• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, that also means you lose the game. The prize being the attention and direction of the masses.

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily. In fact, I would argue the only way to win is not to play. But this analogy is very loose, not really sure how much further it can be stretched.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, you not playing is an ideal outcome for them. It’s more brave new world than 1984. Most of the effort is to stop us paying attention to what they are doing, and stoping us reacting to that. If they can get us to react the wrong way, souch the better, but they don’t need us to.

        I’d argue getting people to do any BUT not play is a win for us. Our only advantage is weight of numbers. By not playing, you are taking yourself off the scales.

        • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Huh I’m confused. My position is that change from within the system is essentially impossible, and it is necessary to build structures and communities outside of the reach of the capitalist hegemony in order to bring it down. Thus, not playing into their game.

          Numbers don’t matter in capitalism, all of the power comes from possession of capital and control over the means of production, which is currently monopolized by a small global oligarchy. Any attempt to infiltrate this system seems to inevitably lead to the infiltrator becoming that which they sought to overthrow, namely an oppressor.

          Calvin and Hobbes is deep yo