3 ms·
Your confusing tactical fear with existential fear. Encryption, weapons? These create tactical fear. Governments have no fear of your tactics when they can shu
by gjsman-1000 1y ago
Your confusing tactical fear with existential fear.
Encryption, weapons? These create tactical fear. Governments have no fear of your tactics when they can shut down cell towers and roll in the tanks. Governments have no fear when they can also easily identify bad actors, highlight them, and win public opinion.
Blank paper, candlelight? These create existential fear. Governments have no playbook to deal with them without looking absurd. If they try to do so anyway, then it converts into tactical fear. Every successful revolution starts with the existential before the tactical.
China has no tactical fear, at all, if tens of thousands of rebels were armed. They'll be solved by next month. China has enormous amounts of existential fear when tens of thousands of people are putting blank pages everywhere. Blank pages could turn into tactical later, but tactical never leads to existential.
The Civil Rights movement you cite? They won through lunch counter sit-ins and bus boycotts - existential challenges to segregation's legitimacy. The tactics was a side show that didn't contribute much. There never was some defining moment where the Civil Rights Warriors won a victory in the Battle of Seville through the superiority of their communication methods. Same with the Civil War - it didn't start with shooting until after the existential battle had been blazing since the Missouri compromise four decades earlier.
- iamnothere 1y ago> Governments have no fear of your tactics when they can shut down cell towers and roll in the tanks. Governments have no fear when they can also easily identify bad actors, highlight them, and win public opinion. Untrue. Governments are not all powerful. Armed unrest is a very serious thing to deal with, especially when facing outside pressures. The people in government aren’t generally villains sitting around waiting for their excuse to roll tanks. They have friends and families and take things very seriously when they reach that point. Besides, sending in the tanks most often biases people against, not for, the ruling government—it’s bad optics. Hence why China still forbids discussion of Tianenmen, for example. And why Kent State led to a shift in public opinion, despite preceding violence from the protesters. > They won through lunch counter sit-ins and bus boycotts - existential challenges to segregation's legitimacy. The tactics was a side show that didn't contribute much. ??? You cite successful tactics (which were carefully planned/coordinated by the way) then you say they were an ineffective sideshow. Not sure how to parse that one.