Comment by deanCommie | Hacker News Reader

Comment by deanCommie | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There is a now infamous tweet:

"People on twitter will really be like "you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebomb a Walmart" [0]

Well, Luigi firebombed a Walmart.

Is that a valid strategy for enacting societal change? Perhaps not. But this republic accepts and engages in war. And as Clusewitz says, ""War is the continuation of policy with other means." [1]

Perhaps Luigi is also pursuing policy change through other means. I have to say that watching American politicians and law enforcement agencies treat the man who at worst committed one murder (alleged; innocent until proven guilty) with the wrath and civil rights abuses previously only reserved for terrorists associated with 9/11 makes me believe that his actions genuinely shocked the system.

I'll be shocked if he makes it to trial alive.

[0] https://x.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1720538218628558969?lang...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

>the wrath and civil rights abuses previously only reserved for terrorists associated with 9/11 makes me believe that his actions genuinely shocked the system.

When people responded positively or indifferently to the killing of Thompson, the ruling class took notice. That's REAL power, a new sensation to most Americans. I can hope only good things can come of this realization.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's valid, it's clearly very effective. No major social change for the better has EVER happened in history without such actions.

It seems to go like this:

1. One group calmly demands some sensible thing. They might do some protests.

2. The powers that be say no, because they like the status quo. They might arrest some people for peaceful protesting.

3. A different group does some violence.

4. The powers that be acquiesce to the first group because the alternative is continued violence. The second group has no basis to continue the violence once the first group is acquiesced to.

5. History paints the first group as the ones who caused change and the second group as bad people who shouldn't have done what they did.

It's got to be one of those psychological sales tricks. Door in the face technique?

Anyway, this is the ONLY way that regular people have EVER caused things to change for the better, so take that into consideration. (Whatever counter-example you're thinking of is probably not actually a counter-example)

Correct. Most recently, peace in Northern Ireland and the end of Apartheid in South Africa.

> Perhaps Luigi is also pursuing policy change through other means.

Luigi, a person with zero history of political activism, with no record of organizing for anything, decides his only open political alternative is to kill the CEO of an insurance company, not registering new voters or organizing his workplace for better health coverage or driving old folks to the polls.

I don't know? That sounds less like rational political activism than a mentally disturbed lone gunman to me.

It sounds like someone who has analyzed the situation and decided that this is the only thing that works, and that it's better if someone without a record does it.

Jim Bell

Reply on news.ycombinator.com