• purgegf [she/her]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    My intention is not lesser evilism, just what is plausible. The media is not monolithic even though it appears so. The facts that outlets such as InfoWars, and enough extreme right-wing notions that created this current cult in office is proof that the media can no longer control the narrative as much as they want. I would have fully agreed with you 10 years ago, but the mass availability of information has become exponentially greater.

    Yes, if Trump wins people do pay attention. My issue with that is, assuming a proper revolution gets underway, any number of fail-conditions on that path will result in an American Theocratic Facist state on a scale you cannot remotely convince me compares to the shell of which is in place today.

    I don’t see this as lesser evilism. I see this as pragmatism in two hypothetical scenarios.

        • RandomWords [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          because you presented the possibility of failure and said it was an issue.

          • purgegf [she/her]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Yes. Failure in that hypothetical scenario would be pretty bad.

            • RandomWords [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              so you're saying it would be bad if trump won because it leads to the greatest chance of revolution, and if the revolution fails then we're under the thumb of government, and you'd rather that we continue this incremental change bullshit, and think that that would be a better route, despite the fact that during the last fifty years the country has regressed rather than progressed. am i getting that right?

              • purgegf [she/her]
                ·
                4 years ago

                so you’re saying it would be bad if trump won because it leads to the greatest chance of revolution

                No.

                if the revolution fails then we’re under the thumb of government

                Yes.

                and you’d rather that we continue this incremental change bullshit, and think that that would be a better route, despite the fact that during the last fifty years the country has regressed rather than progressed

                No. I’m saying a revolution would be a better route. And that it occurring under “incremental change bullshit” has a less risky chance of working.

                am i getting that right?

                Partly. You are getting there.

                • RandomWords [he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  incremental change doesn't lead to revolution. your opinion is American Stockholm Syndrome. it's ass.

                  • purgegf [she/her]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    incremental change doesn’t lead to revolution

                    No, it doesn’t. I’m not saying it leads to a revolution at all. But there has been no incremental change the past 4 years. Only far-right extreme change and Americans dying by the thousands. A revolution is primed in either outcome.

                    your opinion is American Stockholm Syndrome.

                    It must be nice to not be a hostage. To not be a marginalized class. To not be repeatedly and personally threatened that you will be the first on the firing line, the first target of domestic terror. It must be nice.