The Onion

a) Organizations and Conferences

1. Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
2. Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
3. When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—never less than five.
4. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
5. Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
6. Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
7. Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
8. Be worried about the propriety of any decision—raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.-

• OSS Guide to Simple Sabatoge

The Harpers in the Forgotten Realms operate this way

It's known as a (part of a?) security culture. The least amount of information is required to operate, the better.

And yeah, BtB are great.

Yet it still ends up as:

Left-wing groups: Beaten and arrested by police for peacefully protesting.

Right-wing groups: Attempt to overthrow democracy, get off scot-free.

Can't have bad opsec if you don't have an op to sec.

Ineffectual versus incompetent.

Which is basically irl news at this point, or at least less biased than mainstream media.

We all know the direction is left! No, no my left, not your left.

I want to add much more detail to my own reply, so here goes:

I recall a story that I read on the site-that-shall-not-be-named where this guy ran a business, and he tried to be part of the solution but after dealing with people's dumb-shitty-STUPIDNESS he just gave up. The issue is that due to capitalism, many pricing structures in the USA are enormously opaque with tons of hidden fees (like internet service for "$5" - plus also $100 in fees that they don't tell you about in advance). Rather than a price such as "$1.99 + tax", which depending on area could be I dunno lets say $2.17, he instead sold his wares (whatever they were) for "$2 flat". So not only did he single-handedly fix the opaqueness issue, at least in his own business, but he offered the item for LESS than the competition.

But... - can you spot where this is going? - people chose the $1.99 + tax option, b/c when you sort online by "price", 1.99 + tax shows up above the $2 flat price, even when the former is actually $2.17 after tax so the latter is significantly lower cost.

i.e., There are REASONS for why things are the way they are. And we ignore these at our peril. Case in point: Trump did not "win" in 2016 so much as Hillary Clinton lost. And now we are going to try the same experiment again in 2024... Trump vs. democracy. All they have to do is keep playing the Russian Roulette game - the odds are, after all, in their favor.

So back to this aforementioned business guy: he gave up. I think he went out of business entirely rather than just caving in to do the same pricing structures that everyone else did. He apparently could not both fight the system and win, so he lost both instead.

But that begs the question: if he had just "advertised" his "prices" as $1.82 (or whatever price would, when combined with taxes, even out to $2 flat) online, but then when people walk in the door there are signs saying like "just pay $2 flat", could he have succeeded? i.e., if he had flexed just a little, would it have saved his business? We will never know I suppose, nor am I advocating for caving in especially as it pertains to ethical matters - I have walked away from jobs rather than cave on such a line, so I mean it when I say that I am NOT suggesting to do so at all costs!!!!!

It is not enough to have a desire to save the world, or even your own little corner of it. THEY won't let you. I think that is why liberals fight amongst ourselves so much though: b/c while it is SO VERY EASY to fail, it is so very hard to get an answer correct. Like to the question of "what is 1+1=?", there are so MANY wrong answers, but only one CORRECT one. And even fewer when you factor in economic and other business necessities.

That is why I am super impressed with the job that Biden is doing. Walking that tightrope is HARD. But the media does not seem to report on half of the positive stuff that he does, so I fear that Trump will win this next election as a result. It is not enough to make the hard calls - you apparently also have to be the right kind of clown that drives clickbait engagement media stats that brings media corps higher profits too. All I know is that whatever comes next, we absolutely seem to deserve all of it, b/c we brought this on ourselves.

Don't forget the Chinese trolls.

This is where the old adage "Don't let perfect stand in the way of progress" applies.

Biden may not even be considered progress by some, but at least he's not a rapid sprint backwards into fascism.

Part of the problem the left currently faces, regardless of revolutionary thought in general, is that environmental concerns are past the election cycle.

It is already too late to stop global warming at the 1.5 C target suggested in 2018.

Gradual reform will be too late. There is no way around it, we are acting too slow, and even if every country in the world flipped Green or whatever in 2028 that might still be too late.