Do you protest? Armchair or street and does any of it matter?

[Nanny]

When I see a cyberdork all I see is a fanboi

[The Grand Nudger]

So just no hope. Collectively we are a herd and we all started running when some idiots took off towards the cliff?

Hope springs eternal.  

That's a good description for where we find ourselves.  You could call it momentum, in general.  If we stopped doing thing x...what would that do to everyone's 401k?  If the answer is gut our 401ks...we're not going to do it.  We will, eyes wide open, launch ourselves off the cliff hoping we'll be one of the lucky ones who's wealth cushions their fall.  This doesn't just describe the silliness of our society in general as it rejects change, but it also describes the silliness of many of the movements or people who wish to change that outcome.  We're already committed to the one cliff, and so arguing that we ought to launch ourselves off another is not change, it's the same bad idea.  

All of this plays out in a context where aggressively bad faith negotiators have convinced us that change is our personal and private responsibility.  That we, for example, are the ones accountable for their trash, their pollution, their wages....even as their business model is pollution and labor exploitation and welfare queening for profit.

[Ivan Denisovich]

It's even more demoralizing when uninformed deem themselves enlightened but don't realize that they're voting against their own interests.

Are you describing the dunning kruger effect?

No, it's simple idiocy and lack of class awareness. Proletariat voting for people dismantling public services is height of absurd.

[Nanny]

^screen and click zombies = engineered idiocy

[Ivan Denisovich]

^screen and click zombies = engineered idiocy

Social media certainly don't help but in Poland idiots voted against their own interests long before them.

[Jackalope]

The needle moves slowly if at all.

It seems like it's moved very quickly to the right in short order. 

I'm in agreement with Boru - waving signs and shouting slogans is far less effective than mass civil disobedience and property destruction.  Sometimes breaking the state monopoly on violence is required to effect change.

With the tech media (social media) and just strait up propaganda networks like Newsmax and Fox in their prime, doesn't any distruction just allow them to label the protest as violent at best and domestic terrorism at worst? How does that move the needle in any direction other than right when they can point to video of "thugs" harming "small business" and shout it over and over?

That's when breaking the state monopoly on violence comes into play. Does that move the needle? It's sometimes been successful in the past.

I'm not advocating for anything, simply recognizing the inevitable when no other avenues for justice and change exist.

[Goosebump]

So just no hope. Collectively we are a herd and we all started running when some idiots took off towards the cliff?

Hope springs eternal.  

That's a good description for where we find ourselves.  You could call it momentum, in general.  If we stopped doing thing x...what would that do to everyone's 401k?  If the answer is gut our 401ks...we're not going to do it.  We will, eyes wide open, launch ourselves off the cliff hoping we'll be one of the lucky ones who's wealth cushions their fall.  This doesn't just describe the silliness of our society in general as it rejects change, but it also describes the silliness of many of the movements or people who wish to change that outcome.  We're already committed to the one cliff, and so arguing that we ought to launch ourselves off another is not change, it's the same bad idea.  

All of this plays out in a context where aggressively bad faith negotiators have convinced us that change is our personal and private responsibility.  That we, for example, are the ones accountable for their trash, their pollution, their wages....even as their business model is pollution and labor exploitation and welfare queening for profit.

I'm not sure what your trying to say. "bad faith negotiators have convinced us that change is our personal and private responsibility". Who thinks this? what change, what bad faith negotiators? Your injecting to much personal shit that whatever your trying to tell me is getting lost.

[Goosebump]

It seems like it's moved very quickly to the right in short order. 



With the tech media (social media) and just strait up propaganda networks like Newsmax and Fox in their prime, doesn't any distruction just allow them to label the protest as violent at best and domestic terrorism at worst? How does that move the needle in any direction other than right when they can point to video of "thugs" harming "small business" and shout it over and over?

That's when breaking the state monopoly on violence comes into play.  Does that move the needle?  It's sometimes been successful in the past.

I'm not advocating for anything, simply recognizing the inevitable when no other avenues for justice and change exist.

I don't know what you mean by "breaking the stare monopoly on violence". I would have thought any violence would be a break in that. Such as harming a small business.

You are not advocating for anything. You said so yourself. Literally the second sentence. So why are you interested at all? Sounds like you should continue to not advocate for anything and sit back in that computer chair you have and simply recognize it's comfort?

Don't you?

[The Grand Nudger]

LO, activism is always personal. Anywho. what I mean. YOU need to change. YOU need to recycle. YOU need to pay a premium. It's never the company or the system that need to change. Needs to clean up their act. Needs to pay their fucking taxes and fines. It's a great racket they've got going.

[Mister Agenda]

That's when breaking the state monopoly on violence comes into play.  Does that move the needle?  It's sometimes been successful in the past.

I'm not advocating for anything, simply recognizing the inevitable when no other avenues for justice and change exist.

I don't know what you mean by "breaking the stare monopoly on violence". I would have thought any violence would be a break in that. Such as harming a small business.

You are not advocating for anything. You said so yourself. Literally the second sentence. So why are you interested at all? Sounds like you should continue to not advocate for anything and sit back in that computer chair you have and simply recognize it's comfort?

Don't you?

Your signature is really spot on.