Has anyone got their $600 check from the Gov

i think it was all a myth

>>35
Thing is, the masses are deluded enough to serve the "aristocrats" today due to successful indoctrination. Commies were set as an example because they, at least promised to permanently change things rather than just vent out the frustration of the poor - it didn't work out as nicely as planned though. The mob fails.

Who the fuck cares what the cause is. Attempting to pin point the cause is basically trying to find how to beat it. Maybe it's a mechanism to help prevent overpopulation? Maybe it's just a side-effect of an individual's social environment? It doesn't matter unless you're attempt to "cure" it, which might as well be called brainwashing, because that's basically what it is. You're taking a person, usually a teenager who is already at a point in life where they are easily influenced, and constantly telling that being gay is wrong and that they must reform or they'll go to hell. I personally do not give a shit about religion. I am agnostic. Atheism and religion are in the same vein: they both proclaim that they are correct and others are wrong, so I say fuck them both because an Atheist is just as preachy as any minister as far as I'm concerned. But getting back to the issue, homosexuality cannot be seen as a social disease. If it is a disease, than apparently it's one that has the ability to infect the very people that rail against it. Therefore, arguments against it are completely unfounded. On the issue of gay marriage, I believe it is a something more complicated than the simple term of "marriage" and I really don't give a fuck about it.

What the fuck, this was a simple thread about 600$ goddamn dollars that we are expecting.

how the fuck does

"Has anyone got their $600 check from the Gov?"

turn into

"I fail at life because of SOCIAL LIBERALS who are actually MARXIST but they are also somehow LIBERAL. Everyone is SOCIALIST and since socialism is EVIL my uneducated opinion is true. I also think workers do labor for minimum wage because they love it. Means of produ-what? I don't understand such complex things, please talk to me in terms of DERP DERP DERP DERP."



fuck

>>43
gb2 gaia, faggot
Spoiler: >>22 was a troll

>>44
You're butthurt because >>22 exposed your retardation. Enjoy.

>>39
>>40

Here you go again with these strange terms. You say "submitting their asshole" as if there is going to be a choice in the matter. This is something that is not really within anyone's control. If you can freely admit that we are living in "a reign of terror" - then you should have no problem with going the extra 5 yards into the all too predicatble destruction of this reign. This is happened over and over through out history and the results have always been a reign that is comparitively less "terrible" than the last. How can you even debate this without being in complete denial?

>>45
k then

>>46
You are not being very specific. You say I am in denial but neglect to mention what it is I am in denial about. Also how can you know whether one reign of terror would have been better than another if only one can exist in any given period in history? It would require complex empirical analysis in order to gain a realistic answer and you would have to allow for the fact that you cannot know much with any certainty. Not only have you not attempted to do this but you seem absolutely certain in your conclusion.

BAAAWWWWWWWW DEY DISPROVIN MAH RETARDED DELUJONZ BAAAAWWWWWWWW

>>49
So that's your response to my request that you perform empirical analysis.

>>1
>>2
I goten mine at early may, but that was becuase i did my taxes electronicly.

>>50
Your request to perform empirical analysis was posted after an argument which disproved your delusions and which your pathetic mind couldn't answer. Keep up with the denial, butthurt retard - it only serves to elongate your ownage.

>>52
Congrats, you have used the word butthurt for the 1000th time. I will no longer respond to any post which contains that word.

>>53
Congrats, you can't respond to an argument and have been owned the 1000th time. Your whining about not responding doesn't make a difference, because you couldn't properly respond to arguments anyway, you simply cried and tried to drag things away from the subject, or made up completely irrelevnat and retarded things, ranging from BUSH IS LEFT-WING SOOSHALIST to MARKAT FORSAZ MAGICALLY SOLVZ EVERYTING. Therefore, your "input" won't be missed, though it is nice to see that finally you're coming to understand how futile repeating disproven retardation against facts.

Enjoy your anal bleeding yet again, retarded loser.

>>48

>>46 here. >>49 is not this Anon.

You are in denial as to the effectiveness of actual and justified revolution. Your reasons for it's ineffectiveness are reasons that every "system" has given for many years. They boil down to "people love their rulers too much" (because of indoctrination, etc...).

Communism are apart of the "rulers" that I speak of. It doesn't take critical analysis of history to realize that the Monarchy and Church are inferior to our current captialist system- particularly on an individual level. All improvments in the government have been done for the benefit of the individual.

One of the things that make my conclusions certain is your reaction to the talk of revolution. You think it's impossible, because deep down you're not interested in radical change and I can't blame you. But history is history, there will be another uprising just like there will be another call to bring order to the choas.

>>54
Wow, I'm pretty good at counter-trolling. I really hit a sore spot there.

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermor you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

>>56
Unfortunately, denial of facts isn't DURR HURR I HIT A SOAR SPOT!!!! The fact that you cry about truth as TROLLAN exposes your own butthurt nature, my retarded and ignorant friend. You may resume your crying.

>>55
I don't love my rulers, I am severely critical of them. If the population was indoctrinated to love their rulers then there wouldn't be so many 14 year old emofags listening to greenday and convincing themselves they are sticking it to the man.

I'm using the sociology's definition which is to change society, not the standard definition of revolution which is abstractly the replacement of rulers by those ruled. So I would view the american and russian revolutions as failures since slavery was not abolished in America until 90 years after the revolution and the russian revolution resulted in a despotism not a communist utopia.

The only question here is how revolutions effect social evolution in the decades after the revolution compared to if the revolution had not occurred.

>>57

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermor you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

>>59
Man, my ownage must have hurt you really badly, to the degree you feel the need to copy-paste this retarded piece to satiate the pain in your ass caused by your intellectual inferiority. Back to BAWW BUSH IZ LEFT-WING SOOSHALIST, retard.

>>60
The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considering the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

>>61
I did tell you to cry harder, but I didn't expect it to be this hard. Sorry for hurting your feelings, buddy - but someone just needed to show how retarded you were.

what sucks is that all that money was borrowed from china.   and bush wants us to go spend it... where at? walmart, they'll cash it for free.

protip. 99.9% of shit from walmart is from china.  it's a win-win for them

>>58

Semantics. Revolution is revolution. Cultural, social, whatever- sometimes it's brought about with violence and sometimes not. Both have been effective. Both have been ineffective.

The point I'm making is that it can occur, despite those who have been fully indoctrinated. Sorry to burst your bubble but this includes those emo kids you speak of. The reason they think listening to green day = radial change is *because of indoctination*.

>>64
Semantics? The dictionary makes the same distinction as I do.

revolution
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. 
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.

Cultural? Where did I even say anything about cultural revolution?

There is a difference between the 2 definitions, history has shown that revolutions succesful in definition 1 rarely achieves even the most basic of their social objectives. Major changes in society only appear to occur after decades of social evolution.

Also if all those people who say they will never serve the evil capitalist rape machine, believe the government did 9/11 and protest everything are wrong, then who is "the man"?

>>65

"Where did I even say anything about cultural revolution?"

This is my point exactly. You didn't. The revolution I'm referring to encompasses all definitions. Trying to make it appear as though both definitions of Revolution don't very often go hand-in-hand and are completely alien and incompatable to each other is a tactic on your part to not only frame the argument but to make the very idea of revolution to appear weak. This is product of your own indoctrination.

As for your last comment, I don't have an answer mainly because I don't see what difference it makes who "the man" is. "The Man" is a label, a strawman and scapegoat and used to marginalize resistance to the status quo. This behavior is also a product of indoctrination.

>>66
Oh I see. So instead of using clearly defined definitions we should smerge them all together and try to have a logical debate about ambiguous terms with multiple meanings. Ok let's go ahead and debate that way.

Also in order to be controlled by a elite, there must actually be an elite controlling you. If it's not "the man" who is it?

I am "the man".

>>68
no u're not

>>69
Yes, I am "the man".

PROVE ME WRONG.

>>70
Did they stick it into you?

>>71
very hard...

>>71
No, they didn't.
"Sticking it to the man" is a fallacy.

I am "the man".

I have always been, and always will be here.

STAYT IZ KROOONI AND SOSHALIST NOW! WEN STAYT IS POWERLESS, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS WILL TAKE PITY AND WON'T EXPLOIT!!! WHY? BEKUZ IF THEY DO THE HOLY MARKUT FORSAZ WILL STRIKE DEM DOWN WIT A LIGHTNING BOLT FRUM HEAVENZ! WIT MAGICK LIBERTARYANIZM PREZERVS JUSTIS AND LIBERTY!!!!

>>67

This is exactly what I'm saying. By implying that social revolution never had anything to do with or any relation to the overthrow of tyrannical government because of the semantics of their dictionary definition (without citing history)- actually does what you're accusing me of. It makes the idea of revolution ambiguous and nebulous.

At the onset of this little debate, I knew exactly what I was talking about when I said "revolution" and I think you did too. A token behavior of those deeply indoctrinated (via various public institutions) by the current system, liberals and conservatives alike, is a need to frame and re-frame the argument whle offering up platitudes like "Yeah! Stick it to the man" in order to marginalize those outside of the status quo.

Listen, you don't believe that the French Revolution was related to the further social and cultural changes or that the American Revolution didn't cause social changes or that the American civil war and the "revolutions" that started it didn't cause social changes ("revolutions")....then that's your choice.

But so far, your behavior hasn't really even presented a logical point of view or argument that isn't rooted in the desperate need to obtusificate my statement, instead of refuting it with history and facts. If you think that arguing using dictionary.com was doing that, then you really just don't "get it" and this "debate" is rubbish. Then again, maybe you weren't being serious and I was just being trolled.

>>75

winnar of thread? i don't know what the point was, but yeah the stimulus checks are bullshit. it seems things are getting really out of hand now and pretty soon it's gonna be time to bust some rich heads, anyone who doesn't see that is prolly gonna get their head busted

>>75
But you said
"The revolution I'm referring to encompasses all definitions."
, so I can hardly be blamed for misunderstanding.

For the record.
Revolutions consist of a political revolution and a social revolution, which are components of a revolution. I merely pointed out the distinction between the 2. Since they are perfectly valid distinctions as backed up by the dictionary I cannot in any way be attempting to use "semantics" to derail your argument.
A political revolution (overthrowing the rulers by the ruled) must occur before the social aspect of the revolution can begin.
A social revolution always occurs to some degree after a succesful political revolution, but not necessarily the social revolution most revolutionaries intended. It is likely a small elite at the head of the revolution intended things to turn out that way.

My argument is that while revolutions can succeed politically, they rarely achieve much socially. Also attacking my person is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" and it's boring, /b/ can insult me in 9001 more colourful ways than you.

The French revolution resulted in the reign of terror, numerous purges (not just aristocrats) and later napoleon and his rampage across europe. It was only decades afterwards that French became anything resembling a democracy.

The American revolution became somewhat democratic quite quickly, but not anything resembling democracy for black people until 90-200 years later.

The Russian revolution not only failed in it's social revolution but also in it's social evolution.

>>77

No. What I'm blaming you for is going for this tangent of "debate", especially when you seemed to have initially understood what I meant in the first place. I'll explain:

"Revolutions consist of a political revolution and a social revolution, which are components of a revolution".

Here, you clearly understand what I meant. When I said "The revolution I'm referring to encompasses all definitions". It encompassed both components (or definitions) because when we think of revolution we think of these components in concert. Or at least, I believe we should. Secondly...

I merely pointed out the distinction between the 2. Since they are perfectly valid distinctions as backed up by the dictionary I cannot in any way be attempting to use "semantics" to derail your argument."

This would have been a perfectly good line of thought, had it not been clear that I understand that distinction. By your omission (the underlined quote above) you show that you understood what I meant. If you assumed that I meant "one kind of revolution" then that is a flaw of your judgement, not of my articulation. I wish we were done here, but unfortunately you made other mistakes...

"My argument is that while revolutions can succeed politically, they rarely achieve much socially."

I completely understand that. Now, the reason your argument is semantical is because you tried to make this point by (needlessly) backing up the distinctions of revolution with a dictionary and not by citing history. You do understand what a semantical argument is, don't you?

"Also attacking my person is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" and it's boring, /b/ can insult me in 9001 more colourful ways than you."

That's good to know. Would you mind pointing out where attacked you? (Do you have me confused with another poster?) If you are referring to my statement about the methodology of those indoctrinated into certain thinking patterns regarding this subject, then I'm afraid that can't be helped. It is my belief and you fit the caste. Would it have been preferred if I removed pretenses and called you an inbred rape-baby suffering from downs?

As for the rest of your post...well, those are just opinions you have. Interpetations of history that favor your worldview. Did I ever say that the goal of revolution was democracy? I don't believe so. Or maybe you were just trying to frame the debate again? Or perhaps trivialize the concept of revolution as the fruits of some conspiracy engineered by "the small elite"?

>>78
"your behavior hasn't really even presented a logical point of view or argument that isn't rooted in the desperate need to obtusificate my statement"
There is no basis for this, you did not specify the statement I am   desperate to "obtusificate", whatever that means.

A semantical argument is a discussion about the meaning of a word. All I'm trying to do is use the 2 meanings of the word because they are valid and relevant.

I am pretty sure that the French revolution resulted in a reign of terror followed by a dicatorship that ended with the napoleonic wars, slavery didn't end even 8 decades after the American revolution and Stalin's dictatorship did not result in a communist utopia. But I guess they are just my opinion, so what's yours?

>>79

I see that I am literally going to have to hold your hand and walk you through this.

"There is no basis for this, you did not specify the statement I am desperate to "obtusificate", whatever that means."

[b]OBTUSE[/b]

1 a: not pointed or acute
2 a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression>

If I have to specify what statement you tried to make difficult to comprehend (or unclear or unpointed), then you just haven't been paying attention. Anyway, the statements are as follows:

Another poster brought up the idea of an uprising of the lower classes. My first post in this thread was >>29. The thesis statement was that an uprising could take place and could be very effective- as history has shown us. (You take exception to the effect but I'll get to that later).

Your replies (>>30, >>39, >>41) were all along the same lines as those in >>30: "And how many times did the mob succeed? A handful commie revolutions versus the countless crushed..."

In >>48 you accused me of "not being specific" (again trying to make my argument appear obuse). In >>55 once again I clarify: "You are in denial as to the effectiveness of actual and justified revolution. Your reasons for it's ineffectiveness are reasons that every "system" has given for many years."

...but even this wasn't enough. If another effort to obtusify my statements you trivialize the argument with semantics despite you clearly understanding what I meant. If you didn't I doubt the exchange of post cited above would even be possible.

As for the rest of your statments...

Again, you misunderstand the meaning and the effect of revolution. Whatever is percieved as "being better for opressed individual" is what revolution seeks to bring about. If this results in another reign of terror or "not a communist utopia", then another revolution will be needed until we get desired results. What appears to be "ineffective revolution" is actually true revolution working itself out. 

You concede to this by trying to cite anything that doesn't fit the mold of your desired result (glaring over the American Civil War, which for all intensive perpurses was a revolution- it resulted in the end of slavery).

There. Now, I've run the gamut with you, I've clarified and re-clarified without resorting to trolling or accusing you of ad homonem. If you don't think revolution (whatever one definition you want to reduce it to) will happen or that it doesn't produce change, this is entirely your perogitive. But just remember that it doesn't reflect history and that you- in this thread- have done a really poor job of arguing otherwise.