Obviously the ideal amount of political violence should be zero. If any other option exists, I think those must be taken first.
But sometimes the status quo is violence, and letting the status quo continue doing violence will overtime do more harm than one act of political violence. So mathematically, there must be some point where some violence is worth the cost of less harm in the future.
Your lifestyle determines your deathstyle.
Not civil disobedience, but I agree. Unfortunately creating communities is probably a bigger ask than getting arrested in a protest.
I’m doing my part.
Everyone sits on multiple spectra for what they care about, and where their thresholds for acting are
Right, so what would push people over that threshold now?
Some coordination is good, I mean distributed as in anybody with time/means can join, even if they aren’t near a population center.
Not against the idea in spirit, but that’s not distributed and not feasible for many people who live far from corporate HQs.
Well, that’s part of my point. Everyone who stopped eating at Chick Fil A stopped 10+ years ago, everyone else doesn’t care. Anyone willing to boycott is already boycotting, and they can’t boycott any harder until we have a method of acquiring necessities from somewhere else.
Right, that was just an example of things anyone with a couple friends could do locally that would still accumulate at scale.
Yeah, that’s kind of the idea, like starting a trend of sabotaging multinational companies that have warehouses and logistics all across the country. Anyone near one could be inspired and do their part.
That’s true, but at the same time, aren’t most people already boycotting what they can? I think anyone who feels bad about supporting shitty companies are already avoiding them when they can, and if they can’t, well there isn’t much more to do until we hit mutual aid networks.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.