So I'm sure they want to crack down, but cracking down without a casus belli leads to a reaction. Look at Turkey and the aftermath of the Gulen coup attempt, for example. I'm sure Erdogan wanted to crack down before, but he was only able to get away with it afterwards. Or the US Injustice system after Jan 6.
What I mean to say is that trying and failing just strengthens the ruling order. If you're going to aim at the king and all.
And I know that this is probably an excuse for people to not put their comfortable lives at risk, myself included, but I also think that it's true at this moment.
Ok, I guess I can see that. I just think the constant refrain of "don't resist the abuse or your abuser will have an excuse to abuse you" doesn't sit right and conditions meek and defeatist behavior. Maybe the response shouldn't be "put up with it for now" so much as it should be "ok, time to destroy the entirety of society because this isn't working anymore." Just go for a wholly disproportionate response.
The missing ingredient here is identifying an effective response and coordinating it. I agree that individuals just lashing out in anger serves zero purpose, so there needs to be something more thought out before action of any sort gets taken.
I just think the constant refrain of "don't resist the abuse or your abuser will have an excuse to abuse you" doesn't sit right and conditions meek and defeatist behavior
Resistance comes in many forms. I'm not sure as to how credible they are, so take it with the appropriate amount of salt, but there has been research suggesting that non-violent democratic resistance movements are more effective than violent ones.
There is a vast realm between "do nothing" and "take up arms and start shooting at the nearest government employee". I believe in doing everything to discredit the established order in the meantime.
I do share your annoyance that people here, in an understandable effort to avoid entrapment, opposed any sort of protest because they thought it would be another Jan 6.
Just go for a wholly disproportionate response.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
The missing ingredient here is identifying an effective response and coordinating it.
I can tell you that while Europeans are extremely fed up with the established order, they are not going to rise up just yet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 20 years. Maybe never. But a failed attempt, the abusers would have yet more excuse to abuse us, and we would all be forced to condemn it - all the attention would move from ruling class abuses to the alleged abuses of one loner.
So I'm open-minded. I'm not on principle opposed to anything. A dying man will grasp at anything. But I don't see a realistic path.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals. Everything else is an academic smokescreen to obfuscate that reality. I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence. Dress it up all you like but that's the reality at the end of the day.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals
It's very easy when it is. But non-violent resistance can be used to put pressure on a government. USAID is actually very good at that. In 2005, they had the Ukrainian pro-EU opposition peacefully protest and put enough pressure on the government to redo an election that they claimed was stolen.
It's a very powerful weapon. This is why so many governments restrict criticism in media, demonstrations, etc - because it does work to mobilize people and put pressure on the government.
I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence.
Did he say it before Mao?
I agree. But you only get away with using the violence if the people believe that it is legitimate. I beleive it's Orwell who said that all governments rule by fraud and force, and when the fraud is gone, they have to rely solely on force. That is a helpful mask-off moment.
So I'm sure they want to crack down, but cracking down without a casus belli leads to a reaction. Look at Turkey and the aftermath of the Gulen coup attempt, for example. I'm sure Erdogan wanted to crack down before, but he was only able to get away with it afterwards. Or the US Injustice system after Jan 6.
What I mean to say is that trying and failing just strengthens the ruling order. If you're going to aim at the king and all.
And I know that this is probably an excuse for people to not put their comfortable lives at risk, myself included, but I also think that it's true at this moment.
Ok, I guess I can see that. I just think the constant refrain of "don't resist the abuse or your abuser will have an excuse to abuse you" doesn't sit right and conditions meek and defeatist behavior. Maybe the response shouldn't be "put up with it for now" so much as it should be "ok, time to destroy the entirety of society because this isn't working anymore." Just go for a wholly disproportionate response.
The missing ingredient here is identifying an effective response and coordinating it. I agree that individuals just lashing out in anger serves zero purpose, so there needs to be something more thought out before action of any sort gets taken.
Resistance comes in many forms. I'm not sure as to how credible they are, so take it with the appropriate amount of salt, but there has been research suggesting that non-violent democratic resistance movements are more effective than violent ones.
There is a vast realm between "do nothing" and "take up arms and start shooting at the nearest government employee". I believe in doing everything to discredit the established order in the meantime.
I do share your annoyance that people here, in an understandable effort to avoid entrapment, opposed any sort of protest because they thought it would be another Jan 6.
To be honest, I'm not sure your second example is disproportionate.
I can tell you that while Europeans are extremely fed up with the established order, they are not going to rise up just yet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe in 20 years. Maybe never. But a failed attempt, the abusers would have yet more excuse to abuse us, and we would all be forced to condemn it - all the attention would move from ruling class abuses to the alleged abuses of one loner.
So I'm open-minded. I'm not on principle opposed to anything. A dying man will grasp at anything. But I don't see a realistic path.
Non-violent resistance only really works if the people already in power are sympathetic to your goals. Everything else is an academic smokescreen to obfuscate that reality. I'm very much in the Robert Heinlein camp that all authority is ultimately derived from a capacity and a willingness to employ violence. Dress it up all you like but that's the reality at the end of the day.
Ha!
It's very easy when it is. But non-violent resistance can be used to put pressure on a government. USAID is actually very good at that. In 2005, they had the Ukrainian pro-EU opposition peacefully protest and put enough pressure on the government to redo an election that they claimed was stolen.
It's a very powerful weapon. This is why so many governments restrict criticism in media, demonstrations, etc - because it does work to mobilize people and put pressure on the government.
Did he say it before Mao?
I agree. But you only get away with using the violence if the people believe that it is legitimate. I beleive it's Orwell who said that all governments rule by fraud and force, and when the fraud is gone, they have to rely solely on force. That is a helpful mask-off moment.