Meanwhile we are being told, even on this forum, that income inequality is no big thing and one shouldn't be envious, it's unseemly. Where is the revolution?
> In the video, Bakken and Miller tell Grende, who had called to report the four hunters were trespassing by “corner crossing,” they would not cite the men for either trespassing to hunt or criminal trespass
They also lost in court. It was a ranch manager trying to intimidate people with wealth, and it didn’t work.
> Officers said they would submit reports to the county attorney who, documents say, subsequently ordered a deputy to charge the men, which happened on Oct. 4.
No, its not. Its also not inconsistent with it being on the front page. Even if one assumes that the reason that it is on the front page is class sympathy with the party who prevailed on most of the issues, and not any other reason…”disproportionate” is not “exclusive”.
I’ve never accused HN of being a unitary hive mind (in fact, if you go through my posting history, you’ll see that’s an idea that I frequently mock.)
That doesn’t mean, though, that it is a representative – demographically or ideologically – slice of the population, either, and the ways it isn’t ideologically reflect, largely, the ways it isn’t demographically.
Pray tell, what is your source for the boogeyman you are attacking since it’s not what is popular?
You know of any revolutions that solve inequality? All the ones in known history simply change who the winners and losers are and maintain inequality.
Inequality absolutely exists and "revolutions" that claim to fix it in fact... don't. Socialism/Communism/etc all fail spectacularly to solve the "issue" of inequality.
And incidentally, are you familiar with the atrocities committed during the revolution? The “vertical deportations” of the Vendée region might add some much-needed nuance to what I can only surmise to be your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution.
People excitedly waiting for revolution often have no idea what a revolution actually is. If they did, they’d be aware that the most fervent revolutionaries are among the first to be executed when the establishment is overthrown. They’d also have some awareness of how the old power structures are often replaced with equivalent ones.
A revolution is a failure mode, not an end to be pursued. Read more history.
To be fair, the last revolution in France was 150 years ago, things change quite a bit in 150 years.
> your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution
You seem to be equally biased, if on the other side. Events as large as a revolution are complex enough that it is hard to fit them into a manichean assessment.
And I would say that reading someone talk about some positive outcomes of an event and immediately feel compelled to call their views simplistic and whitewashed shows some bias.
The American Revolution barely averted a military dictatorship, because Washington turned down the offer from his officers. How many times has that happened in history? Only once that I know of, which makes Washington the greatest American President.
I place Kennedy at #2, for avoiding nuclear war with the Soviets.
right, well obviously the revolutions solves the inequality for the previous losers.