[Opinion] Only rebellion will prevent an ecological apocalypse - Polidicks

the actual question of how an armed ecoterrorist group would carry out its agenda is so complex and interdisciplinary that expecting anyone to produce anything approaching a satisfactory answer in a book, much less a forum post, is just straight up dumb like, you would be dumb to trust the opinion of a decorated military veteran, much less some rando on the internet

I'm going to be up front; if you think nothing can be done. Then why are you still here? At this point just roll over and die or wait to become a follower of something else; because ya'll clearly just want to follow shit.

It's an all volunteer army. They didn't handpick people based on political ideology. There are MAGA shitheads that will absolutely be willing to go through with this. And they don't even need many - not with UAVs and shit.

You'll have to provide evidence for that claim. The point is that the Nazis couldn't manage to squash the resistance, even with a massive occupying army. It's logistically impossible, because it's a lot easier to destroy something than to build it, and because watching over your whole infrastructure is a massive overtaking and pretty much impossible. Are you trying to argue that you'll manage to station a soldier for every single mile of pipeline, the puncturing of which can slow down the rest of the supply chain to a crawl? Fighting sabotage is a lot harder than throwing soldiers and million-dollar bombs at your foe, especially when you can't see them or predict where they'll strike. You don't need UAVs or massive weaponry to commit sabotage, you don't need massive numbers, you don't even need to engage the army at any point, nor do you even need to let them identify you and retaliate.

The evidence for that claim is right there in the history books. We basically won WWII, along with the Soviets. I suppose its very likely the Soviets could have defeated the Axis on their own, at least in Europe - but then we would have had Europe annexed into the USSR in its entirety, instead of just half of it. The problem is that this kind of sabotage would give a corrupt administration motivation to declare martial law and crack down on society as a whole. Which would, again, result in a civil war that would be more likely to end with the entire country in ruins than with the masses coming out on top. I will grant though, that given I myself want to believe that the next administration won't be four more years of Trump, that I can't assume that this will happen. So you got me there. Let's hope you're right.

I didn't say, at any point, in any way, shape or form. Nor did I imply in any way, shape or form that "Nothing could be done". But you know what? I'm kind of tired of correcting people who read the shit I say, and make up their own conclusions.

There’s a huge difference between breaking some shit and killing THE FUCKING POWER GRID. In this case I was specifically referring to people in this thread who were implying or suggesting to take a page out of the militia’s playbook and throwing the entire country into chaos. That’s terrorism no matter which way you slice it as millions of mostly vulnerable people (the sick, elderly and impoverished) will likely die as a result of those actions. It’s basically the nuclear option which would end in mutually assured destruction. Please don’t. That’s not what I was saying like at all. I’m saying, don’t touch the power grid or you’re going to do irreparable damage to the cause you’re supporting.

I'm going to take this apart, line by line, because you're being a asshole, even if you don't think you are. Are you aware of the remarks Michael Cohen made about "Peaceful transition"? No? Why do you get to use ignorance as a shield from an upsetting chance that reality won't go as planned? If Trump is voted out, do you think he will step down from power willingly? Do you think the Q-ANON fuck sticks are going to believe he LOST and it wasn't STOLEN from him, for a single second? Why does worrying about this make me the bad guy? Now you're just making wholecloth assumptions in the worst faith manner you could do. Hey more bad faith assumptions from you about me! Wonderful. It's almost like you tried to just make this personal and about you. It's not. By the way, your education will still matter. A civil war isn't the end of the world, your education if it applies to the real world, will still have value. But sure, be dramatic. Flatly, you're fucking wrong. That's not "What I'm basically" telling you at all. I'm sick of you, and everyone like you who reads sometihng, and draws their own conclusions and has no interest in admitting that's just your perspective. But please, slag me more. Do you think you're the only one in your boat? Do you not realize I'm basically in the same boat? We all are? Why is this just about you? Funny. Asshole. I want to say a lot worse, but i'll get banned. I've tried killing myself enough times in my life, and in my post to Wesker on the top of the last page, even mentioned this. So, you know, maybe if you're going to make this all about you, and you're going to be emotional about your life you could try and recognize how many people are in similar boats to you. Maybe I'll just fucking do it this time, eh? Same. You're so wrapped up in your own shit you can't fathom anyone else feeling like you. Good job. My life has been anything but peaches, and I'm struggling pretty hard with everything in my life, including not telling you the nasty shit I feel you deserve to hear after these assumptions. Me Fucking Neither.

my point is just that it's a sufficiently complicated scenario that no one can really predict exactly how it would play out ahead of time there are a ton of ways it could immediately fail spectacularly, and there are a ton of ways that it could be incredibly effective we could argue over how probable one outcome or the other is until the end of time, but no matter where we end up it has no bearing on the question of whether or not there's a point where ecoterrorism would be justified

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre,[3][4][5] were the shootings on May 4, 1970, of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, during a mass protest against the bombing of Cambodia by United States military forces. Twenty-eight guardsmen fired approximately 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[6][7] A Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings reportedly showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion. This is from the Wikipedia article of the Kent State shootings, granted I bet more people see it as immoral now after the Vietnam war continued for a few more years, but the majority were indifferent or against the students.

Who cares what someone else thinks? The world is too big to think about all at once all the time. We all have things we decide not to think about. If you're a healthier, happier person when you focus on what you have control over, then doing that isn't a bad thing. You and him and I are all separate people who have to deal with these problems in different ways. There is no "right" way to be, and other people being different doesn't mean you're wrong somehow.

I didn't see that post you're referring. I apologize. I didn't realize you were struggling with the same kind of thoughts. But you have to understand something: I'm almost certainly not going to survive a civil war, if it does break out. I'm a non-religious socialist living in the middle of Trump country. Semi-Rural Tennessee. I have no guns, nor does my family. I'm as good as dead if white nationalists around here go to war. Because most of the people here would sooner side with Trump than their own fellow Tennesseans. So yeah, my education will be meaningless. Everything will be meaningless. So I can't give in and assume that this is going to happen, because if I do, I'll want to end it before it gets to that point.

i just don't like seeing people who're dealing with the same problem lash out at each other largely because of their shared struggle I understand why it happens, but it's still sad

I'm sorry too. I didn't mean to come off like such an asshole. It's been a shitty day and I'm sorry to take that out on you.

It's okay mate. Mr. Scorpio is right. We're all on the same side, despite our disagreements. It's sad that it's so hard for us to realize that a lot of the time. Because if there's one thing we can all be certain of, it's that we'll never accomplish anything if we're too busy fighting among ourselves. If the oil industry has to be sabotaged to bring it down, then so be it. I want to believe there's another way, but if there isn't, I won't stand in the way.

The only time there'll be any sort of riots or rebellion is when the oceans have risen, land is scarce, food is short and the world is boned aka when it's far too late. People don't rebel unless there's so much stresses on their lives caused by poor government performance, and considering how many people are just happy to waste their time away on digital devices, cars, instant goods, and so many other things that cause climate change, there will be no revolution. Huxley was right, just in a different way.

Don’t discount electoral politics as a route towards combatting climate change, but obviously don’t rely on it either. Vote and speak your mind and protest and even take direct action if you feel it will be a long term positive for humanity. We need to be fighting on all fronts.

we should have taken kaczynski more seriously

The best I can hope for is that the world holds up as long as I am alive, but even that is cynical. I am trying my best to be active politically; but outside of that (And even that has questionable effectiveness at least in the short term) it's really hard to not feel super depressed.

If they're going after people who commit literal terroristic acts, I don't see why not. The soldiers would also be defending their own soil. In Vietnam war they were sent to the other side of the planet to fight people who posed no threat to USA the nation or people in any way. Not exactly comparable as far as morale goes. Nazis were waging against entire nations on several fronts, and then trying to squash insurgents of a hostile nation they were occupying. Tactically a bit different from fighting a domestic terrorist cell in the peacetime I would say.

And my point never was about sabotage singlehandedly toppling a government, but about the latter not being able to efficiently tackle the former. Even if that were the case, that's still a preferable outcome compared to anthropogenesis. What the hell makes you think I've given up pushing back against it? Where did I advocate for not giving a shit about your own carbon footprint? I'm simply talking about another option to forcefully and significantly reduce the global carbon footprint without vast numbers of people willingly participating. And by the looks of things, this is becoming increasingly necessary.

Fair enough man. I already made my peace with this potentially being necessary. I guess it just comes down to the fact that nobody was talking about sabotage last year. At least not on facepunch, anyway. I know its not a new idea, but it was a fringe one not long ago. I suppose it still is - facepunchers are more woke on this issue than people on average.

Does “woke” always just refer to the most fringe position possible, or...? I’d assume climate scientists are “woke”, but I doubt you’ll find many of them supporting eco terrorism or the like.