4 ms·

The only drastic shifts in power happen in times of need. What the people do once they regain that power will only speak to the direction of humanity, but at le

The only drastic shifts in power happen in times of need. What the people do once they regain that power will only speak to the direction of humanity, but at least it speaks to our evolution or lack thereof as a whole, instead of some select group that seeks to subvert and oppress.

mahyarm 12y ago
You didn't concretely answer his question.
- patronagezero 12y ago
  In an abstract way I did. I'm not interested in being dragged into easy points of contention with someone that would rather attempt to pay their way out of the problems of our times.
lukifer 12y ago
> our evolution or lack thereof as a whole I agree with your broader thrust (Spaceship Earth, etc.), but evolution does not work that way.
matteotom 12y ago
Specifically, what points in history are you referring to with "historically proven measures"?
- patronagezero 12y ago
  Sorry for responding to your question then. I'm not interested in your invitation to an argument about specifics. History has plenty of instances of the people vs systems of governance, if you can't summon those by your own fruition, then my comment isn't intended for you.
  - matteotom 12y ago
    I don't want an argument. You just made a vague but potentially interesting assertion, and I am curious about what you are referring to. But your lack of willingness to give any real examples leads me to believe you have none. Edit in response to edit: Examples: American and French revolutions. Various Communist revolutions. Various violent and non-violent conflicts leading to constitutional monarchy and then democracy in England (with similar situations in the rest of Europe). Various revolutions against colonialism. However, by your own definition of the problem, none of these have been very successful over the long term.
    - patronagezero 12y ago
      If you don't want to go running because you'll be sore in the morning, then just resolve to be fat. If that's what humanity wants, then by all means. However, I would like to continue redefining humanity and evolving. The people cannot do that in a system that controls the flow of easily-digest-able information, laws and authority.
- patronagezero 12y ago
  Most of the HN crowds are far from accepting this idea of a revolution, this is specifically the problem I'm not willing to address here. You would all rather bury your heads in the idea that your disposable income somehow super-cedes your taxes, or that your occasional attention or interest in laws and justice super-cedes the interests of judges and law-enforcement to override your rights. I have to look no further than the SOPA, CIPA, whatever renaming to know otherwise. The system has to burn and be rebuilt. The actions of a few do not represent the many. Humanity, for worse or better must come to represent itself again. History has plenty of information about how and why revolutions are formed, and in my observations it either takes an act of attentive artists pulling the people together, or poverty. Myself, I opt for poverty. I'm no artist, so I seek to drain everything I can from the economy and welfare systems. I don't care which of you understand this logic, as I'm aware the majority are merely interested in social-gratification. Fire away, as I'm aware none of you are actually interested in my points here and merely seek to have better positions of attack.
  - matteotom 12y ago
    While I would tend to disagree, thank you for saying that. I will leave it there since you don't want to argue.
nocman 12y ago
Like matteotom (and I'm sure a lot of other readers here), I would very much like to hear what you are referring to when you say "historically proven measures". You made the assertion that giving disposable income to the EFF "will do nothing in the long-run..." and say we should "enact real change through historically proven measures". Is it unreasonable for us to ask you what you mean by "historically proven measures"? If you are not willing to answer the question and have further discussion about it, why did you make the comment in the first place? It's a completely reasonable question.

mahyarm 12y ago

You didn't concretely answer his question.

patronagezero 12y ago
In an abstract way I did. I'm not interested in being dragged into easy points of contention with someone that would rather attempt to pay their way out of the problems of our times.

lukifer 12y ago

> our evolution or lack thereof as a whole I agree with your broader thrust (Spaceship Earth, etc.), but evolution does not work that way.

matteotom 12y ago

Specifically, what points in history are you referring to with "historically proven measures"?

patronagezero 12y ago
Sorry for responding to your question then. I'm not interested in your invitation to an argument about specifics. History has plenty of instances of the people vs systems of governance, if you can't summon those by your own fruition, then my comment isn't intended for you.
- matteotom 12y ago
  I don't want an argument. You just made a vague but potentially interesting assertion, and I am curious about what you are referring to. But your lack of willingness to give any real examples leads me to believe you have none. Edit in response to edit: Examples: American and French revolutions. Various Communist revolutions. Various violent and non-violent conflicts leading to constitutional monarchy and then democracy in England (with similar situations in the rest of Europe). Various revolutions against colonialism. However, by your own definition of the problem, none of these have been very successful over the long term.
  - patronagezero 12y ago
    If you don't want to go running because you'll be sore in the morning, then just resolve to be fat. If that's what humanity wants, then by all means. However, I would like to continue redefining humanity and evolving. The people cannot do that in a system that controls the flow of easily-digest-able information, laws and authority.
patronagezero 12y ago
Most of the HN crowds are far from accepting this idea of a revolution, this is specifically the problem I'm not willing to address here. You would all rather bury your heads in the idea that your disposable income somehow super-cedes your taxes, or that your occasional attention or interest in laws and justice super-cedes the interests of judges and law-enforcement to override your rights. I have to look no further than the SOPA, CIPA, whatever renaming to know otherwise. The system has to burn and be rebuilt. The actions of a few do not represent the many. Humanity, for worse or better must come to represent itself again. History has plenty of information about how and why revolutions are formed, and in my observations it either takes an act of attentive artists pulling the people together, or poverty. Myself, I opt for poverty. I'm no artist, so I seek to drain everything I can from the economy and welfare systems. I don't care which of you understand this logic, as I'm aware the majority are merely interested in social-gratification. Fire away, as I'm aware none of you are actually interested in my points here and merely seek to have better positions of attack.
- matteotom 12y ago
  While I would tend to disagree, thank you for saying that. I will leave it there since you don't want to argue.

nocman 12y ago

Like matteotom (and I'm sure a lot of other readers here), I would very much like to hear what you are referring to when you say "historically proven measures". You made the assertion that giving disposable income to the EFF "will do nothing in the long-run..." and say we should "enact real change through historically proven measures". Is it unreasonable for us to ask you what you mean by "historically proven measures"? If you are not willing to answer the question and have further discussion about it, why did you make the comment in the first place? It's a completely reasonable question.