    Such a group is only going to revolt after MASSIVE prodding. And let's be real here, we live in an age of unprecedented ability to suppress populations. OWS already demonstrated this when the police deployed some of the more interesting suppression-tech. Revolution is that much harder, and suffering is that much lighter. We have poor and tired and wretched who go to bed hungry but they don't go hungry all day. We have beatings and the occasional murder by an autocratic police force but they are monthly or yearly events, not daily events in every city. Our largest divide is between two authoritarian factions that are convinced the other faction seeks their demise, and are mostly propped up by a newsmedia as modern-day bread and circuses. The "War on (christmas, the middle class, American Values, Freedom, and/or rational thought)" are basically gladiatorial games created to distract us, mostly because we DEMAND distraction.

    A Revolt in the modern US? Too much would have to change in too many possible directions to say. But if we just want to make up arbitrary assumptions and write speculative fiction? I'll go with this:

    The neo-royalty of the corporate elite continue to grow in power until they repeal the anti-trust laws. They also privatize or destroy the military, all lines of communication inside the nation, and have the government use eminent domain to create a number of new toll roads that are privately-owned but publicly funded. Also taxes are restructured and indentured servitude contracts are legalized so that non-nobility (which will be called "parasites" or "duckies" are taxed into bankruptcy then "voluntarily" enslaved. A healthy prison industry with legal or unofficially-sanctioned abuse plus the already-existent massive prison labor exploitation system ensures that people "choose" slavery or get enslaved to a debtor's prison anyway. Media control means that stories get edited and spun and the filthy debtors and "parasites" are simply receiving what they deserve. The baby-boomer generation dies off quickly because they are old and no longer exploitable (the vote now being controlled by Diebold instead of silly PR campaigns) and the internet is actually mostly censored, because while hackers can re-route and overcome, it usually takes other hackers to contact them.

    The revolution? It starts with the PMC's. With the military and police privatized and militarized and the populace essentially enslaved the kleptocrats have nothing left to feed off of except each other. Contract disputes between major players leave the courtrooms and enter the battlefields, and with no other job opportunities left the few citizens still free and not rich join the Corporate armies. The populace remains controlled but steadily more miserable until a city Detroit, bastion of decay that it is, sprouts the weed of revolution. A handful of hyper-charismatic leaders who can't just be bought manage to organize the city as it begins ruling itself and raiding neighboring areas. A lot of shooting and guerilla warfare later some neofeudalist throws a tantrum and drops a tactical nuclear weapon on the city, this silences opposition for a while, until news of the atrocity manages to squeak out. Terrorism, already active in the US, rises exponentially while foreign nations use it as an excuse to alternately fund revolutionary groups in the US and nationalize US corporate holdings (because they're being economically attacked by the US corporations) that they can grab. They don't RETURN the money to the US of course, but at that point the war has become a free-for-all mess of anarchy and slaughter. millions die, the nation burns, and China keeps the same thing from happening to them by sending its surplus male population into the mideast for lots and lots of open war.

    Boring7 on
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    Lets suppose voter fraud is a thing that really happens.

    What are we looking at, a 5% shift in votes to another party? Hardly worth the time to even pen the paper on such a bill.

    Closer to .1%, if that.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    A fuck load of science has been done, and there are some clear indicators of when a revolt will occur with a low or high degree of probability.

    Basically there are empirical thresholds that once crossed, predict a high degree of stability within a country.

    1) A society that is 90% or more literate.
    2) With at least 65 or more Radios/TV's and 120 more newspapers per 1,000 population
    3) With two percent or more having telephones
    4) With 2,525 or more calories per person per day
    5) With not more than 1,900 persons per physician
    6) With a GNP of 300 dollars or more per person per year (This isn't adjusted for inflation - so double or triple it)
    7) With 45% more of the population living within urban centers.

    Or to quote James Chowning Davies, the man who knows his shit about political revolts:
    "Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary. The evidence from Dorr's Rebellion, the Russian Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution supports this notion; tentatively, so do data on other civil disturbances. Various statistics—as on rural uprisings, industrial strikes, unemployment, and cost of living—may serve as crude indexes of popular mood. More useful, though less easy to obtain, are direct questions in cross-sectional interviews. The goal of predicting revolution is conceived but not yet born or matured."[/quote

    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    Lets suppose voter fraud is a thing that really happens.

    What are we looking at, a 5% shift in votes to another party? Hardly worth the time to even pen the paper on such a bill.

    Closer to .1%, if that.

    Even with my obviously ludicrous numbers, it still isn't worth it.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Boring7, yes I do disagree with that. Your link hardly makes the case, especially considering the source, the inflammatory language, and the date. That post was basically a GOTV effort for Obama. And again, unless you guys (not Hedgie, because he's supposed to be in his room thinking about how to be more mature, less feathery, and not quite so succulent with a good brown gravy) are going to make at least half an effort to first prove "suppression", via voter ID or otherwise, and second tie it into the milksnort-worthy idea of an imminent people's revolt, I'm not going to dive into it.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    You mean like NH House Speaker William O'Brien explicitly saying that he doesn't want college students to vote because they're stupid and vote for Democrats?

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Hedgie, spool, that last exchange was entirely inappropriate. If I see something like it again, everyone involved is eating an infraction.

    Make posts that move the thread forward or don't post.

Sign In or Register to comment.