Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

Groovy... by TopShelf · 2003-04-20 15:26 · Score: 4, Funny

So am I supposed to smoke clove cigarettes and snap my fingers to this???

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

The Revolution will be moderated up. by rdewald · 2003-04-20 15:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The one thing that seemed off about the langauge in the homage to GSH's insightful song about the ultimate irreverence of mass media was the attempt to address "geeks" via a reference to AOL keywords.

I don't know any geeks that use AOL.

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

The web isn't mass media, it just has mass distribution.

--
The best way to do is to be.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up. by Qender · 2003-04-20 15:58 · Score: 5, Informative

uh, he's not making a geek refrence, what he's saying is pretty much what you say in your last sentence

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword...."

hence his line

"revolution is not an aol keyword."
Re:The Revolution will be moderated up. by miu · 2003-04-20 19:02 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't know anyone who has ever used, is using or ever will use AOL.
Uh huh. And uncle Steve is bringing his friend Bruce to Thanksgiving dinner. Bruce seems nice, maybe he can help uncle Steve find a nice girl to marry.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]

Re:Let me get this straight... by mr_bungle2110 · 2003-04-20 15:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dude, relax. I'm sure George Washington stopped to have a beer at least once during the American Revolution. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln read a nice book, just for fun, during the Civil War, and I'm sure that FDR spent a night with his mistress not thinking about the Depression or World War I. I'm sure he spent a hundred.

Revolution by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-04-20 15:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Considering up here in Canada we've held referendums to determine if we should divide the country (first Quebec, and now Alberta is talking about it too) I find it hard to believe we would ever see such an event take place.

Even with Bush going a bit nuts with the whole "You must give up your rights to be safe, citizen." power grab in the US, he can easily be voted out at the next election. No revolution (violent or otherwise) necessary.

You need the support of the majority to have a revolution, otherwise it's called other things.

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-20 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?
Re:Revolution by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-04-20 15:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, I'm beginning to think maybe my definition of revolution may be a bit too narrow...

Perhaps we should include the peace movement, feminism, civil rights, etc... I guess it all depends on how you look at revolution.

I typically think of it as a power change initiated by an oppressed majority, but I guess it could also be initiated by an oppressed minority that gains popularity with the silent majority...

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Re:Revolution by moonbender · 2003-04-20 15:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhabs Hitler's takeover of the Weimar Republic, which was a modern democracy, converting into an absolutist fascist regime in 1933 could be called a revolution. It was very much inside the system, though, it was not a violent public uprise.
Apart from that, the couple of modern democracies - including first and foremost the USA, the right to bear arms nonwithstanding - have taken great care to keep up a large enough and well-equipped military to prevent a public, violent revolution from happening. And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Revolution by rdewald · 2003-04-20 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The word revolution in this context refers to the overthrow of a government, or form of government, or social system by those governed, usually by forceful means, with another government or social system taking its place.

In recent history, this has happened because of, or has been attempted by, people seeking a democracy is the new form of government. Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy. It's not that it is impossible, it's that it has already happened.

The word can also mean a radical change of any kind. This is sometimes necessary in any social system. Democracy allows for a non-violent method to achieve this kind of revolution every election. While the change from Carter to Reagan in 1981 was not a revolution in the former sense of the word, it was in the latter sense. So, the answer depends in some measure on just what one means by revolution.

--
The best way to do is to be.
Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-20 15:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The Soviet Communist revolution happened shortly after their democratic revolution, although that was short lived and unstable.
Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-20 16:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Chile was a democracy prior to Sept 11, 1973 when it was overthrown by a US-supported military coup and became a brutal dictatorship. A new leader wasn't elected until 1989.
Re:Revolution by bsartist · 2003-04-20 16:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery until late in the war, and not for the reason that many believe. The war was going badly for the north. General Lee, a graduate of West Point, and before the war one of the best commanders the US Army had, had won victory after victory. Many northerners were calling on Lincoln to recognize the secession of the south and sign a treaty with the Confederate States.

Putting an end to slavery was, for Lincoln, a means of gaining support for continuing the war from the abolitionist movement. If the north and south were to remain separate, it would have been largely symbolic, as slavery was not widely practiced in the north at that point anyway. The new law would only have teeth if the war continued, and the south was brought back into the union and subjected to its laws.

An interesting bit of history: Before the civil war, the US was referred to using the plural form - i.e. "these United States are..." It wasn't until after the civil war, and the post-war rise in the power of the federal government, that the singular form began to be used - i.e. "this United States is..."

This post brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you. ;-)

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Re:Revolution by Associate · 2003-04-20 16:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.
Which is oh so convienent since it seems like we are being told more and more what it is we want instead of thinking for ourselves, which is of course part of the message of The Revolution will not be Televised.

--
Someone hates these cans.
Re:Revolution by Archie+Steel · 2003-04-20 17:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nice rewriting of history here...in other words, you're saying that it's okay to have a military coup if a government has unpopular policies...

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there was only one acceptable way to get rid of Allende if you didn't agree with him: vote him out. Now if Allende had given himself dictatorial powers, like Pinochet did, then maybe you would have a point. The fact is, despite what you think of Allende's politics (which were a lot more popular with the majority of Chileans than with the rich landowners, I'll give you that), Chile was still a democracy, because there were still going to be elections.

But you've touched on the inherent risk of democracy, that it contains the seed of its own destruction: the people can put an anti-democratic party in power if they vote so. Even in the States, with sufficient votes, it would theoretically be possible to amend the constitution in very undemocratic ways - though I doubt this would ever happen, thanks to the numerous checks and balances of the american system).

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right. What you have to do in democratic societies is to educate the masses enough so that they don't vote for fascist/non-democratic/extremist parties. To oppose restrictions on what people can vote for is contrary to the democratic ideal, even though it does carry the risk of less democracy.

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Revolution by sedna · 2003-04-20 21:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, it's clear that history and politics easily creates debates depending on your context and background. If you want to read some descripitions about what happened in Nicaraguar you can try these links:

http://www.countryreports.org/history/nicarhist. ht m

http://www.jorian.com/san.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central _a merica/nicaragua/history.htm

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Nicaragua/History

The truth is that the actual politics by the Sandinistas was less soicialistic the in Sweden. Their landreforms was very needed considering the social inequalities in the country. Nationalizing of the industry is something both France, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc etc have done, often to save jobs. Up until the 80's Import substitution politics was alse the most common economical paradigm in Latin America. Spending money on education and healthcare shouldn't be too marxisic i hope...

The most interesting fact with the Sandinistas was that they actually won the polpular vote 1984 with 67% of the voters. International observers considered the election to be fair and reperesenting the will of the people. Reagan, however, didn't accept it because the Sandinistas still were in power. He didn't care about democaracy, only to get rid of the socialists...
Re:Revolution by luzrek · 2003-04-20 22:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Having grown up in Florida, which was a Slave state, now populated by Northerners, I think that I've gotten a fiarly good education on both sides of the topic. While the US Civil war was not entirely about slavery, slavery was certainly the motivating factor. As the west was settled there was an agreement made to admit one slave and one free state each time any state was created, thus maintaining a balance in the Senate and preventing either side from mandating or abolishing slavery. Shortly before Lincoln was elected it began to become clear that the number of "free" states was going to out pace the number of slave states so the slave states wanted to pass legislation changing the location of the Masson-Dixon line (the line above which the US was "free" and below which it was "slave"). To do this they needed their canadate to be elected (Jefferson Davis). He was not elected despite the 3/5ths of the unrepersented slave population of the south counting towards its electoral tally (which was an even older source of bad-blood). The south then tried to break off and form its own country. From 150 years later (almost) this looks like the south was simply a sore looser. At the time this was a violation of everything that Lincoln beleived in (basically he was a true patriot, very much beleiving in the USofA) and Lincoln acted to prevent the disentigration of the Union. Thus the civil war. In short, the American civil war wasn't about slavery for the North, but it was for the South.
Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory. The Southern politicians assumed that since the cotton for the world's textile mills came from their states that France and/or Britian would come to their aide. This was bad reasoning since Egypt was already producing higher grade cotton and European and Industrial warehouses were full at the beginning of the war. Of course we all know that the war turned at Gettysberg where Lee (despite what you may have gotten from the Ken Burns specials) basically killed 15000 of his own men by ordering Picket's charge over the strong objections of the other southern generals (Longstreet included).
Also, remember that the American Civil war was much more costly for the South than for the North. A greater portion of their 18-40 year old men were killed, what industry the south had was destroyed by Sherman, and the way the social and economic elites lived was fundamentally altered. No Southerner should attempt to glorify the civil war. What the Confederacy stood for, and the war planning of its politicians is an embarassment to all true Americans.

--
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Re:Revolution by dipipanone · 2003-04-20 22:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

Oh absolutely. Whenever I need astute political analysis, Hollywood is always the first place I turn.

If you want your political insights to be pithy, easily consumed with no intellectual effort, and absolutely content free and lacking any reference to complex reality, Hollywood will deliver.

Which actually explains a lot about US political life, if you think about it.
Re:Revolution by CashCarSTAR · 2003-04-21 00:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

And in order to arm the Contras to fight against the Sandistas, money was funneled through Iran, to repay the Iranians for helping with that little election thing in '80. As well, arms were funneled to the freedom fighters in Afghanastan, arms that which funneled down to the Taliban. As well, in order to be a foil for Iran, military support was given to Iraq.

Some of the parties involved in this whole affair are in the current administration, (Poindexter especially). Finally, back on topic, It will remain to be seen if Iraq is going to be Chile pt. 2, the second great libertarian experiement.
Re:Revolution by nat5an · 2003-04-21 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right.

Hey, the Algerians tried this, but the French said their election wasn't valid. ;-)

--
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...

Re:Let me get this straight... by DrVital · 2003-04-20 15:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

So your solution is to live in a constant state of fear, obsessing over the dead, and the horrible state of the planet?

I'll take the middle ground.

Cowboy Bebop is worthwhile.
Cowboy Bebop has taught me far more about how to deal with this life then you have.

Re:Let me get this straight... by fussman · 2003-04-20 15:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with the parent. There are too many trolls on here that are trying to get a reaction out of people, for the sole purpose of arguing, and try to hard. The result is what looks like a caffeine-fried 14 year old, but really is just a libral troll trying to get people to pay attention like a two year old does when it gets a new sibling.

Oh, and Mr. Bungle, RIGHT ON!

--
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.

Re:Let me get this straight... by Qender · 2003-04-20 15:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's a bigger hint to the clueless moron: If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns. Just because some people in this world fight each other doesn't mean I will destroy my life. My life is made of many things, my life is made of the people I know, My life is made by a consumer culture and it's governing systems. My life is made of the plants in my yards and the shows on my TV. Whether or not I choose to watch TV is a different matter, it's a choice I make in my life. Personally, I don't have time for TV, I've not watched it in a long while. But if I did have time, I would watch all the cartoons I wanted.

YOU WANT SOME DAMN PRIORITIES? How can you solve your problems?!, in your life?!, right now?! If you are so concerned over the deaths in this world, why don't you go do something about it. Don't sit in front of a computer and tell everyong else not to talk about anything but the wars. Go solve the damn problem. Fight against the war, fight against the iraqis, fight with the iraqis, whatever you want. If I want to sit at home and play diablo, I will. If I want to go down to the store and buy a sandwich, I will. And nothing you can say, about any other part of the world, will make me feel guilty about eating my sandwich.

I don't like death, I agree with you, death is bad. But life includes "shreddies" and "cowboy bebop", so get over it.

Whitey's on the Moon by waldoj · 2003-04-20 16:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

For any newfound Gil Scott-Heron fans, my favorite GSH piece:

Whitey's on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon by balthan · 2003-04-20 19:16 · Score: 3, Funny

A moose once bit my sister...

Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations by MichaelCrawford · 2003-04-20 16:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

A little over a hundred years ago, John J. Chapman gave a commencement address that I found so inspiring that I copied it to my website after I first came across it:

Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

I found it in the dead-tree edition of The Cluetrain Manifesto, which I think makes the case that the revolution will be networked. However I agree that it won't be taking place on a sanitized, controlled system like AOL, but on the wilds of the real Internet.

And to show that I walk the walk, I invite you to read my recent article, "Living with Schizoaffective Disorder" parts I, II and III.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

The trolls right by Treeluvinhippy · 2003-04-20 16:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life

You know he's right, that really isn't getting on with life. You should see that our time here is very finite with so much out there to see and do it's a shame to waste it, enjoy and cultivate life for it really is a precious commodity that can not be sold our bought only given.

Enjoying life can be a walk in the park, dinner with some one you love, or watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies.

Wasting life can be letting a addcition get out of control, intentional harming someone and spending a long ass time in prison or being an unoriginal /. troll. Sorry dude I've heard the bebop/cereal statement by other trolls. Maybe it's time for you to get away from the computer and find a girl.

--
>

What is Revolution? by huphtur · 2003-04-20 16:50 · Score: 5, Funny

answer...

"common to most Slashdoters" by Daniel+Quinlan · 2003-04-20 17:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Speak for yourself.

I'm not a citizen of the net. I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people on the net could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be moderated down by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about the net. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are not. Some agree with me, some do not. Some people will be able to manipulate net media just like some people can manipulate mass media now.

What obvious to me is that many bloggers have just as overinflated ego about their importance that many talking heads in the media have right now. For the moment, I'm avoiding the blog popularity contest. While I do read a few interesting blogs, I try to avoid ones run by people with big heads who think (right or wrong) that the internet will be the vehicle that will make them powerful. I'd rather vote in an election (even with limited realistic choices) than let pagerank decide what I believe.

Daniel

Economic Democracy? by composer777 · 2003-04-20 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I were to devise a system of government where Bill Gate's got 40 billion votes and the rest of us got 1 vote, we wouldn't even laugh. Calling capitalism democracy is absurd.

Fascist Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-20 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The late 20th Century has seen a global fascist revolution, pushing the world towards an "Orwellian State". The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before. With Television promoting the mythes of the two-faced so called democracies the world over, people are duped into a life of consumerism and apathy, leaving the gate right open for the rulers to wage war on weaker nations, and tighten their grip on their own populations in name of "security".....ahhh fuck it, who is listening, this is slashdot....

Re:Fascist Revolution by beakburke · 2003-04-20 18:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before."
Do you realize that on balance that income equality became much greater over the last century? Yes, it really sorta peaked during the 50s in the US, but on the whole, the industrial revolution and the end of the Guilded Age created and cemented the concept and notion of the middle class. Before that, you had subsistance farming (everyone was poor) with a very few well to do people in the ruling class and the later robber-barrons of the 19th century. You will never achive perfect income equality, and even if you could, the costs of doing so would be far greater than whatever benefits it would provide. At some point, the redistribution of wealth ceases to be productive to the overall well being of the people.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

In Revolutions by Nikkos · 2003-04-20 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

In Revolutions people die.

How many slashdotters would truly be willing to die in order to see their beliefs come to light? How many would be willing to kill friends/neighbors because they don't agree?

It's too late for first-world countries to have a revolution that would help them more than hurt them. The intelligent use of democracy is the only way - and that would take getting off one's ass, turning off the computer, writing letters, actually _voting_, and being active in society. Things _I_ can say truthfully I've done.

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

Nikkos

Lies! by Tuxinatorium · 2003-04-20 18:58 · Score: 3, Funny

"Revolution is not an AOL keyword"

Yes it is!

--
Repeal the DMCA!

Re:Let me get this straight... by Tailhook · 2003-04-20 20:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

followed by a WAR against Islam

Such a war would involve the destruction of Islamic holy artifacts, such as mosques and holy cities. It would also involve the slaughter of Islamic leaders (and dictators don't count.) Finally, it would witness the enforced adoption of something other than Islam.

All of this is within our power. Nassiria can be erased from existence with a few hours effort. Every mosque in the Middle East could be precision bombed to dust. We could hunt down and execute every Moslem leader of consequence anywhere we care to.

None of the above has, is or will occur. Rational people know this. That's why the vision of multitudes of enraged Moslems descending on the western forces remains a vision. They know, as you do, that calling recent events a "war against Islam" is a hysterical stretch.

Keep stretching. The world is better off with you marginalizing yourself as much as you possibly can. The only damage that may attributed to you is the degree to which real atrocities against Islam are discounted as you fill the air with your noise. Rest assured, however, that ultimately the rational amongst us will still be able to tell the difference.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!

Orwell's Animal Farm by NigelJohnstone · 2003-04-20 22:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"

If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.

The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him.
A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.

Reference by tastydarb · 2003-04-21 02:20 · Score: 3, Informative

This reference sounds more like Mao's quote:

"A revolution is not a dinner party."

While it is close in idea to "the revolution will not be televised," this also got its base from Mao; "... is not an AOL keyword" is closer to the original germ.

Slashdot Mirror

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

37 of 294 comments (clear)