To be fair, the journey of a thousand miles does - or at least should - not begin with a single step, but rather with figuring out which direction to go in.
I want to add much more detail to my own reply, so here goes:
I recall a story that I read on the site-that-shall-not-be-named where this guy ran a business, and he tried to be part of the solution but after dealing with people’s dumb-shitty-STUPIDNESS he just gave up. The issue is that due to capitalism, many pricing structures in the USA are enormously opaque with tons of hidden fees (like internet service for “$5” - plus also $100 in fees that they don’t tell you about in advance). Rather than a price such as “$1.99 + tax”, which depending on area could be I dunno lets say $2.17, he instead sold his wares (whatever they were) for “$2 flat”. So not only did he single-handedly fix the opaqueness issue, at least in his own business, but he offered the item for LESS than the competition.
But… - can you spot where this is going? - people chose the $1.99 + tax option, b/c when you sort online by “price”, 1.99 + tax shows up above the $2 flat price, even when the former is actually $2.17 after tax so the latter is significantly lower cost.
i.e., There are REASONS for why things are the way they are. And we ignore these at our peril. Case in point: Trump did not “win” in 2016 so much as Hillary Clinton lost. And now we are going to try the same experiment again in 2024… Trump vs. democracy. All they have to do is keep playing the Russian Roulette game - the odds are, after all, in their favor.
So back to this aforementioned business guy: he gave up. I think he went out of business entirely rather than just caving in to do the same pricing structures that everyone else did. He apparently could not both fight the system and win, so he lost both instead.
But that begs the question: if he had just “advertised” his “prices” as $1.82 (or whatever price would, when combined with taxes, even out to $2 flat) online, but then when people walk in the door there are signs saying like “just pay $2 flat”, could he have succeeded? i.e., if he had flexed just a little, would it have saved his business? We will never know I suppose, nor am I advocating for caving in especially as it pertains to ethical matters - I have walked away from jobs rather than cave on such a line, so I mean it when I say that I am NOT suggesting to do so at all costs!!!
It is not enough to have a desire to save the world, or even your own little corner of it. THEY won’t let you. I think that is why liberals fight amongst ourselves so much though: b/c while it is SO VERY EASY to fail, it is so very hard to get an answer correct. Like to the question of “what is 1+1=?”, there are so MANY wrong answers, but only one CORRECT one. And even fewer when you factor in economic and other business necessities.
That is why I am super impressed with the job that Biden is doing. Walking that tightrope is HARD. But the media does not seem to report on half of the positive stuff that he does, so I fear that Trump will win this next election as a result. It is not enough to make the hard calls - you apparently also have to be the right kind of clown that drives clickbait engagement media stats that brings media corps higher profits too. All I know is that whatever comes next, we absolutely seem to deserve all of it, b/c we brought this on ourselves.
That is why I am super impressed with the job that Biden is doing. Walking that tightrope is HARD.
Is he walking that tightrope in Palestine?
The tightrope between arming the israelis to bomb Palestine and sending a carrier group to Israel to bomb Palestine on behalf of israel
Oh shit this is the onion.
Which is basically irl news at this point, or at least less biased than mainstream media.
Left-wing groups: disorganized
Right-wing groups: incredibly bad at opsec
Yet it still ends up as:
Left-wing groups: Beaten and arrested by police for peacefully protesting.
Right-wing groups: Attempt to overthrow democracy, get off scot-free.
Buildings burn and people die when overthrow is attempted. Therefore that’s exaggeration.
get off scot-free
Given how they are being systematically hunted down and sentenced to long prison sentences one after the other and from the bottom up, I don’t think this is accurate.
Commission data show that the D.C. court’s sentences for Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted police is below the national average.
Since Jan. 6 cases began, the average sentence imposed by D.C. federal judges in the Capitol attack under guidelines for serious assaults climbed to 46 months from 41 months but is still below the nationwide average of 51 months in 2022.
Even directly assaulting cops got these fuckers below average sentences, let alone the literal act of trying to overthrow democracy.
It’s hard to justify infiltrating activist groups like Food Not Bombs if they never plan an attack on a federal building. For a fun listen, the second season of Bundyville talks about a small group with “anti-government” leanings and how the Feds tried to encourage them to act violently. My favorite part is when one Fed texted another Fed questioning their exact plan, because the cell of five members had multiple Feds! Multiple Feds to infiltrate and influence (what’s the exact line for entrapment I wonder) a small number of people and even then they were ineffective. I guess there weren’t enough lonely autistic teens in the group.
“he’d already aroused suspicion by interrupting a meandering discussion of principles with a straightforward plan of action.”
I feel seen.
a) Organizations and Conferences
- Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
- Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
- When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—never less than five.
- Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
- Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
- Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
- Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
- Be worried about the propriety of any decision—raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.-
TIL that the OSS completely undermined the global business culture.
Those bastards!!!
The best part is by publishing this far and wide, anybody pushing for “careful consideration” and actual reasoned planning is immediately suspect, which leads to less reasoned decisions, which usually means more mistakes. If a victory is somehow won through violence of action and not careful planning, the support structure isn’t there to maintain the victory, nor are the people who win that victory well-suited to careful planning before the next engagement. The boring stuff is often what wins wars, simple things like plenty of fuel, adequate hygiene facilities, and dry socks can literally mean the difference between a division surrendering or winning a battle.
Security through obscurity!