Sorry, did I say “I like the analysis of scaling vs escalating” and you heard “I hate the analysis of scaling vs escalating, please lecture me about how escalating is important”?

Basically I’m adding some examples of ways in which “scaling” can happen within what I think is a pretty good framework. Not sure why you’re insisting that I must be the enemy.

Appealing to authority or “influencing from within” is long proven to be ineffective and just results in burned out activists and well-meaning people that join the state apparatus and get grinded down by it.

Let me explain a little more of what I meant about BLM: I think BLM succeeded in a lot of its goals because the average American had an effective grasp of the problem, because the mass media had for whatever reason started presenting it accurately. And then, the groundwork laid, the movement could both scale and escalate, to the point that it couldn’t be ignored, which did a lot more than either most “handful of people carrying signs” protests, or any amount of voting for the presented options. I’m holding that up as a good example of what should be happening more to produce change.

I’m not sure where you got from that, to me saying “appealing to authority” was the answer, but I’m more or less agreeing with both you and OP, and it sounds like you’re insisting on tagging me as a “liberal” and creating a disagreement with me for some reason.

Edit: Oh, I see, I think I triggered something by talking about change “within the system” being good. Oh well. In my opinion, it is, in some cases, if nothing else to reduce the number of dead Vietnamese or Iraqis or Palestinians while we’re sorting our progress out. In addition to change outside the system being obviously necessary for actual permanent progress. If you feel the need to disagree with that, then fine. Just please refrain from constructing wild strawmans for the rest of what I am saying so you can disagree with me even harder about the thing that triggered you.