Conversation
@snacks I think they're coping hard just look how angry they go if you don't support current thing. Fake and gay liberalism is very vulnerable right now, which is good btw
multiple stickmen in train, tho…
multiple stickmen in train, tho…
2
1
3
@snacks Bundeswehr against inward political threats is unconstitutional. Surely I could possibly see governments go "fuck this" on that, but then you should do guerilla against the yaysayers in parliament in a hypothetical roleplay scenario in Fortnite creative mode
1
0
2
Sally (evil)
sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
@snacks
Tanks are very ineffective against crowds in close range, and crowds happen to be very effective against tanks if they have molotov cocktails, there's no point in an armored vehicle if you can't see where you're going, the heat also makes IR ineffective.
Tanks are very ineffective against crowds in close range, and crowds happen to be very effective against tanks if they have molotov cocktails, there's no point in an armored vehicle if you can't see where you're going, the heat also makes IR ineffective.
1
0
2
Sally (evil)
sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
@dagda @snacks
They wouldn't use the conventional army, instead they would first found a new spec-ops unit formed in anti-guerrilla tactics or a counter-terrorism, that would also happen to not be legally and constitutionally defined as part of the army (a stunt commonly known as transfer military assets from the army to a police tactical unit). These guys would also refuse to sit on tanks even if told to, because tanks are intended to be used against other tanks, not crowds, as I said earlier. In an hypothetical revolution the kings of the hill would be recon, snipers, saboteurs, and explosives, that's also why all infantries still have AT and AA units, one single guy can take over a crewed vehicle with a single shot while hiding inside a bush in a full ghillie suit and when your adversary cannot afford armored vehicles they WILL play dirty, so the less you use big, moving targets the better.
Even with this considered you still only need less than 5% of the population to have a successful take-over if you're properly organized, crowds have a lot to win while state bootlickers don't, morale is far more important now than ever.
They wouldn't use the conventional army, instead they would first found a new spec-ops unit formed in anti-guerrilla tactics or a counter-terrorism, that would also happen to not be legally and constitutionally defined as part of the army (a stunt commonly known as transfer military assets from the army to a police tactical unit). These guys would also refuse to sit on tanks even if told to, because tanks are intended to be used against other tanks, not crowds, as I said earlier. In an hypothetical revolution the kings of the hill would be recon, snipers, saboteurs, and explosives, that's also why all infantries still have AT and AA units, one single guy can take over a crewed vehicle with a single shot while hiding inside a bush in a full ghillie suit and when your adversary cannot afford armored vehicles they WILL play dirty, so the less you use big, moving targets the better.
Even with this considered you still only need less than 5% of the population to have a successful take-over if you're properly organized, crowds have a lot to win while state bootlickers don't, morale is far more important now than ever.
1
0
3
0
0
0
@sally tanks where just supposed to be a standin for the advancement of modern military vs what people can get their hands on tbh
1
0
0
@snacks Not really
Heavy armor is extremely vulnerable against angry mobs (or one guy with a molotov) which is why every competent military (not the IDF or VDV) will only deploy them along with infantry, where they're mostly just useful for providing support by fire and destroying enemy armor and fortifications which don't tend to exist in the case of armed uprisings
If anything technology has made uprisings easier since the invention of the assault rifle put a Maxim gun into the hands of every single man, woman, and child
Heavy armor is pretty much irrelevant in asymmetric conflicts
Heavy armor is extremely vulnerable against angry mobs (or one guy with a molotov) which is why every competent military (not the IDF or VDV) will only deploy them along with infantry, where they're mostly just useful for providing support by fire and destroying enemy armor and fortifications which don't tend to exist in the case of armed uprisings
If anything technology has made uprisings easier since the invention of the assault rifle put a Maxim gun into the hands of every single man, woman, and child
Heavy armor is pretty much irrelevant in asymmetric conflicts
2
0
3
@scathach ig actually lethality for both sides just went up a lot
0
0
0
Sally (evil)
sally@freesoftwareextremist.com
@snacks
Forget about military tech, the new weapons of crowd control are psyops; destroying both physical and mental health of the general punlic to make them hopeless and unable to live on their own.
Someone that is unhealthy due to the dogshit slop they eat, the brainrot they watch or the drugs they chronically take has no means nor morale to fight the system.
Forget about military tech, the new weapons of crowd control are psyops; destroying both physical and mental health of the general punlic to make them hopeless and unable to live on their own.
Someone that is unhealthy due to the dogshit slop they eat, the brainrot they watch or the drugs they chronically take has no means nor morale to fight the system.
1
0
2
@sally @snacks
I've also heard the argument before most places make old style mob protest impossible. In the past, the people of your village would start protesting, they'd be people you know and people who live very close.
Nowadays, think of American suburbia. How would a protest start or rise organically? It couldn't. Barely anybody even knows their neighbour and even if they did they'd have to go set a date to go protest in a city, because what, are you gonna protest in the streets of a housing estate?
That lack of ease of protesting, in the past ordinary disgruntled people would protest, nowadays that protesting is restricted to a certain class of people, usually poor inner city blacks or middle class whites who make it a hobby.
Both of these stereotypes are hardly desirable, and honestly if you hear the average citizens thoughts on protestors, they wish the police had shoot-on-sight to stop 'pesky protestors'.
In fact, media campaigns are run constantly on protesters in general, at least here in the UK. Tiny protests are blown up, you may have even heard of it, the "Just stop oil" protests. sometimes they'll do stupid shit like glue themselves to a road and it'll get blown up on TV for a whole week and now people genuinely are willing to ban protesting over things like that.
So yeah. Protesting has become the hobby of middle class Whites that cannot spawn organically, must be organized and are generally looked down upon. That's even beyond the fact that, as you said, people generally lack the motivation to do so, generally weighed down or even contented by modern life.
I've also heard the argument before most places make old style mob protest impossible. In the past, the people of your village would start protesting, they'd be people you know and people who live very close.
Nowadays, think of American suburbia. How would a protest start or rise organically? It couldn't. Barely anybody even knows their neighbour and even if they did they'd have to go set a date to go protest in a city, because what, are you gonna protest in the streets of a housing estate?
That lack of ease of protesting, in the past ordinary disgruntled people would protest, nowadays that protesting is restricted to a certain class of people, usually poor inner city blacks or middle class whites who make it a hobby.
Both of these stereotypes are hardly desirable, and honestly if you hear the average citizens thoughts on protestors, they wish the police had shoot-on-sight to stop 'pesky protestors'.
In fact, media campaigns are run constantly on protesters in general, at least here in the UK. Tiny protests are blown up, you may have even heard of it, the "Just stop oil" protests. sometimes they'll do stupid shit like glue themselves to a road and it'll get blown up on TV for a whole week and now people genuinely are willing to ban protesting over things like that.
So yeah. Protesting has become the hobby of middle class Whites that cannot spawn organically, must be organized and are generally looked down upon. That's even beyond the fact that, as you said, people generally lack the motivation to do so, generally weighed down or even contented by modern life.
1
0
3
0
0
3
Listens to Baroque while coding murder.exe 
newt@stereophonic.space
@scathach @snacks tanks are irrelevant, but technology isn't. Instant communications and quick logistics are the true gamechanger here. Before that, uprisings could be started and last for weeks if not months before the ruling cohorts would even learn about them, much less take action. Today it takes mere hours to deploy troops into literally any place on Earth.
1
0
3
@newt@stereophonic.space @snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
I think we should take one more step back to see that technology is used not only to quelch uprisings, but to prevent them from even happening. Instead of rising up people spend days on end doomscrolling and discussing which out-group is worse in the comments 😅
I think we should take one more step back to see that technology is used not only to quelch uprisings, but to prevent them from even happening. Instead of rising up people spend days on end doomscrolling and discussing which out-group is worse in the comments 😅
1
0
2
@newt@stereophonic.space
I mostly agree — you don't need millions to storm government buildings, that is true. But you still HAVE TO have popular support for your government to become legitimate. You can't just arrive as a strike team out of the blue, eviscerate current officials and take their place — that is unlikely to work.
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
I mostly agree — you don't need millions to storm government buildings, that is true. But you still HAVE TO have popular support for your government to become legitimate. You can't just arrive as a strike team out of the blue, eviscerate current officials and take their place — that is unlikely to work.
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
1
0
0
Listens to Baroque while coding murder.exe
newt@stereophonic.space
Edited 6 months ago
@m0xEE @snacks @scathach
>But you still HAVE TO have popular support for your government to become legitimate
What does "legitimacy" have to do with anything? Most people in any country hate their governments to the guts.
>You can't just arrive as a strike team out of the blue, eviscerate current officials and take their place — that is unlikely to work.
This is literally how it has worked every single time in the history of mankind. There is no other way.
>But you still HAVE TO have popular support for your government to become legitimate
What does "legitimacy" have to do with anything? Most people in any country hate their governments to the guts.
>You can't just arrive as a strike team out of the blue, eviscerate current officials and take their place — that is unlikely to work.
This is literally how it has worked every single time in the history of mankind. There is no other way.
1
0
1
@newt@stereophonic.space
Besides, authorities aren't in the capital only — even if you manage to take the capital over, what if regional governments tell you to "literally fuck your own face"? To you have enough fighters to cover that? Every regional government and their law enforcement? Without legitimacy it's just civil war.
Then there are international matters — who recognises that your bunch of fanatics represents the country? Case in point: Taliban taking over Afghanistan, they are de-facto controlling the country, now what? Selling opiates to Russia which itself is still considered somewhat legitimate and recognises you is the best you can hope for.
I think legitimacy is the cornerstone of any revolution.
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
What does "legitimacy" have to do with anything?Legitimacy is the most important thing! People not only have to hate their government — they have to like what you stand for. If you're assassinating officials, attacking law enforcement and setting the city on fire and people like you — you're brave revolutionaries, but otherwise you're just terrorists and they might even start flocking to their current government.
Besides, authorities aren't in the capital only — even if you manage to take the capital over, what if regional governments tell you to "literally fuck your own face"? To you have enough fighters to cover that? Every regional government and their law enforcement? Without legitimacy it's just civil war.
Then there are international matters — who recognises that your bunch of fanatics represents the country? Case in point: Taliban taking over Afghanistan, they are de-facto controlling the country, now what? Selling opiates to Russia which itself is still considered somewhat legitimate and recognises you is the best you can hope for.
I think legitimacy is the cornerstone of any revolution.
This is literally how it has worked every single time in the history of mankind.I don't think so. I think it's more like Orwell described it: there is one group that is in power, the second group fighting for power — but they can only succeed if they have the support of the majority, the third group — that never wins itself, but becomes an essential tool for the transition of power. Very simplistic, but I think it's close to how it is.
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
1
0
0
Listens to Baroque while coding murder.exe
newt@stereophonic.space
@m0xEE @snacks @scathach
>Taliban taking over Afghanistan, they are de-facto controlling the country, now what?
Taliban is officially recognised now. That's what.
>> This is literally how it has worked every single time in the history of mankind.
>
>I don't think so.
It's the fact. Communists did this in Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Jews did this in Israel. Yankees did this in America. If you take over a country and manage to hold onto your reign, eventually others will recognise your rule.
>Taliban taking over Afghanistan, they are de-facto controlling the country, now what?
Taliban is officially recognised now. That's what.
>> This is literally how it has worked every single time in the history of mankind.
>
>I don't think so.
It's the fact. Communists did this in Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Jews did this in Israel. Yankees did this in America. If you take over a country and manage to hold onto your reign, eventually others will recognise your rule.
1
0
0
@newt@stereophonic.space
* China might recognise you for its own gain, but in the end they will fuck you over and in time own your country.
This is what I'm talking about — without universal legitimacy all you get is a civil war, by the end of it they could suppress most of the resistance, but even that didn't grant them international recognition, it took going through WW2 as an ally to have that.
That is exactly what I'm talking about — without popular support you have to subdue everyone with violence and in case with a big enough country even a foreign invading force is incapable of this, a bunch of fanatics can do nothing of the sort.
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
Taliban is officially recognised now. That's what.Recognised by whom, similar outcasts? If you are not recognised by developed economies, you get no foreign investments and you're doomed to remain a shithole country.
* China might recognise you for its own gain, but in the end they will fuck you over and in time own your country.
Communists did this in RussiaNo, man, they didn't. Ever heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
This is what I'm talking about — without universal legitimacy all you get is a civil war, by the end of it they could suppress most of the resistance, but even that didn't grant them international recognition, it took going through WW2 as an ally to have that.
That is exactly what I'm talking about — without popular support you have to subdue everyone with violence and in case with a big enough country even a foreign invading force is incapable of this, a bunch of fanatics can do nothing of the sort.
eventually others will recognise your ruleYeah, precisely! If you're lucky enough to remain in power for decades 😏
@snacks@netzsphaere.xyz @scathach@stereophonic.space
1
0
0
Listens to Baroque while coding murder.exe
newt@stereophonic.space
@m0xEE @snacks @scathach
>Recognised by whom, similar outcasts? If you are not recognised by developed economies, you get no foreign investments and you're doomed to remain a shithole country.
Counterexample: Taiwan. It's officially recognised by no-one and yet.
>> Communists did this in Russia
>
>No, man, they didn't. Ever heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
You're literally proving my point for me. Commies massacred the opposition over the course of the civil war and established themselves as the only government in power. This is how you win, through sheer brutal violence.
>Recognised by whom, similar outcasts? If you are not recognised by developed economies, you get no foreign investments and you're doomed to remain a shithole country.
Counterexample: Taiwan. It's officially recognised by no-one and yet.
>> Communists did this in Russia
>
>No, man, they didn't. Ever heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
You're literally proving my point for me. Commies massacred the opposition over the course of the civil war and established themselves as the only government in power. This is how you win, through sheer brutal violence.
0
0
0