← Back to context

Comment by s1artibartfast

1 year ago

There is a big moral and social difference between an overwhelming majority of the people and a dissatisfied group.

The ammo box is not justified and should not be tolerated simply because someone doesn't get what they want. That route is a quick decent to societal collapse.

That is how you end up with your incels, anarchist, communists, and Christian fundamentalists shooting anyone who doesnt agree with them.

I was not defending its use, but its existence means it could be used, and that fact acts as a sort of invisible check on what corporate/government power can realistically get away with. If the ammo box didn't exist as an option, then even in a democracy the "overwhelming majority" could do pretty much whatever it wanted to.

Based on impressions I'm seeing online (and freely admitting that this is hardly statistically-rigorous or -defensible sampling) I'd suggest at the very least that dissatisfaction with working within the system is highly palpable. Revolutions are rarely majoritarian viewpoints.