Machines don't talk to each other, though. Individually people don't have much influence, but en masse we absolutely do. One person refusing to work will be put out of a job; one thousand people refusing to work will put the boss out of a job.
Was Lynching Terrorism?
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
One gun that jams will be replaced, 1000 guns jamming and there will be a new supplier.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
One pizza will be eaten. A thousand pizzas and even I will have leftovers.
Pangur Bán;13699609 said:
You can't just find a new supplier of workers, though - you can outsource a car factory but you can't outsource a restaurant. You also can't outsource voters - politicians have to be essentially palatable in a democracy otherwise people will find new ones. I'd also question the extent to which you could just 'find a new supplier' of soldiers, policemen and the like - can you imagine the logistical effort of finding several hundred thousand willing foreigners and making them into a coherent organisation?
I also like Tim's analogy.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
No, but you can get in other people who are better at disciplining / brainwashing / motivating. Maybe the previous commander refused to shoot the guy who was going around criticizing imperialism or something, get in someone else who will shoot him and claim he was an enemy infiltrator who had a history of molesting babies. And so on. For all the apparent dissonance, elites don't in practice find their human resources much more difficult to control than their other resources.
Snorrius
Librivorator
It depends on whether we talk about terrorism using normal meaning of the word or propaganda-meaning as used by modern mass-media and politicians. If we use propaganda-type of "terrorism" word then sure -- lynching was terrorism, fascism, racism, sexism, paedophilia and crime against Earth ecology all in one. If use it in the old way than hardly.
Except that they often do, and you end up with the mutinies of 1917, where those in charge have to make concessions in order for things to work. It's easy to say 'well, that's still the elites getting their way', but it's not a zero-sum game - elites can only get their way (in their own sphere which doesn't affect most of us most of the time) if they also help us or stop hindering us from getting ours. Hence the French army returned to battle in 1917, so Petain got what he wanted, but they also got their wish of not being ordered to make a major attack until they were reinforced and being granted more leave. It's never simply a case of controlling or forcing people - there's always that negotiation. Even in normal circumstances, there's always that threat of strike, mutiny or outright hostility.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
It'd be nice if you were right, but I don't accept that for a moment. This is like arguing planes don't work because there are a few crashes every so often.
What old normal meaning of the word? Failing to bow to the king?
Pangur Bán;13699656 said:
I think the mistake that you're making is that people aren't machines, so they can work together in ways that machines can't.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Yeah, machines can't use weaker human beings as an economic/political resource for themselves ... not yet anyway. 
