8 ms·

> I fear this is all going one way That belief isn't the consequence of the situation, but the cause. There is ample ability to change events, but people must

by mmooss 10mo ago

> I fear this is all going one way That belief isn't the consequence of the situation, but the cause. There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. They do it in Iran. The Republicans and MAGA movement have made changes that would have been unbelievable ten years ago.

jordanpg 10mo ago
Stated differently, if things really are so bad (and I would be the first to agree that things are pretty bad), then why are so many comfortable people (like me) not out on the street every day? There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, but the bottom line is that when things get bad enough -- much worse than they are today -- then more people will take to the street, along with whatever sacrifice that entails. We're just not there yet, because for many, there is far too much to lose.
- Barrin92 10mo ago
  >then why are so many comfortable people (like me) not out on the street every day? because a lot of people have a kind of built-in main character syndrome and believe they're the protagonists of the world and things can't really go bad. They haven't internalized that there isn't some god behind the curtain that saves them. That's how it goes in every country that ends up in the dirt, they all thought they were special, they all thought "surely we're not there yet" and you can pick their remains out of the rubble. relevant piece from a few years ago: https://indi.ca/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-there/ https://indi.ca/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-...
- amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
  Not sure being out in the street really does much. Gives the jack booted thugs an excuse for a little recreational violence. A general strike might have an effect, but I'm not sure how you organize such a thing.
  - kelseyfrog 10mo ago
    You can't, because everytime that happens, a group comes out of the woodworks that says X, Y, and Z need to be done before a general strike can even be considered. X, Y, and Z usually involve community building, mutual aid, strike funds, housing security, and other precarity reducing actions.
  - jordanpg 10mo ago
    > Not sure being out in the street really does much. I agree; this phrase was just a stand in for doing something -- anything -- about the state of affairs I don't like. Other than things I can do from my couch like commenting on HN.
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    If protests worked better than the alternatives then that's what megacorps and multinational corporations would be doing instead of bribes and lobbying. 'The people' still dont understand they're playing an entirely different sport.
  - Tanoc 10mo ago
    A general strike at the level required to change things requires roping in unwilling participants as well. Probably on the scale of breaking infrastructure like payment systems or over the road shipping. If nobody can ignore current events because it's not just impacting but impeding and quickly degrading their quality of life they'll get angry. However just so long as people can go home and play their videogames, or listen to their podcasts, or read their books, they'll be able to focus enough of their attention away from events and keep their stress below the critical threshold just enough that they won't do anything. Calhoun's Rat Utopia Experiment comes to mind in that the rats suffered any number of indignities, maladies, and stressors just so long as they had ample access to endorphin and melatonin sources in strong enough bursts to stave off the constant floods of cortisol and norepinephrine. Political theory is that ten to fifteen percent of a given population needs to actively rebel in order to enact change in a nation. The U.S. is fragmented enough by distance that you would need at least thirty percent of the national population to reach this state in order to get the ten percent in each of the six regions. Currently the number of people protesting is thought to be around four to six percent nationally, meaning it's less than one percent regionally. Part of that is because it's January, and most large scale protests happen in late spring or in the summer because schools are out and the weather doesn't suck. But part of it is simply because not enough people are motivated to act. Either pessimism or lack of direct harm is keeping them from caring. So no matter what you're going to have to piss some people off. But it'd be better to piss off the people who will share your goals and ask forgiveness, because the other group was pissed from the beginning and have no forgiveness to ask for.
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  People are taking to the streets. People are getting beaten, their property destroyed, their homes invaded and even murdered in Minneapolis as a result. The problem is that the US is massive; most people don't live in an active ICE zone where agents are going door to door kicking it in and pulling people out. But even then, people are getting angrier. The injustices in Minneapolis triggered waves of protests here in Seattle. Eventually these things compound and more people become aware that we're living in the Great American Collapse.
  - jordanpg 10mo ago
    People are, yes, but I'm not. I'm looking inward and trying to be honest about what it's going to take to get me on the street.
- baubino 10mo ago
  People are (and have been) taking to the streets. Americans tend to think that a protest must involve everyone otherwise it’s pointless. They don’t realize that protests typically involve a tiny fraction of the population. The more, the better of course, but stop sitting around waiting for it to get big. Either get out there now or find other ways to contribute. There’s plenty to be done.
  - Anamon 10mo ago
    There was a study a while ago, analyzing previous events to estimate which percentage of a population needs to become active to effect meaningful change. The number was surprisingly low, I think less than 5%.
    - thechao 10mo ago
      It's about 3%, and the study had major flaws in its context; large westernized countries are out of scope. I don't remember paper, but I just lost this argument to a lawyer.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- oenton 10mo ago
  I was just talking to someone close to me about what to expect if (when?) Trump starts annexing Greenland. I truly believe a national strike is our best bet. But the reality is many (most?) people are living paycheck to paycheck and can’t risk that. But knowledge workers and especially software engineers can probably fare much better in the event of immediate job loss. Now that’s not to downplay or minimize that risk, especially if you have a family, dependents, or some unique circumstance. But I’d hope for the majority of workers in our profession, it’s the difference between “I can’t buy food next week” vs “I have about 4-8 months before I’ve drained my liquid / emergency savings” The sad thing is I don’t know what to do. Would this make headlines? Would they cover it? Would it get condensed into a single sound bite “big tech goes on strike”? I’m conflicted but I feel like the choice should be obvious and simple. Just do it.
  - bpt3 10mo ago
    I will say upfront that I do not condone or support annexation of Greenland, but I have to ask why on earth you or anyone else think that would inspire any meaningful portion of the US population to organize a general strike? Whatever happens in Greenland has no impact on at least 99.99% of the US population, and a general strike will have no impact on the small fraction of the US population that would support annexation.
- eudamoniac 10mo ago
  A protest is meaningless without the implicit threat of violent revolution behind it. Trump et al can just ignore your protests, unless he thinks you might break in and start killing. Today's protests have no teeth. Nobody is uncomfortable enough to risk prison or death. Seriously, if you turn off the TV and the Internet, what is wrong with your life? Is ousting Trump going to fix that? Is it worth dying for? Nope.
  - aisengard 10mo ago
    I feel like you shouldn't get to criticize protests for not being violent enough if you're not already performing sufficiently-violent protests. "Firebombing a Walmart" meme really is evergreen.
b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
If food keeps going up, it might get there but in the affluent west we run on our stomachs and as long as most of the middle class can still afford bread there won't be enough of a mass mobilization to affect any meaningful change.
JeremyNT 10mo ago
> There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. They certainly can't claim they didn't know what they would get, and they seem unconcerned by any of these actions that many of us find terrifying. It is difficult to see how we can democracy our way out of this situation.
- ta9000 10mo ago
  Frankly I don’t think Trump 1 vs Trump 2 admin wise are the same. Many people were duped. They’re idiots, but not malicious idiots.
  - Loudergood 10mo ago
    Plenty of them are malicious idiots. See quotes of them saying "They're hurting the wrong people"
    - ta9000 10mo ago
      You mean Boehbert, a congresswoman? Yeah she’s pretty awful.
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  > This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when we consider our own votes, but it feels cathartic to force the claim on to the other side. This administration's net approval rating flipped net negative very quickly after his election and has been trending downward. It's just navel-gazing to pretend like what he's doing has high approval.
  - 10mo ago
01284a7e 10mo ago
Divide and conquer...
keybored 10mo ago
> That belief isn't the consequence of the situation, but the cause. There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. True. But it’s very overwhelming since we are so democratically inept right now. > They do it in Iran. We know this because the local elites underlined it for us.
casey2 10mo ago
Most people, myself include, believe Powell has been a DNC puppet for his entire tenure. This has pretty much nothing to do with our republic. For most of this countries history you would have been laughed at if you used the D-word, and that's when the quality of voters meant something.

by mmooss 10mo ago

jordanpg 10mo ago

Stated differently, if things really are so bad (and I would be the first to agree that things are pretty bad), then why are so many comfortable people (like me) not out on the street every day? There are a lot of reasons for that, of course, but the bottom line is that when things get bad enough -- much worse than they are today -- then more people will take to the street, along with whatever sacrifice that entails. We're just not there yet, because for many, there is far too much to lose.

Barrin92 10mo ago
>then why are so many comfortable people (like me) not out on the street every day? because a lot of people have a kind of built-in main character syndrome and believe they're the protagonists of the world and things can't really go bad. They haven't internalized that there isn't some god behind the curtain that saves them. That's how it goes in every country that ends up in the dirt, they all thought they were special, they all thought "surely we're not there yet" and you can pick their remains out of the rubble. relevant piece from a few years ago: https://indi.ca/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-there/ https://indi.ca/i-lived-through-collapse-america-is-already-...
amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
Not sure being out in the street really does much. Gives the jack booted thugs an excuse for a little recreational violence. A general strike might have an effect, but I'm not sure how you organize such a thing.
- kelseyfrog 10mo ago
  You can't, because everytime that happens, a group comes out of the woodworks that says X, Y, and Z need to be done before a general strike can even be considered. X, Y, and Z usually involve community building, mutual aid, strike funds, housing security, and other precarity reducing actions.
- jordanpg 10mo ago
  > Not sure being out in the street really does much. I agree; this phrase was just a stand in for doing something -- anything -- about the state of affairs I don't like. Other than things I can do from my couch like commenting on HN.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  If protests worked better than the alternatives then that's what megacorps and multinational corporations would be doing instead of bribes and lobbying. 'The people' still dont understand they're playing an entirely different sport.
- Tanoc 10mo ago
  A general strike at the level required to change things requires roping in unwilling participants as well. Probably on the scale of breaking infrastructure like payment systems or over the road shipping. If nobody can ignore current events because it's not just impacting but impeding and quickly degrading their quality of life they'll get angry. However just so long as people can go home and play their videogames, or listen to their podcasts, or read their books, they'll be able to focus enough of their attention away from events and keep their stress below the critical threshold just enough that they won't do anything. Calhoun's Rat Utopia Experiment comes to mind in that the rats suffered any number of indignities, maladies, and stressors just so long as they had ample access to endorphin and melatonin sources in strong enough bursts to stave off the constant floods of cortisol and norepinephrine. Political theory is that ten to fifteen percent of a given population needs to actively rebel in order to enact change in a nation. The U.S. is fragmented enough by distance that you would need at least thirty percent of the national population to reach this state in order to get the ten percent in each of the six regions. Currently the number of people protesting is thought to be around four to six percent nationally, meaning it's less than one percent regionally. Part of that is because it's January, and most large scale protests happen in late spring or in the summer because schools are out and the weather doesn't suck. But part of it is simply because not enough people are motivated to act. Either pessimism or lack of direct harm is keeping them from caring. So no matter what you're going to have to piss some people off. But it'd be better to piss off the people who will share your goals and ask forgiveness, because the other group was pissed from the beginning and have no forgiveness to ask for.
fzeroracer 10mo ago
People are taking to the streets. People are getting beaten, their property destroyed, their homes invaded and even murdered in Minneapolis as a result. The problem is that the US is massive; most people don't live in an active ICE zone where agents are going door to door kicking it in and pulling people out. But even then, people are getting angrier. The injustices in Minneapolis triggered waves of protests here in Seattle. Eventually these things compound and more people become aware that we're living in the Great American Collapse.
- jordanpg 10mo ago
  People are, yes, but I'm not. I'm looking inward and trying to be honest about what it's going to take to get me on the street.
baubino 10mo ago
People are (and have been) taking to the streets. Americans tend to think that a protest must involve everyone otherwise it’s pointless. They don’t realize that protests typically involve a tiny fraction of the population. The more, the better of course, but stop sitting around waiting for it to get big. Either get out there now or find other ways to contribute. There’s plenty to be done.
- Anamon 10mo ago
  There was a study a while ago, analyzing previous events to estimate which percentage of a population needs to become active to effect meaningful change. The number was surprisingly low, I think less than 5%.
  - thechao 10mo ago
    It's about 3%, and the study had major flaws in its context; large westernized countries are out of scope. I don't remember paper, but I just lost this argument to a lawyer.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
oenton 10mo ago
I was just talking to someone close to me about what to expect if (when?) Trump starts annexing Greenland. I truly believe a national strike is our best bet. But the reality is many (most?) people are living paycheck to paycheck and can’t risk that. But knowledge workers and especially software engineers can probably fare much better in the event of immediate job loss. Now that’s not to downplay or minimize that risk, especially if you have a family, dependents, or some unique circumstance. But I’d hope for the majority of workers in our profession, it’s the difference between “I can’t buy food next week” vs “I have about 4-8 months before I’ve drained my liquid / emergency savings” The sad thing is I don’t know what to do. Would this make headlines? Would they cover it? Would it get condensed into a single sound bite “big tech goes on strike”? I’m conflicted but I feel like the choice should be obvious and simple. Just do it.
- bpt3 10mo ago
  I will say upfront that I do not condone or support annexation of Greenland, but I have to ask why on earth you or anyone else think that would inspire any meaningful portion of the US population to organize a general strike? Whatever happens in Greenland has no impact on at least 99.99% of the US population, and a general strike will have no impact on the small fraction of the US population that would support annexation.
eudamoniac 10mo ago
A protest is meaningless without the implicit threat of violent revolution behind it. Trump et al can just ignore your protests, unless he thinks you might break in and start killing. Today's protests have no teeth. Nobody is uncomfortable enough to risk prison or death. Seriously, if you turn off the TV and the Internet, what is wrong with your life? Is ousting Trump going to fix that? Is it worth dying for? Nope.
- aisengard 10mo ago
  I feel like you shouldn't get to criticize protests for not being violent enough if you're not already performing sufficiently-violent protests. "Firebombing a Walmart" meme really is evergreen.

b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago

If food keeps going up, it might get there but in the affluent west we run on our stomachs and as long as most of the middle class can still afford bread there won't be enough of a mass mobilization to affect any meaningful change.

JeremyNT 10mo ago

> There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. They certainly can't claim they didn't know what they would get, and they seem unconcerned by any of these actions that many of us find terrifying. It is difficult to see how we can democracy our way out of this situation.

ta9000 10mo ago
Frankly I don’t think Trump 1 vs Trump 2 admin wise are the same. Many people were duped. They’re idiots, but not malicious idiots.
- Loudergood 10mo ago
  Plenty of them are malicious idiots. See quotes of them saying "They're hurting the wrong people"
  - ta9000 10mo ago
    You mean Boehbert, a congresswoman? Yeah she’s pretty awful.
Aurornis 10mo ago
> This is the political will of a plurality of American voters. This fallacy gets repeated over and over, but it's obviously false. Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future. It's a premise that is obviously false when we consider our own votes, but it feels cathartic to force the claim on to the other side. This administration's net approval rating flipped net negative very quickly after his election and has been trending downward. It's just navel-gazing to pretend like what he's doing has high approval.
- 10mo ago

01284a7e 10mo ago

Divide and conquer...

keybored 10mo ago

> That belief isn't the consequence of the situation, but the cause. There is ample ability to change events, but people must believe they can act and act together, as they have for centuries of democracy and for all human history. True. But it’s very overwhelming since we are so democratically inept right now. > They do it in Iran. We know this because the local elites underlined it for us.

casey2 10mo ago

Most people, myself include, believe Powell has been a DNC puppet for his entire tenure. This has pretty much nothing to do with our republic. For most of this countries history you would have been laughed at if you used the D-word, and that's when the quality of voters meant something.