The deterrence isn't the chance of being called fraudulent, which can happen regardless, it's the chance of actually being caught with a smoking gun. Yeah some people will claim election fraud based on nothing more than losing. But if they claim election fraud with actual evidence of tampering then it gets serious for a lot more people. And if they have evidence of tampering large enough to shift the outcome then shit gets real. The more people are riled up beforehand the more people will be going out of their way to scrutinize the actual voting process for shady maneuvers, and the greater the risk of being caught if you do decide to actually fuck with the results.
The media are an institutional giant, but they don't actually have a total monopoly on communication. It doesn't matter who they hear it from just so long as they hear it. Sure most people heard about BLM through the mainstream media, but that's not the only model you can build.
The people he was going to convince, are convinced
Not at all, the general populace is forgetful and fickle, there are many people who might even be 100% convinced right now but if talk stopped they would probably forget those convictions long before voting started for the next election. Actual change in behaviours with large populations involves constant, tiresome reinforcement over long periods. Stop focusing on it too quickly and they tend to spring back to old behaviours once the pressure is off, or flip to whatever the next social pressure encourages. Doesn't matter if it has the opposite effect on you, the evidence is that overall for the general population repetitive hammering of a point ad nauseam works to keep them primed to pay more attention when new developments do occur.
The difference is that "don't invade Ukraine" is a 95-5 proposition there.
That's not the proposition I was talking about. The proposition I'm talking about is "would you, an relatively affluent, untrained and ineffectual civilian like to take this gun and go die for this government, rather than begrudgingly accept that new, invading government?". It's hard to put a number on how that's splitting, but it sure seems higher than you'd expect if they hadn't had 6 years of priming to fight.
Not for a moment to they believe that the most heavily militarized state in human history could be 'overthrown' by an unarmed group of overweight boomers.
Yeah, I know, they weren't even really trying to, that's why I said it's their fantasy. Doesn't mean that if a portion of the population decided it was time to seriously try, perhaps based on evidence of organized election fraud comprehensive enough to practically count as a coup, that it wouldn't be extremely costly and something to avoid. They don't need to have a good chance of success, they just have to be mad enough to go all-in. Like a civilian taking up arms against against an army that their own country's professional military couldn't stand up to.
The deterrence isn't the chance of being called fraudulent, which can happen regardless, it's the chance of actually being caught with a smoking gun. Yeah some people will claim election fraud based on nothing more than losing. But if they claim election fraud with actual evidence of tampering then it gets serious for a lot more people. And if they have evidence of tampering large enough to shift the outcome then shit gets real. The more people are riled up beforehand the more people will be going out of their way to scrutinize the actual voting process for shady maneuvers, and the greater the risk of being caught if you do decide to actually fuck with the results.
The media are an institutional giant, but they don't actually have a total monopoly on communication. It doesn't matter who they hear it from just so long as they hear it. Sure most people heard about BLM through the mainstream media, but that's not the only model you can build.
Not at all, the general populace is forgetful and fickle, there are many people who might even be 100% convinced right now but if talk stopped they would probably forget those convictions long before voting started for the next election. Actual change in behaviours with large populations involves constant, tiresome reinforcement over long periods. Stop focusing on it too quickly and they tend to spring back to old behaviours once the pressure is off, or flip to whatever the next social pressure encourages. Doesn't matter if it has the opposite effect on you, the evidence is that overall for the general population repetitive hammering of a point ad nauseam works to keep them primed to pay more attention when new developments do occur.
That's not the proposition I was talking about. The proposition I'm talking about is "would you, an relatively affluent, untrained and ineffectual civilian like to take this gun and go die for this government, rather than begrudgingly accept that new, invading government?". It's hard to put a number on how that's splitting, but it sure seems higher than you'd expect if they hadn't had 6 years of priming to fight.
Yeah, I know, they weren't even really trying to, that's why I said it's their fantasy. Doesn't mean that if a portion of the population decided it was time to seriously try, perhaps based on evidence of organized election fraud comprehensive enough to practically count as a coup, that it wouldn't be extremely costly and something to avoid. They don't need to have a good chance of success, they just have to be mad enough to go all-in. Like a civilian taking up arms against against an army that their own country's professional military couldn't stand up to.