Encouraging political violence or high-level assassination is of course a deal with the devil. At best you come out on top after suffering large losses. This is a trade many have made in history, but today we stand to lose a lot compared to what could possibly be gained.
Curious: do you have any obligation to convince people that "the rich are the aggressors", or are those of us who disagree on the chopping block as well? Don't you think there should be some consensus in favor of violence before resorting to it? Or can a Jihadist just say, "the infidels are the aggressors", and their private belief about it is enough to resort to exterminatory force?
I would say that Bin Laden also thought his cause was self-evident, but he could at least muster a 15 minute video explaining his views. As an exercise in mind control deprogramming I suggest you read my actual piece - it basically predicts this entire dialogue.
Just my humble opinion, but bin Laden was a psyop/controlled opposition at worst and a patsy at best. Not the best example, even though you're right about the fact that whoever and whatever he really was, he did try to convince people, however genuine the whole thing may or may not have been.
It seems like most people have "that rot". What would it mean to exclude the majority from the discussion? You would also be excluding most institutions.
It seems like you would only have a discussion with mostly powerless people that already agree with you.
People can talk shit to me all they like, I'm just going to keep pointing out, keep getting it right as I have for most of my life and invest in AI as AI makes life harder and harder for the working class and resentment produces more Luigi Mangiones because the shareholder and CEO class continue to ignore the tea leaves.
The people are not powerless and when you put smart folks in the street with nothing to lose while article after article is about the world's first trillionaire, well the story is obvious to anyone but those convinced of their own Inherent superiority.
When the economy goes haywire over the next decade because the Baby Boom generation starts bequeathing all of that wealth that has been locked away from the younger generations who don't believe that the American dream exists for them anymore, we are going to see some wild stuff.
The people are not powerless, but most of "the people" should be excluded from the conversation based off of your previous comment. You said they have nothing to offer the discussion.
I work the nightshift at a warehouse. I don't think my paycheck is dependent on not understanding whether levels of inequality are a marker of civilization collapse. No one cares what I believe or understand, as long as boxes are on the conveyor belt.
I don't see how you'd say economic struggles would produce more Luigi Mangiones. Society has only produced one Luigi so far and he was a major beneficiary of the current economic system, with a promising career.
Ok well, I predict more unrest as a result of AI gobbling up more of the economy. What happens in 15 years when it's no longer economically viable to have human beings moving packages onto the conveyers?
That's a good question. And one that a lot people should be asking. I'm confused about if you're arguing that political violence WILL follow automation or if it SHOULD follow automation. Those are very different discussions. Maybe you believe that it is obvious which one you mean, but I'm unable to parse your argument because I'm convinced of my own superiority?
Unfortunately, regardless of what your position is, it's not the discussion that we were having. And you have already preemptively barred me from having it, as you believe that I am consumed with moral rot, willfully ignorant for financial reasons or somehow indoctrinated.
If you'd like to explain your position, rather than explain away objections, maybe people would find it more convincing.
First time reader. Interesting commentary, but a few quibbles/rejoinders. Apologies in advance about the long comment.
* "When you signal a willingness to exact your preferred outcomes through force, you signal an unwillingness to be convincing, because otherwise you would just do that instead..."
Sure, but in order to be persuasive you need either a sufficiently large or direct platform: Venue with audience - direct to policy makers or large enough to shift national discussion. Plenty of everyday people who fall on the erstwhile "left" and "right" have been complaining about (or dying from) poor, expensive or complete lack of health care in this country on websites, blogs, newspapers and social media.
Nothing has fundamentally changed. So simply being "persuasive" is not enough to shift things. And I don't think the bipartisan clampdown on TikTok is as straightforward as a lot of people think. Sure, it's about China and definitely about Gaza, but what is it about each? It sure as heck isn't having China with access to most people's "private" data or metadata. More like denying a certain demographic (if a large and multifaceted one) a platform or being able to censor it like other social media. Heck, if anything it's about putting all that personal data in "American" hands and clamping down on support for Palestine.
We both seem to agree that assassination isn't an appropriate tool here, so that covers most of what I have to say on persuasion, since I mainly treat it as the alternative to violence.
As for whether persuasion is feasible: I don't deny that it's easier said than done. But in your experience, when people fall short of being convincing, is it because their megaphone isn't loud enough, their lack of proximity to elites... or is it because of factors they have full control over? I'd emphatically lean towards the latter: people suck at being convincing, and this is especially true of violence advocates for unsurprising reasons. Polling shows they skew disproportionately young, and it saddens me to see the next generation giving up on the art of persuasion.
I did read all of your comments fully but mainly wanted to focus on that contention.
Breaking it up into multiple so I don't break Substack, lol.
* Monopoly money.
All we can do at this juncture is speculate. Perhaps you're right and it was a twisted message. Maybe that's even the most likely answer, but we don't know enough for sure to dedicate much thought or discussion to it for now.
* "left" vs. "right" in 2024 - and overlapping complaints (often legitimate) about our failing country for 90% of people, including the destruction of the commons and the environment, brought on by greed, poor governance and corporate primacy
There is significant overlap, even on economic populist grounds between what people comfortably refer to as "the left" and "the right", to the point that IMO it doesn't matter what Luigi's motivations were inasmuch as they signal a place on the political/economic spectrum. The fact is a lot of people who consider themselves left, right, or neither are unhappy and see no way out inside the present system. The "establishment" took down Bernie Sanders and tamed his base as well as tried to take down Trump through various means.
I'm not saying Trump truly believes in any specific view of the economy other than "jobs, drill, jobs, tariffs, more money for everyone!" because he's never actually articulated a lot of the things his followers and fans seem to act as though he has. Well, other than deporting all the "illegals" which some on the right seem to think will open up a bunch of jobs for Americans and some on the left think will mitigate downward pressures on pay/salary.
It can be argued that he did an end-around on Hillary from "the left" in 2016, at least in messaging, but his actions once in office were all in some way or another the same thing as a typical GOP corporate-primacy conservative. Who the hell knows what Bernie would have done (or been able to do) if he was allowed to be elected. I suppose it would be a watered down version of his campaign platform. But he and Liz Warren were the only candidates in either party that even addressed healthcare issues.
* Conclusion and Solution?
Not summary assassinations by lone gunmen or civil war. It's easy to say "build a coalition" but counterintuitively, with all the social media platforms that would seem to provide the perfect tool for doing it, it hasn't happened yet. Maybe in part precisely because it would take actually extending an olive branch to the "ew gross" right or what is seen as "the right" and deciding on a few major economic issues to agree upon, even if disagreement reigns on others. Agree to break up the mega corporations (Silicon Valley, banks, Amazon, Wal Mart, energy and utility companies) but continue to fight about abortion, minority and LGBTQ rights and AGW?
I dunno. It won't be easy.
The mass media in all forms is corporate. They aren't the answer either, and have been a major part of the problem.
I keep saying that the Left thinks the endgame is cowering conservatives.
Nope.
The endgame is Mutually Assured Destruction.
Encouraging political violence or high-level assassination is of course a deal with the devil. At best you come out on top after suffering large losses. This is a trade many have made in history, but today we stand to lose a lot compared to what could possibly be gained.
The sanity I’ve been looking for on this topic.
The moral rot in the people who don't recognize that the rich are the aggressors in the class war, don't have anything to offer the discussion.
If you have a net worth above 10m it is time to start giving it all away.
Curious: do you have any obligation to convince people that "the rich are the aggressors", or are those of us who disagree on the chopping block as well? Don't you think there should be some consensus in favor of violence before resorting to it? Or can a Jihadist just say, "the infidels are the aggressors", and their private belief about it is enough to resort to exterminatory force?
No, why would I be obligated to prove that which is self evident?
I would say that Bin Laden also thought his cause was self-evident, but he could at least muster a 15 minute video explaining his views. As an exercise in mind control deprogramming I suggest you read my actual piece - it basically predicts this entire dialogue.
Just my humble opinion, but bin Laden was a psyop/controlled opposition at worst and a patsy at best. Not the best example, even though you're right about the fact that whoever and whatever he really was, he did try to convince people, however genuine the whole thing may or may not have been.
It's funny because you don't get it because of your indoctrination.
You are making one critical error in that comment. Would you like to know what it is?
You're proving Stony's point over and over, which suggests you either didn't read the piece in its entirety, or you lack the self-awareness to care.
LOL
It seems like most people have "that rot". What would it mean to exclude the majority from the discussion? You would also be excluding most institutions.
It seems like you would only have a discussion with mostly powerless people that already agree with you.
The levels of inequality we have today are one of the strongest markers of civilization collapse in all of history.
Something something people will never understand something their paycheck requires them not to understand.
People can talk shit to me all they like, I'm just going to keep pointing out, keep getting it right as I have for most of my life and invest in AI as AI makes life harder and harder for the working class and resentment produces more Luigi Mangiones because the shareholder and CEO class continue to ignore the tea leaves.
The people are not powerless and when you put smart folks in the street with nothing to lose while article after article is about the world's first trillionaire, well the story is obvious to anyone but those convinced of their own Inherent superiority.
When the economy goes haywire over the next decade because the Baby Boom generation starts bequeathing all of that wealth that has been locked away from the younger generations who don't believe that the American dream exists for them anymore, we are going to see some wild stuff.
The people are not powerless, but most of "the people" should be excluded from the conversation based off of your previous comment. You said they have nothing to offer the discussion.
I work the nightshift at a warehouse. I don't think my paycheck is dependent on not understanding whether levels of inequality are a marker of civilization collapse. No one cares what I believe or understand, as long as boxes are on the conveyor belt.
I don't see how you'd say economic struggles would produce more Luigi Mangiones. Society has only produced one Luigi so far and he was a major beneficiary of the current economic system, with a promising career.
Ok well, I predict more unrest as a result of AI gobbling up more of the economy. What happens in 15 years when it's no longer economically viable to have human beings moving packages onto the conveyers?
That's a good question. And one that a lot people should be asking. I'm confused about if you're arguing that political violence WILL follow automation or if it SHOULD follow automation. Those are very different discussions. Maybe you believe that it is obvious which one you mean, but I'm unable to parse your argument because I'm convinced of my own superiority?
Unfortunately, regardless of what your position is, it's not the discussion that we were having. And you have already preemptively barred me from having it, as you believe that I am consumed with moral rot, willfully ignorant for financial reasons or somehow indoctrinated.
If you'd like to explain your position, rather than explain away objections, maybe people would find it more convincing.
I am saying it is following inequality. Automation is a driver of inequality
First time reader. Interesting commentary, but a few quibbles/rejoinders. Apologies in advance about the long comment.
* "When you signal a willingness to exact your preferred outcomes through force, you signal an unwillingness to be convincing, because otherwise you would just do that instead..."
Sure, but in order to be persuasive you need either a sufficiently large or direct platform: Venue with audience - direct to policy makers or large enough to shift national discussion. Plenty of everyday people who fall on the erstwhile "left" and "right" have been complaining about (or dying from) poor, expensive or complete lack of health care in this country on websites, blogs, newspapers and social media.
Nothing has fundamentally changed. So simply being "persuasive" is not enough to shift things. And I don't think the bipartisan clampdown on TikTok is as straightforward as a lot of people think. Sure, it's about China and definitely about Gaza, but what is it about each? It sure as heck isn't having China with access to most people's "private" data or metadata. More like denying a certain demographic (if a large and multifaceted one) a platform or being able to censor it like other social media. Heck, if anything it's about putting all that personal data in "American" hands and clamping down on support for Palestine.
We both seem to agree that assassination isn't an appropriate tool here, so that covers most of what I have to say on persuasion, since I mainly treat it as the alternative to violence.
As for whether persuasion is feasible: I don't deny that it's easier said than done. But in your experience, when people fall short of being convincing, is it because their megaphone isn't loud enough, their lack of proximity to elites... or is it because of factors they have full control over? I'd emphatically lean towards the latter: people suck at being convincing, and this is especially true of violence advocates for unsurprising reasons. Polling shows they skew disproportionately young, and it saddens me to see the next generation giving up on the art of persuasion.
I did read all of your comments fully but mainly wanted to focus on that contention.
Breaking it up into multiple so I don't break Substack, lol.
* Monopoly money.
All we can do at this juncture is speculate. Perhaps you're right and it was a twisted message. Maybe that's even the most likely answer, but we don't know enough for sure to dedicate much thought or discussion to it for now.
* "left" vs. "right" in 2024 - and overlapping complaints (often legitimate) about our failing country for 90% of people, including the destruction of the commons and the environment, brought on by greed, poor governance and corporate primacy
There is significant overlap, even on economic populist grounds between what people comfortably refer to as "the left" and "the right", to the point that IMO it doesn't matter what Luigi's motivations were inasmuch as they signal a place on the political/economic spectrum. The fact is a lot of people who consider themselves left, right, or neither are unhappy and see no way out inside the present system. The "establishment" took down Bernie Sanders and tamed his base as well as tried to take down Trump through various means.
I'm not saying Trump truly believes in any specific view of the economy other than "jobs, drill, jobs, tariffs, more money for everyone!" because he's never actually articulated a lot of the things his followers and fans seem to act as though he has. Well, other than deporting all the "illegals" which some on the right seem to think will open up a bunch of jobs for Americans and some on the left think will mitigate downward pressures on pay/salary.
It can be argued that he did an end-around on Hillary from "the left" in 2016, at least in messaging, but his actions once in office were all in some way or another the same thing as a typical GOP corporate-primacy conservative. Who the hell knows what Bernie would have done (or been able to do) if he was allowed to be elected. I suppose it would be a watered down version of his campaign platform. But he and Liz Warren were the only candidates in either party that even addressed healthcare issues.
* Conclusion and Solution?
Not summary assassinations by lone gunmen or civil war. It's easy to say "build a coalition" but counterintuitively, with all the social media platforms that would seem to provide the perfect tool for doing it, it hasn't happened yet. Maybe in part precisely because it would take actually extending an olive branch to the "ew gross" right or what is seen as "the right" and deciding on a few major economic issues to agree upon, even if disagreement reigns on others. Agree to break up the mega corporations (Silicon Valley, banks, Amazon, Wal Mart, energy and utility companies) but continue to fight about abortion, minority and LGBTQ rights and AGW?
I dunno. It won't be easy.
The mass media in all forms is corporate. They aren't the answer either, and have been a major part of the problem.