4 ms·

It will fail when quality of life degrades quickly enough for the have nots (most of us). As in we can't afford a roof of the non-roach motel kind even with wel

by bfrog 9y ago

It will fail when quality of life degrades quickly enough for the have nots (most of us). As in we can't afford a roof of the non-roach motel kind even with well above median wages (already true). Can't afford to get sick (been true). At what point do these sorts of situations go from "well, thats just the way things are now" to "burn this mother down" is playing the lotto, but I'd say the odds are moving towards "burn it down" on the daily.

logfromblammo 9y ago
I don't know... the blatantly corrupt behavior of several of the world's most prominent government officials has got me sharpening my peasant's pitchfork, refueling my castle-burning torch, and thinking "soon". But they have these fancy stab-resistant vests and flame-retardant castle treatments now, so I'm not entirely sure if I can accomplish anything significant without a howling, bloodthirsty mob behind me. It wasn't the existence of ultra-rich jerks. At least Jobs and Bezos could bring product to market. Those guys, I didn't have to worry about when I'm not buying from them. It's when the wealthies get involved in government and start changing the rules for their own benefit that makes me want to start weaving some head-catcher baskets. I can stand just being relatively poor compared to some other person. I can't stand being oppressed and exploited, or having my personal agency removed, by people incapable of even feigning empathy. Their mistake was not in being rich, but in allowing themselves to believe that wealth correlates with superiority. Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. A lot of people are drooling over the special counsel investigations, and hoping to check a few trends with the midterm elections. The majority still wants peaceful resolution for their political issues, but a lot of people have given up on that. If it ever does flip to "burn it all down", that will go a lot faster than most people can react to it.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (which typically ends badly, if you read history), but nobody wants to head over to a church or school on a Tuesday in August. Nobody wants to go to city council meetings. Nobody wants to run for one of the many uncontested local elections in their area. By the time you need your guns, you’ve already lost. It’s much easier, and much more likely, to change the system slowly and deliberately. That’s not to say you shouldn’t protest, or even strike, but there is so much unseized political power in America, and too much of it is simply because of apathy.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.
    - tachyoff 9y ago
      > Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Yes, that's called "human organizations" and it happens wherever there are three or more people trying to do a thing. :) Politicking is messy and difficult because humans are messy and difficult. To be honest, it's amazing we've made it this far. > It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. And my argument is that people who think that we'd be better off with a "full rewrite" (and I know several of them) are ignorant of history and the civic structures that exist around them that are absolutely available to anyone willing to participate. It's not hard to get on a school board, or become a county commissioner. Those things aren't necessarily easy like microwaving a burrito is easy, but they're not necessarily difficult like getting a PhD is difficult. That is to say, yes, politicking takes work, but that shouldn't be unexpected or surprising. > You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Zoning changes are probably better handled by voting for better city council members and attending meetings, for example; a strike won't particularly help there. And yes, part of democracy means losing. Sometimes you lose a whole hell of a lot. I think what people (particularly the left, as of late) tend to forget is that sometimes when you lose it's because the people in your city, district, etc. actually have a different enough point of view that they can get their changes enacted. In other words, it IS possible to lose fair and square. That's obviously super abstract, and the real world is messy, but it's easy to interpret every failed election as a sign that the system is broken, when in reality, you just couldn't convince enough people that you're right. I guess my overall point is: at this point in time, I don't think it's fair to say "the system doesn't work, so I'm not going to participate". I think that is an unfair characterization of the hundreds of thousands of available political offices in the United States, and other various ways of getting involved civically. I once door-knocked for a city clerk candidate and one of my neighbors said that he'd vote for the guy just because he heard his name from me and that he'd remember my quick spiel. It doesn't take much to make a difference, and it's better than just shooting him. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, because it certainly isn't, but I don't think it's nearly to the point where we should scrap the entire thing (if we could even survive) and start over.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. I also feel that the country is where you describe. The rich and powerful had better be careful. If this blows up, a fair number of them won't like how it goes. Unfortunately, it only takes one of them being egregiously provocative in just the wrong way to light the fuse. I think your 2% chance per year may even be too low.

by bfrog 9y ago

logfromblammo 9y ago

I don't know... the blatantly corrupt behavior of several of the world's most prominent government officials has got me sharpening my peasant's pitchfork, refueling my castle-burning torch, and thinking "soon". But they have these fancy stab-resistant vests and flame-retardant castle treatments now, so I'm not entirely sure if I can accomplish anything significant without a howling, bloodthirsty mob behind me. It wasn't the existence of ultra-rich jerks. At least Jobs and Bezos could bring product to market. Those guys, I didn't have to worry about when I'm not buying from them. It's when the wealthies get involved in government and start changing the rules for their own benefit that makes me want to start weaving some head-catcher baskets. I can stand just being relatively poor compared to some other person. I can't stand being oppressed and exploited, or having my personal agency removed, by people incapable of even feigning empathy. Their mistake was not in being rich, but in allowing themselves to believe that wealth correlates with superiority. Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. A lot of people are drooling over the special counsel investigations, and hoping to check a few trends with the midterm elections. The majority still wants peaceful resolution for their political issues, but a lot of people have given up on that. If it ever does flip to "burn it all down", that will go a lot faster than most people can react to it.

tachyoff 9y ago
> Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (which typically ends badly, if you read history), but nobody wants to head over to a church or school on a Tuesday in August. Nobody wants to go to city council meetings. Nobody wants to run for one of the many uncontested local elections in their area. By the time you need your guns, you’ve already lost. It’s much easier, and much more likely, to change the system slowly and deliberately. That’s not to say you shouldn’t protest, or even strike, but there is so much unseized political power in America, and too much of it is simply because of apathy.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.
  - tachyoff 9y ago
    > Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Yes, that's called "human organizations" and it happens wherever there are three or more people trying to do a thing. :) Politicking is messy and difficult because humans are messy and difficult. To be honest, it's amazing we've made it this far. > It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. And my argument is that people who think that we'd be better off with a "full rewrite" (and I know several of them) are ignorant of history and the civic structures that exist around them that are absolutely available to anyone willing to participate. It's not hard to get on a school board, or become a county commissioner. Those things aren't necessarily easy like microwaving a burrito is easy, but they're not necessarily difficult like getting a PhD is difficult. That is to say, yes, politicking takes work, but that shouldn't be unexpected or surprising. > You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. It all depends on what you're trying to do. Zoning changes are probably better handled by voting for better city council members and attending meetings, for example; a strike won't particularly help there. And yes, part of democracy means losing. Sometimes you lose a whole hell of a lot. I think what people (particularly the left, as of late) tend to forget is that sometimes when you lose it's because the people in your city, district, etc. actually have a different enough point of view that they can get their changes enacted. In other words, it IS possible to lose fair and square. That's obviously super abstract, and the real world is messy, but it's easy to interpret every failed election as a sign that the system is broken, when in reality, you just couldn't convince enough people that you're right. I guess my overall point is: at this point in time, I don't think it's fair to say "the system doesn't work, so I'm not going to participate". I think that is an unfair characterization of the hundreds of thousands of available political offices in the United States, and other various ways of getting involved civically. I once door-knocked for a city clerk candidate and one of my neighbors said that he'd vote for the guy just because he heard his name from me and that he'd remember my quick spiel. It doesn't take much to make a difference, and it's better than just shooting him. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, because it certainly isn't, but I don't think it's nearly to the point where we should scrap the entire thing (if we could even survive) and start over.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. I also feel that the country is where you describe. The rich and powerful had better be careful. If this blows up, a fair number of them won't like how it goes. Unfortunately, it only takes one of them being egregiously provocative in just the wrong way to light the fuse. I think your 2% chance per year may even be too low.