I don't know if it's a difficult book, but I can see how it might land differently for me in different situations.
I don't know if it's a difficult book, but I can see how it might land differently for me in different situations.
One other issue I've had when I have tried to do this is that largely the "big" horrible issues with things are systematic rather than interpersonal- it doesn't matter who is operating the "baby seal blender", its operation is both the harm being done and the reason why "baby-seal-smoothies-r-us" operates so unless you cease the very profitable baby-seal-smoothy business the harm isn't going to stop.
Not to say that those issues are universally applicable, but rather to note that when you dance with the devil you need to observe how the devil is dancing with you; if you're going to go that way you need to be really careful in ways you don't need to be careful if you, say, just go work in a situation where the harm you create is less obvious and immediate.
We're conveniently forgetting Chicago, Portland, Houston, Charlotte now?
Where where ICE kidnapped a bunch of folk who were legitimate parts of our community.
Where my anarchistic line of "I have stopped caring about the law and have a hard moral boundary that if a person can live here and keep up a house and job and contribute to our community they are as 'legal' as anyone else" is starting to get a real hold even among my historically Democrat-voting friends.
But yeah, I wouldn't forget those comparative metropolises, because I'd figure that the sentiment is even stronger where even more people can see the reality of which humans are being trafficked by the US gov.
I am not sure that even if they could minority report their way into killing off all the future Fred Hamptons, they have either the man power to do it or the mental ability to define an ontology for their little scrye to even tell them who they -should- target.
It is easy to confuse these folks with the mostly competent neoliberal technocrats they replaced, but that's the whole point of this thread, no? Patel and Bongino were more interested in how to win twitter points after Kirk was killed than, like, going and playing g-man, after all.
Also, one of the nice things about living in a panopticon is that it gives the folks running it the idea that they actually know what's going on. I'll take the long bet on the over-confidence and under-competence of these WWF wrestlers.
But I'd think that the folks with their hands on the big levers probably care less and less about that kind of thing; I'd imagine it's harder and harder to find the Foucault readers who might even care to collect and monitor dissident views because the newer folks figure all us stupid nerds will show up on flock and get nabbed once they've run out of brown folks to kidnap.
Bush 1 was a dope. Dan Quayle was a dope. Bush 2 was a dope (until they decided they liked him). Sarah Palin was a dope. Trump is a dope. Vance is a dope.
The left views intelligence as a top tier prize, so they start by first trying to dismantle someone's standing on that.
How likely is it that all of those people are actually stupid compared to the typical voter? Zero chance. They're more likely to be considerably smarter than the typical voter, above average intelligence across the board. Are Bill Clinton and Obama smarter than Trump? Yes imo. But you can't play at nuance in the propaganda game though, so the left always settles on: my opponent is stupid; and they push hard in that direction.
I think you're both correct to note that attacking the intelligence of a person is both meaningless and a pretty normal liberal tactic.
At the same time, one way of understanding the shift from hard to soft power is the same as understanding Trumps "intelligence":
he's funny and knows how to work a crowd, but it doesn't functionally matter how smart he is because he has so much organized power and thus resources that he doesn't -have- to be smart. Being rich and sociopathic is probably way more effective than worrying about the long games, and everything in sir hoss's life probably makes that fact obvious.
In that same way, my horrors about this shift in power could also be stated as a worry that the folks running the US gov don't feel like they need to have any subtlety or mask on their power because they are more comfortable using dumb, brute force.
And they might be correct in that assessment- they might not need to be intelligent if they can be brutal enough.
Good luck to them and "game on" I guess; 3k troops versus 150k activated but as yet non-violent folks in Minneapolis will be an interesting bit of data for sure.
It's entirely possible that you can be on the stupid side of Chesterton's fence (to abuse the metaphor) and take it down, causing all the expected havok, and then claim you're excelling at your goals because you just have a sociopathic approach to the world.
Sure, picking up Maduro was well executed... and then he has been replaced with (checks notes... ) "the Maduro Regime".
Yeah, that -screams- competence.
Enjoy some wild speculation, if that's your jam:
My bet is that DJT will kick off from a stroke in the next 2 years, the GOP will get beat, and things will "go back to normal". But the Dems will elect some jerk like Newsome and not do the important work of imposing consequences, so this fascist power will return after two presidential terms of delicious brunch (which will fail to make progress on the environment, mass incarceration, immigration, student loan debt, housing, the economy, or anything, really).
AI and small drones will be -even- better at that point, along with an ever tighter network of flock cameras.
The propaganda will be even more solid and the aging/retired gen-xers whose grand kids won't talk to them will largely be interacting with AI-based pals who are making the same kind of pronouncements that Nome and Vance are currently making but in the voice of their first girlfriend from 1987.
Personally, I'd rather see some very extreme change now instead of fighting that fight in 15 years (or, rather, supporting the 30 year olds fighting, because I will be pretty old then).
It's not a very realistic picture of the future though; it could be the case that all this comes to a head soon. It could be the case that soon folks have some real come-to-jeebus moment about Epstein-types and capitalism (hey, it's not Capitalism, it's just croney internationalist capitalism that is the problem bro, we can just implement this anarcho-Reaganist platform, these aren't limitations on capitalists, just "normal Christian Democrat" reforms).
It might be the case that the real limits of 3-5K soldiers operating against an armed and organized city of 100k midwesterners makes it obvious what the outcomes will be if they don't stop pushing their hands.
For instance, when they start busting, say, signal chat groups of suburban soccer moms that have taken up sniping tires and cutting the power to facilities, folks might no longer have the stomach for the kinds of applications of power necessary to prevent the actions of "the people" who have their hands on all the little levers.
It could be the case that the global ecosystem really is as bad as it appears and giant storms break all the just-in-time delivery systems in the so-called advanced but fault-intolerant countries about the same time Ebola Plus (tm) hits, and we all go back to living in the beautiful caves in the pinion forests of my back yard (that's my preferred outcome even though it'll probably kill me).
Hell monkeys could fly out of my butt (that would probably kill me too, but I die in most scenarios I can imagine).
To answer your question, all things equal if you're gonna flee, flee. I'm not, but that's because I don't think there is anywhere to go.
I feel you on not wanting to read stuff that can't be read without footnotes.