Anonymous #2 22h

2/2 for someone else’s profit. Stirring people into emotional frenzies often enough has unintended results. 🫶

0

Anonymous #2 22h

What’s always funny is that without fail, the power vacuum left after a sufficiently successful uprising is almost certainly going to be filled with a dictatorship. They might cover themselves in a guise of some other governmental system, but it’s almost always totalitarian in some form.

1

Anonymous #2 21h

I'm talking about people who pour all their energy into pressure valves like permitted marches on a route the city picked. Disruption doesn't mean sabotage. Strikes, boycotts, rent strikes, and mass noncooperation are what historically forced concessions. Calling any real resistance "treason" is exactly how protest gets kept polite and harmless.

3

Anonymous #1 21h

That's not automatic. It's a story that keeps people complacent. Chenoweth & Stephan studied 300+ campaigns from 1900 to 2006. Nonviolent resistance succeeded about twice as often as armed uprisings and far more often ended in democracy, not dictatorship. The vacuum problem is real for armed overthrow. It's an argument for mass noncooperation, not against disruption.

4

Anonymous OP 21h

I mean I may be splitting hairs here, but I was more responding to the comment where they talk about sabotage and destruction. I was operating on the assumption that we were talking about violent protest and the results of it.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

When did I say any of that? Assumptions make an ass out of you and I

5

Anonymous OP 21h

Specification is important in these things. This is true. “Disrupting systems” is language used in both legislation to counter cyber attacks and what has been prosecuted in the past where people attacked the energy grid. Won’t go into details on how that played out for professional reasons, but we do have foreign agents in the USA attempting to steer discourse towards actual sabotage. I think last year there was a very high profile arrest of Chinese nationals… might be two years ago?

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

Destruction isn't automatically violence. Every act of creation clears something away, the way Shiva destroys so Brahma can create. What I want destroyed is the system's grip on people, the dependence, the habit of asking permission, the belief that a permitted march is the most you're allowed to do. That happens through strikes, boycotts, and building alternatives, not by attacking a substation.

3

Anonymous OP 21h

Two nations come to mind who made it SOP to take a message like yours and hijack movements to try to get citizens to do far more than what you just specified.

-1

Anonymous #2 21h

I never mentioned the grid, infrastructure, or sabotage. You brought that in, and now you're implying anyone who wants more than permitted marches might be a foreign asset. That's straight out of COINTELPRO: make radical ideas look like a security threat so nobody has to engage with them. My point stands. Pressure valves vent anger without changing anything. Real change comes from strikes, boycotts, and building alternatives.

6

Anonymous #2 21h

By that logic, no one can criticize the government, because a foreign state might amplify it. That standard would have silenced abolitionists, suffragists, and the labor movement. Someone else possibly misusing an idea isn't an argument against the idea. People do need to do more, and it starts in the mind: refusing to believe a permitted march is the limit of what we're allowed to want.

4

Anonymous #2 21h

For the record, I don't believe in nations or the divisions they create. I don't believe in control societies or the surveillance state. So "foreign agents" doesn't mean anything to me. No government, ours or anyone else's, gets to decide what I'm allowed to want. Freedom doesn't come from picking the right empire. It comes from people refusing to be managed, and that starts in the mind.

3

Anonymous OP 21h

I do criticize our own government. That’s very important. Both people outside and within our own government must remain vigilant against internal corruption. The war should have never been on drugs or terrorism. The only concept we should be at war with is corruption.

0

Anonymous OP 21h

I’m not implying anything. I asked because I observed that pattern lead to attempts at sabotage in the past. Perhaps I should have phrased my question less comedically and more formally? It wasn’t meant to be like “you are now under investigation!” Toned.

0

Anonymous OP 21h

Although you might be under investigation… seems like the FBI was being deceptive about a local investigation recently (not sure what part of the country you’re in OP) so it’s probably best we both remain vigilant against both internal government corruption and foreign interest corruption. You and I don’t have to be a part of factions that would attempt to do us and our loved ones harm, other people do see themselves as parts of factionalized thinking, so to ignore their existence would be unwis

0

Anonymous #2 18h

Corruption isn't a few bad actors inside the hierarchy. It's the hierarchy itself. Concentrated, unequal power corrupts whoever holds it. Lord Acton said it, and research backs it: Galinsky and Keltner found that feeling powerful measurably reduces empathy and perspective-taking. Vigilance is good, but you can't watchdog your way out of a structure built to concentrate power.

1