Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

Posted by michael on from the sure-it-is dept.

pdw writes "Revolution is not an AOL Keyword* is an entertaining piece of prose, which has been floating around the blogspace for the past month. In reinterpreting Gil Scott-Heron's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Eddan Katz has given us quick worldview, common to most Slashdoters, and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!"

23 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Groovy... by TopShelf · · 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
  2. The Revolution will be moderated up. by rdewald · · 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.
    1. Re:The Revolution will be moderated up. by Qender · · 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."

    2. Re:The Revolution will be moderated up. by miu · · 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.]
  3. Re:Let me get this straight... by mr_bungle2110 · · 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.

  4. Revolution by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · 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.
    1. Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?

    2. Re:Revolution by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · 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.
    3. Re:Revolution by rdewald · · 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.
    4. Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Revolution by bsartist · · 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!
    6. Re:Revolution by Archie+Steel · · 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
    7. Re:Revolution by luzrek · · 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.

    8. Re:Revolution by dipipanone · · 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.

  5. Re:Let me get this straight... by fussman · · 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.
  6. Re:Let me get this straight... by Qender · · 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.

  7. Whitey's on the Moon by waldoj · · 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...

  8. What is Revolution? by huphtur · · Score: 5, Funny

    answer...

  9. "common to most Slashdoters" by Daniel+Quinlan · · 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

  10. Fascist Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · 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....

    1. Re:Fascist Revolution by beakburke · · 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.
  11. In Revolutions by Nikkos · · 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

  12. Orwell's Animal Farm by NigelJohnstone · · 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.