Far more people than you seem to think so are feeling up to it, risk of bodily harm nonwithstanding. That same history shows that whole lots of people do and have gotten that fed up.
The current challenge imo is the hyperfocused and extremely well funded tools to disorganize and fracture populaces globally.
They are so abstract, so psychologically targeted and so pervasive that they enable the rise of fascism again even though many of the players are frankly cartoonishly inept (more so than in the past; fascism is cunning and bullish, but seldom clever) to the point that the banality of evil of yesterday is nearly preferable to the bumbling cruelty of today.
Yes, still feeling up to it, but while the precipice nears, there’s still both time to turn the car around and get ready to violently brake. We’re just careful drivers until there’s a need to maneuver.
When doing nothing becomes so intolerable and the potential gain is high enough to make the risk of death is worth taking then the answer becomes “yes”. That’s why people don’t take extreme actions easily.
Putting it another way, if enough people are willing to take big risks, then the status quo must be pretty damned awful in their view.
If you live inside the heart of the West, your life is still good enough—yes, even those struggling and clinging on the edges of poverty—and the bread and circuses still mostly work as distractions. But the world isn’t only the West. There are plenty in the other 6/7 of humanity who are willing to die for the hope of change. Life was hard before, but having endured impacts of a global pandemic, wars, and starvation, people are getting pushed to their limit. We are seeing many sparks of revolution starting to light on the dark prairie.
How many of them are fighting for the “right” reasons? How many of them will end up in a better place? Nobody knows. But if even one or two turn into full-on fires, things will certainly get shaken up. And thereafter, unlike the Arab Spring days, there are Global South countries arising that are strong and wealthy enough to lend a hand, whose national interests lie toward helping regions to transition toward stability after any social blowups.
At some point, change will come upon us, and we won’t have any say in how peaceful or violent it will be.
a whole lot of people need to be ready to die for the cause for social change to happen.
For the change to not happen, a whole lot of people need to be ready to keep dying from the status quo. It’s incredible that some people still think a war isn’t being waged when we don’t resist the oppression and exploitation. Here you are implying those who are ready to fight for themselves—and for you!—are your enemies, when your real enemies know the lesson you refuse to learn:
There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.
—Warren Buffett
So, still feeling like leaving us all to continue being slowly murdered as you sit and do nothing?
Nope. That’s really not the question, in fact. What a shitty, boring, “utilitarian” view of the struggle for liberation. Why are you even in this community, liberal?
Yes, it’s exactly the question that needs to be asked in relation to my original argument. If people feel that more will die from a revolution than from the status quo then good luck convincing people to increase their chance to die.
Heck, the fact that we’re here and able to discuss this in the first place shows how spoiled we are even if things aren’t as good as they could be. People that are really poor don’t have a computer or a cellphone to communicate on a niche website.
People in first world countries are walking with a pebble in their shoe and some are complaining that we need to stop and remove it, the majority doesn’t care when they see people from third world countries walking with a broken foot.
The entirety of history also shows that a whole lot of people need to be ready to die for the cause for social change to happen.
So, still feeling up for it?
That is the question:
live in an unjust and amoral society
or die trying to make a righteous one.
The stoics, at least Seneca, opted for the former.
He really wasn’t given much of a choice. He just chose his stance on the one option he had.
Seneca was one of the wealthiest Romans of his time.
He more than 99% of the Empire had a choice. He happened to be rich and choose status quo. Who ever would have guessed that ?
I think I confused Seneca with Socrates (head-slap…)
. . . and realize that your new, righteous society will quickly collapse into corruption and amorality because a society is filled with people.
The best way is to just nuke each other to oblivion then.
I’m beginning to think so.
Far more people than you seem to think so are feeling up to it, risk of bodily harm nonwithstanding. That same history shows that whole lots of people do and have gotten that fed up.
The current challenge imo is the hyperfocused and extremely well funded tools to disorganize and fracture populaces globally.
They are so abstract, so psychologically targeted and so pervasive that they enable the rise of fascism again even though many of the players are frankly cartoonishly inept (more so than in the past; fascism is cunning and bullish, but seldom clever) to the point that the banality of evil of yesterday is nearly preferable to the bumbling cruelty of today.
Yes, still feeling up to it, but while the precipice nears, there’s still both time to turn the car around and get ready to violently brake. We’re just careful drivers until there’s a need to maneuver.
Joke’s on you, I already wish I was dead
When doing nothing becomes so intolerable and the potential gain is high enough to make the risk of death is worth taking then the answer becomes “yes”. That’s why people don’t take extreme actions easily.
Putting it another way, if enough people are willing to take big risks, then the status quo must be pretty damned awful in their view.
They’re gonna kill me if I don’t
If you live inside the heart of the West, your life is still good enough—yes, even those struggling and clinging on the edges of poverty—and the bread and circuses still mostly work as distractions. But the world isn’t only the West. There are plenty in the other 6/7 of humanity who are willing to die for the hope of change. Life was hard before, but having endured impacts of a global pandemic, wars, and starvation, people are getting pushed to their limit. We are seeing many sparks of revolution starting to light on the dark prairie.
How many of them are fighting for the “right” reasons? How many of them will end up in a better place? Nobody knows. But if even one or two turn into full-on fires, things will certainly get shaken up. And thereafter, unlike the Arab Spring days, there are Global South countries arising that are strong and wealthy enough to lend a hand, whose national interests lie toward helping regions to transition toward stability after any social blowups.
At some point, change will come upon us, and we won’t have any say in how peaceful or violent it will be.
For the change to not happen, a whole lot of people need to be ready to keep dying from the status quo. It’s incredible that some people still think a war isn’t being waged when we don’t resist the oppression and exploitation. Here you are implying those who are ready to fight for themselves—and for you!—are your enemies, when your real enemies know the lesson you refuse to learn:
So, still feeling like leaving us all to continue being slowly murdered as you sit and do nothing?
The question is, do you think more will die from the status quo or from a revolution?
Nope. That’s really not the question, in fact. What a shitty, boring, “utilitarian” view of the struggle for liberation. Why are you even in this community, liberal?
Yes, it’s exactly the question that needs to be asked in relation to my original argument. If people feel that more will die from a revolution than from the status quo then good luck convincing people to increase their chance to die.
Heck, the fact that we’re here and able to discuss this in the first place shows how spoiled we are even if things aren’t as good as they could be. People that are really poor don’t have a computer or a cellphone to communicate on a niche website.
People in first world countries are walking with a pebble in their shoe and some are complaining that we need to stop and remove it, the majority doesn’t care when they see people from third world countries walking with a broken foot.
Yes, I get it. Already got it, in fact. But thanks anyway for reporting on yourself.