I would argue 7 of the threads on the main page are pure filler fuckbaggery by a bunch of idiots who dont care about content.

Progress is inevitable. Violence is not. Those who think that they need violence to push through their own beliefs can only be described as uncivilized brutes.

There were far more strikes that didn't turn into riots, but only the ones that did got passed down through history for the same reason that periods of war are more researched and taught about than the far longer periods of peace.

Military enforcement of desegregation was enforcement of the law just like you wouldn't call a police shooting an armed murderer evidence that all criminals need to be shot dead by law enforcement.

At this point, I feel like we're wasting each other's time. Every point that could be made has been made, and I don't think either of us are going to convince each other.

If violence is not inevitable, then neither can be progress. Again, I'm not advocating for it, I'm simply saying that where an area of progress comes, violence is going to accompany to ensure it. The accompanying question is as follows: is all progress good progress?

My goal for this thread is to keep this going til it hits 17000 replies. since this is probably my last thread before the fuzz ban me.

Violence and progress are not by necessity correlated.

What qualifies as progress is different for each person. Therefore, progress is good in each person's mind: just not necessarily the progress advocated for by liberal media.

You need to get the idea out of your head that revolution is progressive. lets use the Texas example. Do you really think Texas is this great place that needs a revolution of secession?

You need to get the idea out of your head that you know what you're talking about.

Revolution by definition of pretty much any historian you talk to is progressive. I would ask you to refer to the pendulum example.

Im drunk, welcome to Atlanta where the brainys bomb, heard a noise in the room, he was braining your mom.

The Tea party for example is a political revolution akin to what Bernie Sanders is asking his peons to do. Do you think the Tea Party is progressive? A movement that prides itself on a political revolution to scale us back to the least progressive phases in American politics and strip away decades of positive economic and social reforms?

The Tea Party is reactionary against social progress.

The NeoCon Revolution has been anything but "Progressive" its been incredibly detrimental to American geo-politics

In other words, no, they're not revolutionary.

They are the opposite of revolutionary.

How about the Communist revolutions in Russia, where the ruling family were violently slaughtered and the populace suffered immesaurably. Was that in your opinion... progress-ive

@ TrPrado Give me a definition from a reputable source that links revolution with progressivism. Your little analogy is a very simplistic view of progress as some sort of linear path with only 2 directions: forward and backwords.

@brainbomb "positive economic and social reforms"

*cough cough*

Just because people throw the term "revolution" onto everything doesn't make those things revolutionary. Just like how Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist doesn't make him a socialist.

TrPrado, you're committing the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Bernie is as close to socialism as the American public will allow him to get.

leon, we arent scaling back to the 1950's. Not economically, not socially, and hopefully not in any other way. There is nothing to be gained by giving fuel to the fire of hayak-keynes economic theory debates. Both sides always claim to be the winner. I agree 100% with social democracy, it works, especially in smaller countries that give a shit.

This country has way too many well off people that "could" make life easier for everyone and they choose not too. I am fine with mandatory executions of the rich.

You gotta have a societal equalizer, or people think they are God

It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy because that's definitively not a revolution and he's definitively not a socialist.

"How about the Communist revolutions in Russia, where the ruling family were violently slaughtered and the populace suffered immesaurably. Was that in your opinion... progress-ive"
This was a progressive revolution moving past the tsardom in every way. Plain and simple.

@TrPrado I was talking about your denial of the other revolutions as "revolutions".

@brainbomb I'm not going to get dragged into another longwinded economic debate. The last one wasted 2 whole days, and this debate is well on its way to doing the same.

This is what you sound like:

Me: Conservative revolutions are still revolutions.

TrP: No. Give me an example of a conservative revolution.

BB: *lists conservative revolutions*

TrP: No. Those are conservative so they can't be revolutions.

There is progress, regress, and status quo. Revolution is radical progress, reaction is radical regress, and status quo simply wants society to stay exactly as it is.

I didn't ask for an example of conservative revolution because I know the premise of one is false and misled.

Revolution is not radical progress.

One definition of regression is "a trend or shift toward a lower or less perfect state". I for one believe that today's society is regressing to one without any moral values.

In terms of politics and society a regression is
"a return to a former or less developed state."