You can't put down a revolution. .. So you're saying that if the machines had lost it would have been called industrial rebellion?
x
Click to expand

Comments(70):

[ 70 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - ganjalf (09/25/2013) [-]
So you're saying that if the machines had lost it would have been called industrial rebellion?
#21 to #2 - anon (09/26/2013) [-]
Read that about ten minutes ago and I'm still laughing...
User avatar #40 to #2 - thepyras (09/26/2013) [-]
Actually, yes. If those who wanted to make the world more industrial had failed, if for some reason there was an uprising of people who wanted to maintain "traditional" labor and said group had won, the event would be called the Industrial Rebellion.
User avatar #45 to #40 - ecalycptus (09/26/2013) [-]
But there was an uprising of people who wanted to maintain "traditional" labor...
User avatar #48 to #45 - thepyras (09/26/2013) [-]
But they didn't win.
#49 to #48 - ecalycptus (09/26/2013) [-]
Now, I want a book or movie of what the world would have been if the industrial Revolution failed because of said group but at the same time, technological advance were made...   
   
This is not the same thing as steam punk.   
   
Only image I have of "traditional" labor.  Close enough
Now, I want a book or movie of what the world would have been if the industrial Revolution failed because of said group but at the same time, technological advance were made...

This is not the same thing as steam punk.

Only image I have of "traditional" labor. Close enough
0
#63 to #49 - adplum has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #49 - zight ONLINE (09/26/2013) [-]
wtf is this
User avatar #5 to #2 - biscuitsunited (09/25/2013) [-]
yes
User avatar #3 - leapinglizard (09/25/2013) [-]
am i the only one who has an issue with the B?
User avatar #39 to #3 - homebray (09/26/2013) [-]
Yes. I am so rustled right now...
User avatar #4 to #3 - muffinrelapse (09/25/2013) [-]
i didnt notice it, read your comment, now i hate you ..
#23 - juliaawesomepants (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm just gonna go ahead and quote Wicked here:
"A man's called a traitor
Or a liberator.
A rich man's a thief
Or a philanthropist.
Is one a crusader,
Or a ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist."
#44 - hauptishere (09/26/2013) [-]
"There are still those in the seven kingdoms that call me Usurper".
User avatar #32 - Onemanretardpack (09/26/2013) [-]
I like to think of it like this. Revolution is like, " **** this, let's change **** !". And rebellion is like " **** this, you suck, we're gonna wreck some **** "
#53 - theygotgrapedrink (09/26/2013) [-]
why not rebelution?

i tried
#52 - tastycrisps (09/26/2013) [-]
As my 10th grade English teacher once said,

"It's not called treason if you win. It's called a revolution. Imagine if the U.S. had lost in the American war for independence. The war would not have been called the "American Revolution", it would be called the "Treasonous rebellion of Great Britain's colonies.""

#58 to #52 - medewu (09/26/2013) [-]
Exactly, even the founding fathers said it themselves, that if they had lost the Revolution, they would be tried for treason, for their actions they were all traitors to the crown. Yet, now we look back at history and honor them as patriots, and while at the same time someone who was loyal to the crown who lost, as the traitor....

User avatar #8 - nucularwar (09/26/2013) [-]
The Rebel Alliance won.
User avatar #1 - discipleofdafunk (09/25/2013) [-]
The winner writes the history. *Nodnod*
#25 - legitpedobear (09/26/2013) [-]
I think it's safe to say that Star Wars has effectively disproved this.
I think it's safe to say that Star Wars has effectively disproved this.
User avatar #55 to #25 - BruisingPrune (09/26/2013) [-]
To be fair, I don't think a fictional story can really prove or disprove anything
#31 to #25 - anon (09/26/2013) [-]
You do remember that Star Wars is a work of fiction right?
User avatar #41 to #25 - commontroll (09/26/2013) [-]
But, they were called the Rebels by the Empire. They hadn't won yet.

Besides, all they did was kill the evil space wizard in his magic planet-destroying moon ship. They didn't topple the empire, just destabilized it. After that there would be hundreds of factions all vying for power, even the rebels would break into other factions.
User avatar #54 - sepheroth (09/26/2013) [-]
A domestic terrorist is just a revolutionary that hasn't won.
User avatar #37 - Crusader (09/26/2013) [-]
Yes, that is the technical difference.
Rebellion - A failed or in progress uprising
Revolution - A successful or in progress uprising
#38 - foromil (09/26/2013) [-]
Revolution: The forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.    
You can't overthrow something unless you win, so... yeah. You're correct. It should be obvious, but you're correct.
Revolution: The forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
You can't overthrow something unless you win, so... yeah. You're correct. It should be obvious, but you're correct.
#17 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
I still think that the South should have won that damn war...not just because I'm from the South but because things would have been a lot better off.
There's a lot of misconceptions about the C.S.A.
#27 to #17 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
Right a bunch of incompetent jackasses who ruined their economy, then drove a country into war should have won. Right.
User avatar #36 to #27 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
Uhh-huh...and on what grounds are they incompetent and ruined their economy?
Furthermore, how did they "drive the nation into war"?
#66 to #36 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
The cash crops industry was on a downturn in the 1850s. Their response was to vastly increase supply of said cash crops. This caused a complete crash of the industry by the 1860s. Instead of acknowledging their way of life as unsustainable they turned to the government, and stirred **** . After losing (and assassinating the only man to call of leniency for them) they still cry about the injustices they supposedly faced, while creating the greatest lies imaginable to cover their asses. What ever they got, they deserved.

But keep believing they're a crusading force for state's rights if you want.
User avatar #46 to #27 - vicsix (09/26/2013) [-]
Ruined the economy. The cotton and farming industry was heavily worked in the south. They ran a good portion of the economy. And they didn't drive the country into a war, the government taxed the right hell out of the south, putting most smaller farms and ranches into debt. They seceded to get away from that. Calling them incompetent or jack asses just makes you an idiot.
User avatar #67 to #46 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
It always amazes me how "Southern Pride" still survives. They have nothing to be prideful of.
0
#35 to #27 - unncommon has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #18 to #17 - smashingkills (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm guessing slavery would've continued if the South had won, I don't see good reason they should have won. I am from the south, by the way.
User avatar #22 to #18 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
Actually, the Southerners weren't racists. They had planned to introduce them gradually into society so there'd not be any negative repercussions. The British did that to their credit,, they introduced them back to society and look at the black people of England compared to the black people of America, American blacks are a hell of a lot worse. That's because they were thrown into society and Lincoln was like "Good luck, assholes." Imagine being put into slavery in an alien world, there was a lot of aliens that thought you were inferior. Then one day you were just thrown into alien life with no job, no decent understanding of the language, and no respect.

Southerners actually treated blacks very well, you can look at instances where blacks were put into the military of the South and they ate in the same quarters, fought in the same ranks, and had the same respect. Then you look at the Yankees tossing blacks into the Army and the officers put them into separate divisions and looked down upon them, then the average white units got into fights and even killed them.
User avatar #28 to #22 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
Source, or shut the **** up. Biggest load of **** I've seen since the last davidson post.
User avatar #65 to #34 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
LOL I ask for sources you provide southern pride sites? Really bro?
User avatar #68 to #65 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
I never knew that 'listverse' and 'libertyclassroom' were "southern pride"? And maybe if you looked at the sources you'd learn something new.
Regardless of the intention of making the websites they're factually accurate, you should check sources.
On a side-note there were more where that blank space is. I had 6, two of which "southern pride" sites.
User avatar #69 to #68 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
Never ceases to amaze the lengths the defeated will go to attempt to prove they were innocent. "It's on the internet and well written! It must be factual!"
#70 to #69 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
You asked for sources, you got sources.
Now you're complaining because I have you sources?
Usually when someone's losing something they fall back to emotion and away from logic. When you argue with emotion you're either insulting someone or looking for sympathy. This tactic usually works on women, not on I, however.

Anyways, I've made my point and I've made it quite efficient. I've got better things to do. (P.s., you might want to do some research on debating, you may have had a good point to make...but you didn't make it. Read this poster and it might help you make a more valid argument next time.)
#71 to #70 - dwarfman (09/26/2013) [-]
Don't post that picture when you're 			************		. I asked for sourcework you provided me bias sources, run by bigger idiots than you. There are dozens of sites with essays, text books and the like (Such as Ebsco) instead you give me"Southern Pride the Confederacy will rise again!" There is no emotion to this, and you ignored my explanation of the destruction of their economy. They knew their way of life was unsustainable but made it a political issue as they were afraid. Nor does this have anything to do with black folks, it is the problem of an incompetent Noble class running society. They pushed their nation into war for selfish reasons, and 625,000 dead. So again: 			****		 the south, 			****		 their pride, 			****		 them for destroying themselves.
Don't post that picture when you're ************ . I asked for sourcework you provided me bias sources, run by bigger idiots than you. There are dozens of sites with essays, text books and the like (Such as Ebsco) instead you give me"Southern Pride the Confederacy will rise again!" There is no emotion to this, and you ignored my explanation of the destruction of their economy. They knew their way of life was unsustainable but made it a political issue as they were afraid. Nor does this have anything to do with black folks, it is the problem of an incompetent Noble class running society. They pushed their nation into war for selfish reasons, and 625,000 dead. So again: **** the south, **** their pride, **** them for destroying themselves.
User avatar #56 to #34 - vicsix (09/26/2013) [-]
I'm not disagreeing, and actually agree with you a lot, but the south was Democratic at that time period.
User avatar #64 to #56 - unncommon (09/26/2013) [-]
I know, it totally was. But that picture is the only one I can find in my reaction folder with the rebel flag... ******* thing cleaned out on me last week.
User avatar #42 to #18 - commontroll (09/26/2013) [-]
It would have continued, but eventually would have died out due to it becoming inefficient. Besides, only the rich had slaves by that time. Most of them just fought for their country, and wanted to be represented by people who were in similar situations.

I'm not saying it's bad they lost, just that it wouldn't be as bad as everybody thinks. Also, as you know (since you're Southern) both sides in those days ******* sucked ass.
User avatar #30 - alternatemusicyeah (09/26/2013) [-]
That"s why the Stormcloaks say they have a __rebellion_ , ALL HAIL THE EMPIRE!
#33 to #30 - anon (09/26/2013) [-]
The stormcloaks need to understand that the umpire isn't anti-talos. The aldmeri dominion would have wiped out all who opposed them, and the empire was doing what it had to do to save itself and its people. That being said, HAIL THE MIGHTY GOD TALOS! DEATH TO ALL WHO OPPOSE HIS MIGHT. (stormcloaks=good, Ulfric=whiny bitch who not for the people or talos, but for power)
User avatar #47 to #33 - vicsix (09/26/2013) [-]
If you go by a person who has at least 100 hours on his game, the dragonborn alone would win the ******* war.
User avatar #11 - desuforeverlulz (09/26/2013) [-]
History is written by the victors.
#51 - FightClub (09/26/2013) [-]
uh, no dumbass. they're completely equal synonyms, no differences in the terms. the morons below claim there is a difference, but there isn't. insurrection, rebellion, revolution, insurgence; all equal words that could be used interchangeably in any instance. educate yourself on vocabulary.
User avatar #60 to #51 - ryapr (09/26/2013) [-]
no need to be a douche canoe, It's simply a statement of connotation v. denotation.
User avatar #62 - spacecase (09/26/2013) [-]


Those who win the war,.....................get to write history




#59 - tyraxio (09/26/2013) [-]
I don't think that's true. I think it's a lot more simple than that.

A revolution brings about something new. That is, a rebellion which changes a government type or school of thought or something og the like. A rebellion (while technically this could be a failed revolution) would be more like a revolution with less of a cause as such, and not bringing about big changes in society.
[ 70 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)