>>515643717
>>515643852
I’m not the only one who’s been saying that because democracy is a totalitarian system where the public has no ability to petition grievances – they just tell you to vote for one of two parties that are basically the same – if there are significant grievances that people want petitioned, when they realize these grievances cannot be petitioned, they are going to start shooting and blowing things up. Actually, I think pretty much everyone with any basic comprehension of human realities has been saying that.
Because it is something inevitable, there is no real way to assign any kind of value judgement to it. You can say “violence is bad,” which seems childish and without any intrinsic meaning. You can certainly say “I wish it wouldn’t have come to this,” but again, it was always going to come to this. Democracy can work if people don’t have any real grievances, if you give them a job and a house and a car and a wife and a dog. They will not think very much about the government. But as soon as things get hard for people, when people get frustrated, and they realize that they have literally no ability to use the system to change anything, they are going to become violent.
Now you have the Luigi thing. You have this Charlie Kirk thing. Who knows how bad it is going to get, but it’s obvious that there isn’t going to be less political violence going forward.
It feels a bit like complaining about the weather. It’s hard to really know what else to say.