I do think it’s possible to vote your way into a situation you cannot vote yourself out of.

Like, for example, the way the system is currently setup gives much more representation (and therefore power) to smaller states. To change that, we would need to amend the constitution which would require a super majority. When have institutions willingly voted to give up their unearned power?

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

And after the barrage of cringe tone deaf “humor” about a fucking political assassination I think my side doesn’t have room to criticize other people’s jokes.

Perhaps the reason that “humor” is coming out so strong is because Republicans are so cavalier about “having basic respect” and “don’t glorify political violence.” So yeah, I don’t blame people at all for glorifying the death of a mouthpiece of that hate and division, he was literally asking for it. He radicalized the youth, downplayed political violence, and encouraged stochastic terror. There hasn’t been a better example of living by the sword and dying by the sword, so as far as I’m concerned, until there are consequences for lack of civility, respect, decorum, not glorifying terrorism, etc, Republicans have earned none.

Obviously the ideal amount of political violence should be zero. If any other option exists, I think those must be taken first.

But sometimes the status quo is violence, and letting the status quo continue doing violence will overtime do more harm than one act of political violence. So mathematically, there must be some point where some violence is worth the cost of less harm in the future.

Your lifestyle determines your deathstyle.

I think the first part is a drastically over-represented as a result of pearl clutching.

Thanks! My initial idea was AP/Reuters only “just the facts” news, but I figured that would take too much effort and wouldn’t be worth it.

Not civil disobedience, but I agree. Unfortunately creating communities is probably a bigger ask than getting arrested in a protest.

I’m doing my part.

Everyone sits on multiple spectra for what they care about, and where their thresholds for acting are

Right, so what would push people over that threshold now?

Some coordination is good, I mean distributed as in anybody with time/means can join, even if they aren’t near a population center.

Not against the idea in spirit, but that’s not distributed and not feasible for many people who live far from corporate HQs.

Well, that’s part of my point. Everyone who stopped eating at Chick Fil A stopped 10+ years ago, everyone else doesn’t care. Anyone willing to boycott is already boycotting, and they can’t boycott any harder until we have a method of acquiring necessities from somewhere else.

Right, that was just an example of things anyone with a couple friends could do locally that would still accumulate at scale.

Yeah, that’s kind of the idea, like starting a trend of sabotaging multinational companies that have warehouses and logistics all across the country. Anyone near one could be inspired and do their part.

That’s true, but at the same time, aren’t most people already boycotting what they can? I think anyone who feels bad about supporting shitty companies are already avoiding them when they can, and if they can’t, well there isn’t much more to do until we hit mutual aid networks.

While I understand privacy concerns (hello from Tor), I think having some kind of loose tie to a physical identity would be better than true anonymous, since that could easily be astroturfed by bots or feds. I think that kind of organization is important, especially for protests, but I’m talking about wider organization in general.

With your concerns, how would you suggest getting people engaged? Something like a mastodon account that just posts dates and locations and takes feedback assuming its in good faith? Matrix chatrooms? Honestly asking, how would you get people together? I’m very interested in converting upvotes into praxis, despite the terrible exchange value.