• Gormadt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      just overthrow the government

      That’s far easier said than done, and honestly even saying that feels like an understatement

        • nxdefiant@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Probably harder now than ever. I think the last time it was tried, roughly 2/5ths of the population wanted it and they failed miserably, and they were still using Muskets then.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      We could just take out the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the government would expire when they don’t get their meds.

      Sun Tzu

    • JayJay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sooooo, basically what trump tried, but its somehow okay because you said it?

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        By that logic it’s never okay. Some of th best changes in history grew from overthrowing government.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Generally speaking what follows a violent revolution is usually a few decades of war, poverty and tyranny.

          It’s quite unlikely that you’ll be better off in the 2-3 following decades than when you started. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. You might be better off or worse off, depending on the ability of the new government

        • JayJay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I would say a peaceful change by vote of the people (not politicians) would be a better way than violent revolution. Violent revolution can be justified, but it will end up hurting many people and destabilizing a country. War from internal and external parties would be garunteed. Peaceful revolution is not an easy nor even plausable outcome, but it would harm far fewer people.

          Im curious: How does not voting show you wish for revolution? My view is that I’d rather vote for someone who is working within the system (corrupt and broken though it may be) than someone who wants to tear it down and install a dictatorship. Not voting just means you’re complicit and signals you don’t prefer one over the other. I don’t like either, but i definitely have a preference.

          • systemglitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Tough question I don’t have an answer for. Both established parties are corrupt beyond measure, pandering to the same group behind closed doors.

        • perishthethought@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          Oh OK. So this is just “extremists are extreme”. Gotcha.

          Downvote me all you want, ppl.

          • JayJay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, it seems so, i personally don’t like our system either, but that would have to come down to a vote from the people to tear it down and start over. People dont get to force the issue like trump and many extremists, and apparently, like this other person wants.