Beware of anyone calling for REVOLUTION. This is precisely what many of the rulers desire. They create social unrest in order to get the people to rise up and beg for government tyranny w/o even realizing what they’re doing.

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Revolutions are very fickle. It's very easy to get hoisted on one's petard if one wants "a revolution" without any additional stipulations, as you pointed out.

Non-violent protest is the only way to have a revolution without it feeding in to a civil war scenario that would benefit the military-industrial complex with massive arms sales.

And even then it can be hijacked, and everyone with any power will be trying to do so. It's definitely something to look out for.

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Just make non-violence the central idea of your cult. People will band around it, and no matter how Right and Useful violence becomes people will reject it outright.

Even if violence actually becomes the right thing to do, people will still reject it in this case.

[–]the-ham-bummer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What if this non violence is promoted to ensure the violent side wins?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That's why you need the press. Violence is generally considered bad, and violence attacking non violence is generally considered very bad, so having the press reporting on the violent side attacking the non violent side means that, whilst winning the battle, the violent side will lose the war of public opinion.

The press + cult-like behaviour serves as a solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma of Violence.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

First of all, fuck the press.

There is no “Prisoner’s Dilemma” of violence.

The prisoner’s dilemma refers to game theory and is also at its essence the basis of even the most minute biological interaction.

Violence loses. It is always selected against. It always has been and it always will be. Read up on Spiral Dynamics.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Violence loses, yes, but in many situations it's the strictly dominant strategy. Just because it produces worse outcomes doesn't mean it isn't what people will end up doing.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You completely fail to understand the prisoner’s dilemma.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Could you explain it to me, then? One of us is wrong, and while I'm assuming it's not me I've been wrong before.

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe you could explain what you mean by Prisoner’s Dilemma of violence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The best outcome is mutual peace. However, the first defecting party – the first to use violence – gets a better position, and the only action that the other party can take is to also defect, until they're both violent. This is worse for both parties than both being peaceful, but it's strictly dominant.

Is this model inaccurate?