3 ms·

A major part of the plot of The Every[0] is one protagonist's belief, akin to yours, that precipitating things to their worst outcome could be the fastest way t

A major part of the plot of The Every[0] is one protagonist's belief, akin to yours, that precipitating things to their worst outcome could be the fastest way to snap public opinion back to sanity. I don't want to spoil the suspense, but I'll say that I do see the logic in hoping that a quick fire would call everyone's attention to the fire hazard. What you're failing to ask here is "What could possibly go wrong with this plan?" [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Every https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Every

toomuchtodo 1y ago
The house is already on fire. The choices are to allow it to burn down and rebuild, taking the arsonists with it, or attempting to slow them down while the fire continues to burn and their supporters cheer them on. American Democracy appears to be the same as second generation wealth: unappreciated until gone. Make Functional Governance Great Again. I wish it were not so.
- techblueberry 1y ago
  Hahahahahahahhaa the arsonists aren’t going down with it, the arsonists are on mansions in a private island watching it go down. The idea that the people in power will _lose_ power as a result of widespread unrest is bananas. The only people watching the house burn are those with an insurance policy out on it.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    The supporters are the people who keep voting Republican while Republicans (the arsonists) are stripping them of their SNAP benefits and ACA subsidies, while also dismantling the federal government out of ideology. The wealthy might influence (they spent over $40M to influence the NYC mayor election and still lost, for example), but the voters are the root cause.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      It's quite literally a cult now. It doesn't matter if the house burns down, they'd still rather die in the fire than let woke liberals "win". If the house burns down, we'll be both poor and surrounded (and led) by neo-Nazis.
      - Waterluvian 1y ago
        I get the reasoning and I think it’s colourable. But I can’t help but be irritated having grown up hearing nothing but “Liberty or death” rhetoric of American identity, only to find it was all a pathetic cosplay.
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ethbr1 1y ago
        When I was younger, I would have agreed with you. With a measure of time, a counterpoint -- patriotism is that essential glue which holds together a pluralistic, multi ethnic, multi religious, multi cultural society. Can it be corrupted and do excesses poison? Absolutely. But can such a society survive without it? I say no: there's too much tendency for groups to fragment and revert to an us-vs-them, uncompromising mentality. That said, my American patriotism is of the 'disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' variety. Which is a different flavor than the en vogue militaristic machismo bullying.
        mothballed 1y ago
        The fact that liberty died far before Trump was part of what he used in his cards to gain power. He sold a tale of draining the swamp, and tailoring back the federal of government. Of course, he's basically expanded the more dystopian power, and pumped in more swamp water, but part of the reason why his campaign is successful was that indeed liberty has been lacking in the USA for a long time and to some of the people that actually cared, he whispered the right lies.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    > the arsonists are on mansions in a private island watching it go down. The idea that the people in power will _lose_ power as a result of widespread unrest is bananas. Islands do make easy targets, though—they’re hard to move and they’re hard to hide.
    - sebastiennight 1y ago
      Easy targets to whom? The imaginary people with the power to go take a private island in this fantasy scenario are the same people with the existing power to be on one. How are you planning to go storm those beaches?
      - mcphage 1y ago
        > Easy targets to whom? Anybody with a $200 drone and a chip on their shoulder. All I’m saying is: if there is widespread civil unrest, billionaires are going to find themselves with giant targets on their backs.
Waterluvian 1y ago
When my brother and I argue this, that’s the position he takes: the risk is enormous. He’s the most brilliant mind I know (an immigration lawyer who has settled the Government’s hash more than once at the Supreme Court of Canada), so if I had any real say in all this, I would defer to him.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

The house is already on fire. The choices are to allow it to burn down and rebuild, taking the arsonists with it, or attempting to slow them down while the fire continues to burn and their supporters cheer them on. American Democracy appears to be the same as second generation wealth: unappreciated until gone. Make Functional Governance Great Again. I wish it were not so.

techblueberry 1y ago
Hahahahahahahhaa the arsonists aren’t going down with it, the arsonists are on mansions in a private island watching it go down. The idea that the people in power will _lose_ power as a result of widespread unrest is bananas. The only people watching the house burn are those with an insurance policy out on it.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  The supporters are the people who keep voting Republican while Republicans (the arsonists) are stripping them of their SNAP benefits and ACA subsidies, while also dismantling the federal government out of ideology. The wealthy might influence (they spent over $40M to influence the NYC mayor election and still lost, for example), but the voters are the root cause.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    It's quite literally a cult now. It doesn't matter if the house burns down, they'd still rather die in the fire than let woke liberals "win". If the house burns down, we'll be both poor and surrounded (and led) by neo-Nazis.
    - Waterluvian 1y ago
      I get the reasoning and I think it’s colourable. But I can’t help but be irritated having grown up hearing nothing but “Liberty or death” rhetoric of American identity, only to find it was all a pathetic cosplay.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ethbr1 1y ago
        When I was younger, I would have agreed with you. With a measure of time, a counterpoint -- patriotism is that essential glue which holds together a pluralistic, multi ethnic, multi religious, multi cultural society. Can it be corrupted and do excesses poison? Absolutely. But can such a society survive without it? I say no: there's too much tendency for groups to fragment and revert to an us-vs-them, uncompromising mentality. That said, my American patriotism is of the 'disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' variety. Which is a different flavor than the en vogue militaristic machismo bullying.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        The fact that liberty died far before Trump was part of what he used in his cards to gain power. He sold a tale of draining the swamp, and tailoring back the federal of government. Of course, he's basically expanded the more dystopian power, and pumped in more swamp water, but part of the reason why his campaign is successful was that indeed liberty has been lacking in the USA for a long time and to some of the people that actually cared, he whispered the right lies.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > the arsonists are on mansions in a private island watching it go down. The idea that the people in power will _lose_ power as a result of widespread unrest is bananas. Islands do make easy targets, though—they’re hard to move and they’re hard to hide.
  - sebastiennight 1y ago
    Easy targets to whom? The imaginary people with the power to go take a private island in this fantasy scenario are the same people with the existing power to be on one. How are you planning to go storm those beaches?
    - mcphage 1y ago
      > Easy targets to whom? Anybody with a $200 drone and a chip on their shoulder. All I’m saying is: if there is widespread civil unrest, billionaires are going to find themselves with giant targets on their backs.

Waterluvian 1y ago

When my brother and I argue this, that’s the position he takes: the risk is enormous. He’s the most brilliant mind I know (an immigration lawyer who has settled the Government’s hash more than once at the Supreme Court of Canada), so if I had any real say in all this, I would defer to him.