Thanks for the upvote.
There hasn't been internet for most of history, nor global warming, nor automation.
The joke is that people don't want a fair revolution because the situation will be worse at first if resources are shared globally. People don't want agency because they would be responsible for all problems.
How about direct action to make citizens vote in a coordinated way?
But you must have other direct actions in mind. Which ones?
You don't have a plan, you have a wish list. How do you want to achieve your list?
Using insults doesn't refute my points. Why not coordinate as citizens?
E. g. if somebody loses money in a multilevel marketing scheme, is it wrong to blame the victim? Or is not every victim a victim?
Regarding your edit, that's assuming a bit too much to defend your point.
But that's what I asked for, your reason why there is no responsibility on the side of the victims.
To engage with that line of thinking: if you leave agency at people, you can ask why one would trust a company with that data when every conspiracy theorist doesn't use that service specifically because of the risk of genocide.
But you are right, there are valid reasons to take the risk.
There are levels. Voters don't have agency. But if voters would coordinate they would have agency.
The difference is believing in agency.
I am aware how stupid I sound. But how else can I phrase it that there needs to be a believe in change to create change? Right now I just hope that readers ignore the stupid part.
What but voting should solve the problems? You won't stage a revolution.
What's your plan for systemic change? If you have none, why not try systemic individual charity?
The average citizen will have to pay for UBI with taxes. Why not do it voluntarily?
If you train men to reject domination, which other logical coherent optimum is there to reach?
You have to look at the underlying desires.
If people are rational you can convince them with arguments. But if they are not then they don't care about what they say and walk back on their words. What good is winning those arguments?
That's the problem if you want professional online services. Being the product should be the weird option.
Remember the color for the natives and rejoice.
Default male identity surpresses pain and desire to be reliable. (roughly, please don't get lost in the details.)
Gay culture is about accepting and expressing deep desires. It's just coincidentally sexuality because that desire is so strong that it drives the change to accept desires. It's in the name, gays are gay.
If you are on a diet and you are hungry and you have to sit next to somebody who eats cake, it brings the will for self-control to its limit.
The middle ground is protection of the self. The haters hate to not be vulnerable, to be able to fight and endure pain and suffering.
Show them how they can protect without suffering. Remove the need for them to hide their emotions. Make the world safe. Remove the need to hate.
Or accept that we need to fight and surpressing sexuality is a price to pay to win against the enemy.
Or have both sides look at it together and discover social norms for coexistence together.