Frankie99 wrote:

What you ended up w/ was a whole lot of innocent collateral damage, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, W's second term, the Department of Homeland Security, even more militarized cops, and even longer lines at the airport. Seriously, thanks.

So, the US didn't need a reason to invade. It just waited for one and then made shit up from there. You're describing a consequence and assigning it an action that didn't really precede it because it makes your argument better.

The truth is, these things would have wound up happening in some way, somewhere else, under different pretenses. These are not linear causal reactions to specific events, they're just part of a cycle of state violence that hasn't ended with our current efforts.

The US invaded Afghanistan b/c it refused to hand over Bin Landen. That's an established fact.

You don't think the so-called War on Terror (which included Iraq, go look up some Bush speeches) was a consequence of 9/11? Nor the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Nor my bag-search in the subway a few weeks after it happened? Nor the wave of Islamophobia that swept the country?

At worst, you can say it supplied an excellent excuse.

More realistically, about the only one of those things that might have happened anyway was Iraq.

I'm saying the actions that preceded the state violence don't matter. You're looking at this from a strict historical "a preceded b preceded c therefore x" and that's not what I'm challenging. I'm saying the path would have been taken no matter what. It was there all along, just waiting for an event. 9/11 happened to be that event.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:21 am Fuck all that. It's very easy to live like so and opt out. Always has been. (Granted, it's more complicated w/healthcare, but hear me out...)

If people did this en masse, it would make way, way more of a point than just shooting Musk or Bezos. Their enterprises would crumble. But most people are fundamentally lazy,

I think you're correct that economic action would be more effective and it would be great if it happened. And yes, many people are fundamentally lazy, but I think there's more to it than just that. There would also be a proportion of people plain scared to risk going without cover for a period. Some might doubt how effective it might be. Some would doubt how many would join in and not want to put themselves 'out there' first. Add in the ones that don't care because they're comfortable and the ones that are opposed because (insert some lefty-criticising cliche here) etc. And how many do we have left? Is it enough of a critical mass to achieve the change it's supposed to?

I'm not advocating people take up arms against businessmen here, btw. I'd like to have more faith in your approach.

Frankie99 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 12:59 pm I'm saying the actions that preceded the state violence don't matter. You're looking at this from a strict historical "a preceded b preceded c therefore x" and that's not what I'm challenging. I'm saying the path would have been taken no matter what. It was there all along, just waiting for an event. 9/11 happened to be that event.

But there is very much a direct causality and correlation there.

It's weird to say, oh well, something else kinda sorta along those same lines would have happened anyway.

And—apologies if I'm reading you wrong—use that as a means to justify (?) public assassinations or terrorist attacks on targets you don't like. Which, historically, seem to fail to accomplish much (if untethered from broader and arguably way more effective social and economic actions), over and over.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but so what? At best, nobody solves anything either way.

I think violence is a useful tool that needs to be reached for occasionally. Murder is extreme, but I don't think it is blanketly wrong depending on the circumstances. That said, I think we are a far cry from an armed massacre of billionaires leading to anything other than a new set of billionaires with stronger gates. There is no organization, there is no "we", the education and terms used is vague and inconsistent, there is no mutual understanding, there is a pervasive narcissism. It would be confused, passionate, but ultimately pointless death.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:00 pm

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 10:21 am Fuck all that. It's very easy to live like so and opt out. Always has been. (Granted, it's more complicated w/healthcare, but hear me out...)

If people did this en masse, it would make way, way more of a point than just shooting Musk or Bezos. Their enterprises would crumble. But most people are fundamentally lazy,

I think you're correct that economic action would be more effective and it would be great if it happened. And yes, many people are fundamentally lazy, but I think there's more to it than just that. There would also be a proportion of people plain scared to risk going without cover for a period. Some might doubt how effective it might be. Some would doubt how many would join in and not want to put themselves 'out there' first. Add in the ones that don't care because they're comfortable and the ones that are opposed because (insert some lefty-criticising cliche here) etc. And how many do we have left? Is it enough of a critical mass to achieve the change it's supposed to?

I'm not advocating people take up arms against businessmen here, btw. I'd like to have more faith in your approach.

Thanks. And Jesus, I wouldn't mind having more faith in it myself. We agree on this 100%. Cheers.

I never said I was confident, per se. (Uh, and if I did, that was dopey. Or I was a little drunk.) I'm just much more confident in it (and feeling it would be far more constructive) than let's-just-shoot-the-main-guy as a step towards solving a problem.

I don't think the billionaires in arms scenario is a likely one, ever, because the state of the world as it is today depends on the illusion that the wealthy are those of us who succeeded. That's how they get all the misguided empathy and admiration, which are necessary for submission, without which it's a whole different ballgame. It's a good thing when the system is so blatantly exposed as working far differently for the select few.

The bullshit closeted christianism has got to go or we're fucked.

Clocker's Law: As an online discussion progresses, the probability of a comparison involving 9/11 approaches 1.

OrthodoxEaster wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:06 pm

Frankie99 wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 12:59 pm I'm saying the actions that preceded the state violence don't matter. You're looking at this from a strict historical "a preceded b preceded c therefore x" and that's not what I'm challenging. I'm saying the path would have been taken no matter what. It was there all along, just waiting for an event. 9/11 happened to be that event.

But there is very much a direct causality and correlation there.

It's weird to say, oh well, something else kinda sorta along those same lines would have happened anyway.

And—apologies if I'm reading you wrong—use that as a means to justify (?) public assassinations or terrorist attacks on targets you don't like. Which, historically, seem to fail to accomplish much (if untethered from broader and arguably way more effective social and economic actions), over and over.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but so what? At best, nobody solves anything either way.

I can't make you get it, but you're not getting it. And you're mistaking things I'm saying completely because you want me to be saying something I'm not.

The state will use its power against the powerless. End.

You're dressing this up with a barrage of events that wind up causing the state to use violence and power. I'm saying these 2 things: You're right these these events happened and were related, AND you're wrong that one cause the other. The state is the cause, not the events.

pater_toma wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:09 pmThere is no organization, there is no "we", the education and terms used is vague and inconsistent, there is no mutual understanding, there is a pervasive narcissism. It would be confused, passionate, but ultimately pointless death.

Thank you. I'm glad someone said this. Give this man his flowers.

People are assuming WAY too much here. Namely that the "left" is largely organized, unified, and coherent. When really it couldn't even stop the worst presidential candidate of all time from getting re-elected. Everyone left of center couldn't even agree that THAT was a wise course of action, and now some people want to start hit squads.

People are acting like a concerted effort to take out CEOs and rich a-holes could be done strategically on millions of people's behalf without unforeseen negative consequences. They're assuming no one would get involved in such an undertaking for the wrong reasons, that all of the targets would be well chosen (will we spare billionaires if they can sing and dance and win Grammys?), that no one innocent gets caught in the crossfire/that there would be no ghastly collateral damage, and that the ranks of such "activists" can't be infiltrated and corrupted. For anyone not prone to fanciful thinking, it's assuming quite a lot if you think such efforts can't backfire and put a truly bad precedent in motion. I mean, if armed-to-the-teeth right-wing nutjobs are just sitting around waiting for an excuse to start a New Civil War, you'd be playing right into their hands in so far as this became an active, widely endorsed movement.

I don't have the answers. Not sure anyone else does either. You don't have to accept the status quo lying down, like a mere harmless consumer. And no one should feel obliged to mourn a douchebag. But it's really really easy to be an Online Badass, to be emotionally unstable all over your computer screen, in front of people too polite to tell you to take your pills. Try carrying on like this in the real world for decades and then see if you care for what that looks like. It's much easier to start a war than fight it over years and years and one day end it.