/RI/ - Revolutionary Inspo

is that pisspig grandad

yes. the finest revolutionary this side of the euphrates

>bleeding out in a bath tub

effay as fuck

...

...

can you give me a quick rundown on the guy?

bless.

Charles Manson
Charles Milles Manson is an American criminal and former cult leader who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s. Wikipedia
Born: November 12, 1934 (age 82 years), Cincinnati, OH
Height: 5′ 2″

>Height: 5′ 2″

THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH

...

he's 5'6, they lying
youtube.com/watch?v=-zXYxO7-EyI
skip to the 19 minute mark
if he's a dwarf, everyone is a dwarf

CHARLES MANSON IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY; HE IS A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER.

YOU IGNORE WHAT "REVOLUTION" MEANS.

American communist who joined the ypg to fight Isis

There's an interview on chapo trap house which is p cool

You exposed yourself with that post.
Stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
However, even if he were a psychopath or murderer or even both, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he is not a revolutionary.

A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER IS NOT PSYCHOLOGICALLY APT FOR REVOLUTION.

Firstly, I don't see how that relates to Charles Manson. Secondly, psychopathy is among other things characterized by fearlessness and an ability to persuade people, two characteristics very suitable for a revolutionary leader as is the readiness to kill for the revolutionary cause.

>Firstly, I don't see how that relates to Charles Manson.

?

THE "ORIGINAL POSTER" —YOU?— IS IMPLYING THAT CHARLES MANSON IS A REVOLUTIONARY, WHICH HE IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE DUE TO HIM BEING A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER.

>Secondly, psychopathy is among other things characterized by fearlessness and an ability to persuade people, two characteristics very suitable for a revolutionary leader as is the readiness to kill for the revolutionary cause.

1. FEARLESSNESS, AND SOCIAL MANIPULATION SKILLS, ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO PSYCHOPATHS, OR TO PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS.

2. THE FEARLESSNESS, AND SOCIAL MANIPULATION SKILLS, OF PSYCHOPATHS, AND PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF NONPSYCHOPATHS, AND NONPSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS.

PSYCHOPATHS, AND PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, LACK SELFCONSCIOUSNESS, A LACK IN WHICH SEVERAL OTHER RELATED IMPAIRMENTS ARE ROOTED, AMONG WHICH ARE INCLUDED EMPATHETIC IMPAIRMENT, AND IMPAIRED DISCERNMENT —BOTH OF THEM CRITICAL QUALITIES FOR REVOLUTION.

PSYCHOPATHS, AND PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, ARE APT REVOLTERS, NOT REVOLUTIONARIES.

3. WILLINGNESS TO KILL FOR A PURPOSE IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO PSYCHOPATHS, NOR TO PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, NOR DOES WILLINGNESS TO KILL FOR A PURPOSE REQUIRE EMPATHETIC IMPAIRMENT.

IT IS BETTER IF THOSE WHO HAVE A PURPOSE FOR WHICH KILLING IS NECESSARY ARE NOT EMPATHETICALLY IMPAIRED, BECAUSE THAT WAY THEY WOULD ONLY KILL WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, CONTRARY TO A SIMILARLY PURPOSEFUL INDIVIDUAL WHO IS EMPATHETICALLY IMPAIRED, AND WHO WOULD KILL WITHOUT CONCERN.

Firstly, you still haven't explained how the shortcomings of a psychopathic murderer are in any way related to Charles Manson. Secondly, your strawman of Charles Manson as a psychopathic murderer being unfit for your theoretical revolution does not change the fact that he was in fact an important figure in a small peaceful revolutionary movement. Thirdly, there are many kinds of revolutions and many people people of different kinds are more or less suitable for different functions within a revolutionary movement, some of which may require a lack of empathy or self-awareness, qualities that are also not exclusive to psychopaths.

Revolution doesn't need to have a cause that you personally believe in. Revolution by definition is nonpartisan, a revolution can be made by psychopathic individuals to further whatever they want, as long as it disrupts an established system.

>PSYCHOPATHS, AND PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, ARE APT REVOLTERS, NOT REVOLUTIONARIES.

Is there a distinction between the two that I'm missing? If by revolt you mean to rise in rebellion, is that not the same as being a revolutionary - an overthrower of a social order in favor of a new system.

>Revolution doesn't need to have a cause that you personally believe in.

YES, IT DOES.

>Revolution by definition is nonpartisan, a revolution can be made by psychopathic individuals to further whatever they want, as long as it disrupts an established system.

YOU ARE DESCRIBING A REVOLT, NOT A REVOLUTION.

>>PSYCHOPATHS, AND PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS, ARE APT REVOLTERS, NOT REVOLUTIONARIES.

>Is there a distinction between the two that I'm missing?

EVIDENTLY, YES.

>If by revolt you mean to rise in rebellion, is that not the same as being a revolutionary - an overthrower of a social order in favor of a new system.

NO.

REVOLUTION: A RADICAL CHANGE OF CONDITIONS VIA MARTIAL STRUGGLE —AN AUTHENTIC REBELLION.

REVOLT: AN EXTREME DISTURBANCE IN CONDITIONS VIA STRIFE —A SUPERFLUOUS REBELLION.

I said you personally, not the individual in general.

Where did you find those definitions? I have a feeling you've made them yourself based on the context you've seen them used in rather than the actual definitions.

Wow, this thread went to shit.

>5'6
>not a manlet
Choose one.

Not 5'2 though.

Charlie's a dumbshit, though; just really not very bright at all. His "persuasion" consists entirely of manipulating naive, formerly middle-class chicks who were perm-fried on shitloads of highly potent acid. Any dumbass lacking in moral character could have done exactly the same thing, and probably done it better. Plus, like literally all serial killers, without exception, he's an asshole.

no you