I don’t consider that sufficient as an end-around, and evidence bears out it’s merely moderate effectiveness.
And somebody shouldn’t have to have a specific plan to solve these problems to complain about them on the internet. Sometimes ideas come from such discussions, as do useful perspectives.
I don’t discuss what I may or may not do to resist government laws on open forums on the Internet. You don’t think all text here gets analyzed and ingested into some sigint system? Hell, any publicly viewable data is permanently stored if they know about it by bots.
And you’re mischaracterizing what I wrote since I didn’t say you couldn’t “complain,” did I? I pointed out that debating government definitions of journalism and what they should be was pointless here.
You did, but I’m just disagreeing that ‘pointless here’ is an important signifier on an online forum. This is a public place and more complicated strategic discussions wouldn’t be happening here.
This is a completely appropriate place for ranting about real issues. We are not Vulcans after all 
It is pointless to discuss things and propose solutions that won’t then go anywhere. Again, mischaracterization. I’d rather talk about things that are meaningful.
Feel free to rant but don’t pretend it isn’t useless mastubation. The federal government isn’t going to redefine journalists based on your rants.
I don’t know. I’m partly in this to start planting some seeds and gathering people who are willing to properly look at the world as if…
I’ve had some success there and greatly improved my technique, so for me this is all quite meaningful.
Notice these two things:
A failed revolution attempt is a crime.
A successful revolution anniversary is a bank holiday.
Why would the crypto ones count as such?
“And”, not “or”.
Clearer now!
…though both fields are interesting in their own ways…
No, a failed revolution is one after which banks still exist.
So no revolution has succeeded ever then.
Do we have a truly free and equal society that isn’t run by the drama queens and assholes among us? Where resources are distributed fairly and everybody is guaranteed a decent standard of living consistent with the resources we actually have?
Then nope, not really.
Though I’d argue that ‘banks’ is a pretty broad term and the failure there is specific to our economic system. I think our banking issues are more contextual than fundamental.
Such things aren’t the requirement of a revolution, the last I checked.
This is like the “No True Scotsman” revolution discussion.
No, that’s pretty much the definition of a civilized society, which we currently don’t have.
Well, okay, yes, people’s definitions of success definitely differ there, but this certainly isn’t a ‘no true scotsman’ logical fallacy, this is simply a discussion of the desired vs. real outcomes of revolutions and how they measure up when compared to our few remaining societies that actually have the fundamentals down and aren’t mired in legalism.
That’s right but that’s not the point I was making. I’m getting the sense that you like to respond to the points you wished I made rather than what I actually say a lot of the time.
It isn’t the definition of a revolution though, which is what we were discussing.
I’m not saying that no revolution has ever occurred or succeeded because it wasn’t a flowers and sunshine utopia after any of them. You seem to be busy redefining what a “revolution” means though.
See DoJ forced Google to turn over Jacob Appelbaum's email, then gagged Google - #51 by William_Holz
Please don’t try to put words in my mouth, that’s bad form.
I did clarify in the rest of the post you replied to that there are indeed differences in definitions of what a ‘successful’ revolutions are, which is completely reasonable.
If one argues that a revolution is succesful if it usurps the previous system then yes, you are correct. However many (perhaps like @L_Mariachi in the post you replied to) don’t define it that way and instead define success as having accomplished the goals it set out to accomplish.
Or are you redefining ‘success’ on the fly? Revolution wasn’t the only word that existed in the post you replied to.
I prefer to go with the dictionary definition of the term. Thanks.
I guess I’m done here. Feel free to make your rhetorical points without pretending they are in response to things I said or actually addressing what I write. You can use someone else as your launching point.
Oh, and I since I didn’t do that, you bitching about my doing so it kind of a tactless aside.
So your argument is that nobody else can use the word ‘success’ to mean ‘accomplishing the goals it set out to accomplish’?
Gotcha.
Edit: Added dictionary definition!
suc·cess
səkˈses/Submit
noun
the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
“the president had some success in restoring confidence”
synonyms: favorable outcome, successfulness, successful result, triumph; Hollywood ending
“the success of the scheme”
the attainment of popularity or profit.
“the success of his play”
synonyms: prosperity, affluence, wealth, riches, opulence
“the trappings of success”
a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity.
“I must make a success of my business”
synonyms: triumph, bestseller, blockbuster, sellout; More
Who is putting words in the mouths of others now?
State your own points for yourself and don’t pretend I said something that I didn’t just because it is easy and convenient for you to do so.
Update: Try the word “revolution” next time since that’s what we’re discussing.
You’re still redefining success.
No, you clearly would rather just argue about it.
Look it up yourself, or I posted it above. Please stop creating chaos where none needs to exist.
