UltraMagnus @ UltraMagnus @startrek.website

Posts

1

Comments

9

Joined

4 days ago

I disagree with the idea that some "great leader" would be helpful and not a liability. Or the idea that there aren't already leaders in the movement.

Yes. It's natural that participation will ebb and flow, that's why it's important for folks not to give up and say it was all useless after just one day. Having regular weekly events and a monthly "big" protest seems to be the strategy for maintaining momentum.

Escalation could also be useful - though of course that doesn't necessarily mean jumping to blood-and-violence, there are many other tactics that can be used (like the targeted boycotts, for example, or a general strike). Even more "passive" things like voter education (where polls are, how to register, etc.) can add up over time.

The assumption that you'll lose a lawsuit against a large corporation probably stops a lot of viable lawsuits from ever happening - good for him for giving it a go.

Even if a movement went all "blood and violence" it wouldn't be done in a day. What makes you so certain that something is useless just because it doesn't immediately solve everything?

The newer zelda games are interesting since you can see how the world has changed between botw and totk, but on the macro scale you're definitely right. Most zelda games have formula of "all is well, bad guy appears to threaten realm, link saves the day, back to normal". BOTW was an interesting way to change that formula - hyrule isn't restored after you beat ganon, but things change with new settlements being formed and so on in totk

To be honest, I don't know much about film at all! That is pretty interesting to hear about Kodak - if all the indie/"hipster" companies are dependent on it, then I can see why you wouldn't want to lose it. That was my bad for relying on memories of 20+ years ago - naturally, they would've changed since then

One of the factors in whether a nonviolent resistance movement can succeed or not is whether any state forces end up shifting loyalty. "Appealing to the moral sense of the people oppressing them" may be false if you're just talking about whoever's at the top, but it absolutely is a factor for the day-to-day bureaucrats and security forces. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to cause these sorts of changes (particularly when violent crackdowns against nonviolent resistance backfires).

Consider the success of the following movements:

• Peoples Power Revolution (First one in 1986) - several military leaders defected from the Marcos regime
• Velvet Revolution (1989) - had several government officials defect
• Malagasy Political Crisis (2002) - Defense minister resigned, generals and military officers were split on who to support (source for this one, since the article is hard to find). In fairness, although this one would largely be classified as nonviolent, at the time, it was hard to say whether or not there would be any armed conflict (aside from some incidents with police attacking protesters early in the movement)

There's several other cases of this happening over the past century, but I hope you get my point - nobody's appealing to the guy on the throne, they're appealing to all the other cogs in the machine.

Yeah, the tricky thing about the "analog" Renaissance is the folks going for film cameras, typewrites, vinyl, and so on are looking for higher-quality equipment, rather than "mass market" stuff. Kodak could plausibly rebrand itself to appeal to this crowd.

Part of me wonders if the way our brains humanize chat bots is similar to how our brains humanize characters in a story. Though I suppose the difference there would be that characters in a story could be seen as the author's form of communicating with people, so in many stories there is genuine emotion behind them.