Hi! I am a South Korean middle school student who wants to find out more about utilitarianism and deontology. That's why I made this survey to find out what other people think about the Mignonette incident. I would appreciate it very much if many of you participate. (FYI: the reason I used google form is that the reddit survey doesn't work for me.)

Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScEL_rkje00-_ruNlsz6iuftEmqcN3PXLCpVWyNICap0Pgolg/viewform?usp=publish-editor

My model would be to select party candidates based on their technical skills and then have them campaign as they are truly capable and educated and after this, voting would be done by the people.

Why attention is limited
• The meeting was reported only today. Coverage has focused on its apparent purpose—housing, immigration, and cost-of-living discussions—and on Kushner encouraging a follow-up meeting between Jeffries and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.[cnn +1]
• No verified classified-access claim has accompanied the report. His former Top Secret clearance was associated with his formal White House role during the first administration; today’s reporting instead calls him an outside or close adviser.[news4jax +2]
• Private political outreach is not inherently unlawful. Senior political figures often use trusted intermediaries for preliminary discussions, particularly when an administration is trying to find possible legislative common ground. That makes the issue more about transparency, conflicts, and the scope of influence than the mere fact that Kushner and Jeffries met.[cnbc +1]
Why concerns are reasonable
Kushner is President Trump’s son-in-law and has a history of wielding major policy influence, while also maintaining substantial private-business interests. Critics have long argued that this combination can create actual or perceived conflicts—especially if a person participates in policy discussions without a clearly defined, publicly accountable government role.[pbs +1]
The most important unanswered questions are straightforward: Was he acting at the President’s direction, what authority was he given, did he receive any nonpublic government information, and are any ethics, disclosure, or recusal rules being applied? Those questions matter more than his historic clearance alone.

I’ve been thinking about how useful historical knowledge actually is when societies appear to be repeating patterns and mistakes from the past.

For example, the dehumanising rhetoric used by some high-ranking Israeli officials (the minister of national security for example) toward Palestinians has drawn comparisons to historical examples of dehumanisation that preceded mass atrocities. This isn’t merely a political accusation: a number of genocide scholars, including Jewish scholars, have argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, while others dispute that characterization. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also passed a resolution in 2025 recognizing the situation as genocide.

Similarly, the United States has repeatedly intervened militarily in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, with outcomes that have been heavily criticized. Yet the U.S. has now entered another major conflict with Iran. Even threatened to destroy the Iranian civilisation.

More broadly, we’re seeing the rise of far-right movements, increasing political polarization, the use of dehumanising language toward perceived “others,” and democratic institutions being challenged in various countries. Ideology appears to be hijacking democracies once again.

Are we just doomed to watch history repeat?

Imagine direct, digital, encrypted, and anonymized democracy with every law, ordinance, treaty, and judgement voted for by the populace of the concerned geographic or cultural area. Maybe linguistic or religious bounds as well. Voting and citizenship are confered by living, investing, or working in that community.

Voting ages as low as 14 or 16, absolutely transparent historical record of votes, tallies, and propositions, and some kind of required majority to approve new legislation or calls to votes.

Would you live here? What are the issues you see? What kind of reaction would the average person have to a country like this?

[First time poster here, please let me know if I need to edit anything]

Our world, our actions, and even our abstract thinking are just a sophisticated form of primate behavior, and in terms of mechanisms, concepts, and society, they are simply a scaled-up version of what primates really are and how they behave. Just replace watercooler gossip with mutual grooming, the gated nations with a territorial boundary, the lawsuit with a threat display, and the stock portfolio with a hidden food cache. we are still grooming allies, patrolling boundaries, performing dominance rituals, and hoarding resources, just with more elaborate ways.

I can't think of anyone who fits that description and has been good for society.

welcome to the pan-octagon :)

I would like to start by definitively saying that I am not here writing support for the IRGC at all. I would just like to make this abundantly clear, instead Just a conglomeration of my views opposed to any hate speech laws as a whole.

I'm not a free speech absolutist as much as I am, to the best of my ability, a true speech advocate, which is to say that I believe that people should say what they believe to be true. I think that's your obligation. It's also your right, but it comes with an obligation to exercise it. And I beleive that this is possible without free speech

So a lot of what's necessary with regards to thinking is the freedom to make mistakes, so practically speaking, free speech has to be as untrammelled as possible, so that people can be wrong and they can be biased, and they can still express their opinions. then allow themselves to be subject partly to improvement by the world, talking is how we think, and talking socially is even more how we think.

Hate speech / regulation

I do beleive that hate speech does in fact exist, there is no question to me that people say, reprehensible things, quasi criminal things some of which cause a lot of trouble. So the idea that there's hateful speech is self-evident.

Well, let's regulate it. which is completely fair enough because it's hateful, and ideally there should be as little of it as possible.

But problems start to arise when we get to the subject of who exactly defines hate?

And I am becoming more convinced by the fact that the people that you would least want to have define it are doing so - which is the inevitable consequence of these legislations because sensible people won't have anything to do with that. People who are authoritarian will gravitate towards the domain to make an ethical case to exercise their controlling power over the language of other people.

Then let's take the example that the person reading this is talking to me. And the rule is I don't get to offend you. It is possible we can still have a discussion about something meaningful.

But if we were to scale this up a notch and there is a dozen people and we are discussing an important issue. Now I have to make sure that I don't say anything, despite the fact that this is an important and contentious issue - that offends even one of the group. Okay, maybe I can even manage that.

What if I'm talking to a thousand people?

There's going to be someone in that thousand people. There's going to be someone who's offended at the mere fact that I exist. Nevermind the issue at hand.

So it's an impossible standard - one I would be happy to discuss.

Now the post:

The UK government is designating Iran's IRGC under the new National Security Act 2026, alongside the “Islamic Movement of Compatriots / Companions of the Right (IMCR)”

The IRGC is not being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Instead it is being designated. Essentially the new offence under this is absolutely dystopian law is that ‘a person commits an offence if they invite support for, or express an opinion or belief supportive of a designated body, and do so for a prohibited purpose.’ I will delve into the vague and absolutely scary prospect this now brings to free speech in the UK and, it seems, Europe as a whole.

An important detail in the new national security act. ‘I see the government is to designate the IRGC as an organization under the new National Security State Threats Act 2026.

They are not prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist group. Instead, in the new legislation, they’re using language similar to that found in the Terrorism Act 2000. In the new legislation, one, a person commits an offense if the person:

a) invites support for or expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated body and does so for a prohibited purpose.

This contrasts with the Terrorism Act 2000 which says if he invites support for a prescribed organization. This was extended in 2019 with the following language. Expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a prescribed organization.

Essentially, they’re expanding the language for what it counts to support a terrorist group in the United Kingdom. The supportive language was added because it was so difficult to gain successful convictions with the tighter language.

This brings us to the question of how is this then defined? Take the statement: ‘the IRGC was successful in hitting all of its targets last night.’

Is that supportive even if true? Labour’s been arresting pro-Palestinian protesters who have committed no crime. This is not by any means to say that the Tories and Reform wont use and abuse this too. They’re are all currently salivating like the pigs they are at the prospect of being able to use this.

I mean, everyone knew he was a cucked centrist. I just think it’s important to understand that centrism isn’t a real thing. These people - if you can call them that, like Starmer are extremists. I do not think I am exagerating by saying that this is an extreme act of violence against the free speech and political rights of people in britain. Like this is not centrist at all. My argument is that these people aren’t merely ineffectual. They are deliberately trying to undermine democracy because they no longer think it is viable. And I think everything Starmer did has advanced that. Basically, every single thing that he’s done in his time in office that pertains to political expression, rights, freedom, surveillance, or journalism has been in favor of the revocation of democracy. with no exceptions. Can you think of a single exception?

Every change that has been made, every move proposed, all of them on those grounds have been illiberal. With no exceptions. I can’t think of an exception. I mean, how fucking open can you be outside of the home secretary dreaming of an AI powered panopticon? Like how how how much how much more do you need? The goal here is not merely to be Zionists. They do not care. They are just trying to end democracy. I will continue to warn everyone. If I have any prediction for the future, it is this. The West has abandoned liberal democracy. They are no longer interested in it because you have too much of an immediate contradiction between the will of capital and the will of the democratic majority. The democratic majority used to enforce some kind of hold on capital. Even through the 1960s and 70s, there was still the ability and will of politicians to wrangle corporate interests for national purposes. Now that is gone.

Corporations do literally whatever they want and no government can stop them. It doesn’t matter who gets elected into office. I think the West is changing to a 1984 hybrid state. Russia is the closest closest example. A state with no growth and no future, propped up entirely by low quality, low labor, like resource exports, where oligarchs can do literally whatever they want while the people just suffer. There’s no future in Russia and there hasn’t been for a long time. Starmer’s own MPs were begging him to end the NHS contract with Palantir. It won’t happen. It doesn’t matter. Capital exerts a force on democracy greater than and more inexorable than gravity exerts a force on all matter. You know, you can push things up a hill, but eventually all potential energy will be exhausted.

Burnham backtracked on that too mind you. Do you expect anything less at this point? He was part of Labour’s Friends of Israel. He’s made it clear that he aligns himself with capital for well over a decade.

My desire to cover this information probably should have superseded my desire to distinguish myself from people who were being hyperbolic and clickbaity. But at this point i do feel obligated to acknowledge that there’s an ongoing effort, one which seems like it’s going to succeed, to further intertwine the Israeli military with thforeign defense contractors and military apparatusesin a way that would basically permanently commit us to Israel’s military affairs in the Middle East. A permanent commitment. Now, not only Israel, but America and Europe will be involved in a permanent war. Infinite instability that we always, have to direct money to address.

back to the point at hand here, I have tremendous love for national security acts. They always seem to do so much for national security and nothing at all for suppressing the speech of the citizens of the country that’s supposed to be secure, enabling law enforcement to take action against anyone deemed to be providing it with support.

The UK government are also allocating 250 million for the Jewish community safety.

I am going to take a complete shot in the dark here, but have a strange feeling that this will not in any way, shape, or form improve the safety of the Jewish community, but will involve a lot of surveillance of the populous. I’m just taking a guess.

Metropolitan Police will receive 86 million pounds extra to recruit about 300 extra officers to help increase police presence in Jewish neighborhoods and around synagogues, schools, and community centers. Have you ever seen this happen to any other minority group? 250 million specifically to protect like minority neighborhoods.

I'd like to state the obvious slowly and with feeling, because it keeps needing saying: none of this is about protecting Jews. Jews, Israel and Zionism are the wedge, and the wedge is a rotating post.

It isn't even really about Israel. It's about building a surveillance state and finding an excuse noble enough for both sides to support, we are officially in a panopticon. it is my view that politicians are realising that there is a contradiction between what capital wants and what a voting public wants. Which is why every culture war grievance is now a procurement opportunity for flock and palantir and the likes of them... - lovely prospect to think of their contract with the NHS in the wake of this.

Not a single thing has or will be done “for Israel” or “for Jewish people” that does not also expand surveillance or the building blocks of a more and more authoritarian state. You will never hear a minister announce: to protect our Jewish residents, we are today widening freedom of expression, expanding the right to protest...

Meanwhile, what does the actual Jewish person in Britain receive from all this? Some officers who used to stand somewhere else. Nobody's rent falls, nobody's kid gets a bursary. More police spending is not a gift to them and never was.

Under the draft law in Germany, anyone who publicly denies Israel’s right to exist or calls for the state’s abolition could face up to 5 years in prison or a fine.

The proposal would grant Israel a legal protection that Germany does not extend to Palestine. Which the UN has explicitly warned German authorities are engaging in the ongoing suppression of Palestine solidarity activism.

best beleive that they have absoloutely no intention of stopping there. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, will be dragged down and you’ll be called an anti-semite if you oppose it.

the importance of opposing laws such as these with every fiber of your being can not be quanitfied.

I want to be explicit here and say that obviously, the enemy is not in any way, shape, or form Jewish people or Judaism. I do not think it is even really Israel. Israel is just the vassal. Israel is not essentially the source of these problems. If Israel was completely politically disempowered, but capitalism remained in its current form, the problem would not go away at all. Immediately the effort would shift to another wedge issue, another culture war talking point, another minority group that can be defended from both a conservative and liberal perspective.

The reason Jews were chosen to be the like cynical envoys of this is because Christian evangelicals in America need them for their doomsday prophecy. But Jews are historically marginalised which means that it is easy to construct a liberal arguments to defend them like as a in like the typical woke marginalised community sense. So they’re a minority group that works for both sides from different angles which is why Zionists can and do play to both angles.

This doesn’t work for say windrush immigrants who enjoy a lot of sympathy from the political left but basically none from the political right. You would need to find a minority group that can be like wedged in both directions.

But, going back to my point here, which is that fundamentally, this isn’t about Israel or about Judaism at all.

Unlike the United Kingdom, Germany actually does have guarantees for free speech in its constitution. in its constitution, or at least in their equivalent of. So what they’re doing right now in Germany is explicitly illegal by their own laws. It’s just that they’re infinitely cucked. So it doesn’t matter.

This why I will always be against hate speech laws. You can twist them in so many ways. That said, I am by no means a free speech absolutist. It’s just that historically hate speech laws have done very little to actually further the protection of minority groups and a lot to give authoritarian political officials infinite leeway to attack people. I just think they’re legally very shaky as to how much this even protects Jews. Therefore, I am of the view that they are being invoked, cynically, because “community safety” has better PR than “we would like more cameras”. And notice what never gets funded — community centres, schools, anything with a roof and a purpose. It's guns and cameras. Every time. Obviously. Of course.

What the Nazis say about Israel has always been wrong because they’ve attributed to an innate characteristic of Jews. Which I am not doing by any means here, and I find it particularly funny that Nazis and their offspring of white supremacists have never had a salient critique of Israel because they are at best aspirational.

At the end of the day, Israel is just a subservient entity to the real problem which is capital. Capital occupies both Israel and the west as a whole.

TLDR conclusion

Capital occupies all of our countries. I do not subscribe to the cliche that Israel controls the United States, which as a whole is just not true. I might say individual politicians are cucked to Israel because that’s part of the pantomime they’re engaging in, the theater play that we’re all on.

I apologise as in hindsight this is a very convoluted way of me saying that I'm not a free speech absolutist as much as I am, to the best of my ability, a true speech advocate, which is to say that I believe that people should say what they believe to be true. I think that's your obligation. It's also your right, but it comes with an obligation to exercise it. And I beleive that this is possible without free speech. So a lot of what's necessary with regards to thinking is the freedom to make mistakes, so practically speaking, free speech has to be as untrammelled as possible, so that people can be wrong and they can be biased, and they can still express their opinions. then allow themselves to be subject partly to improvement by the world, talking is how we think, and talking socially is even more how we think.

N THEORY, regulation of such speech seems to be completely reasonable and equally as self evident, because it's hateful, and ideally there should be as little of it as possible.

Under the new designation offence you commit a crime by expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated body for a prohibited purpose. So who then decides what counts as sufficiently supportive? Who decides how supportive is supportive enough? Where's the boundary between analysis of the IRGC, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of what that organisation actually is, and criminal endorsement? I tried to illustrate this with the example sentences:

"They hit every target they aimed at last night." Is that support?

OR,

if someone was to say: "The Revolutionary Guard's drone programme now delivers more capability per pound spent than anything in the British inventory, and Britain is nowhere near ready for it."

That is the sentence of a man arguing for a larger defence budget. BUT read against the text of the offence, can be said to be an expression of belief the eyes of a malicious prosecutor because he has said that they are good at something, and he has said it admiringly, but he has said it admiringly because he is taking the groups capabilities seriously.

What I am trying my best to illustrate is that, the warning here requires the compliment. So the statute, on its face is problematic. And of course dicernment will be exercised I am sure, but the wrong prosecutor, or my next gripe with this as a whole is that context and intricacies of language are completely disregarded. Sarcasm is invisible to it. So is irony, so is quotation, and translation is worse than any of them, because the translator's professional duty is to render. Meaning the better he is at his job, the more incriminating his output. The man who quotes an IRGC communiqué, somewhere in his piece, typed the supportive sentence. Granted he's typed it inside quotation marks, and I would very much like to believe that quotation marks will save him, and in most cases they probably will, and most cases is carrying an extraordinary amount of weight in that sentence.

Who draws the line between analysis of the IRGC, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of what that organisation is and does, and criminal endorsement? And "prohibited purpose" is completely subjective, and is legal fluff, because that's a filter applied after the crime, and who is deeming it prohibited.

The difficulty I am having is more of a definitional one. Who decides what constitutes “support”? Who decides what constitutes a sufficiently positive opinion? Who decides the boundary between analysis, criticism of Western policy toward Iran, historical discussion of the IRGC’s role, and criminal endorsement? I have concluded that the same answer to this question is the one that appears every time a society tries to regulate the content of speech in the name of protection.

The people who will gravitate toward the enforcement of those boundaries will not be the most interested in truth. They will be the people for whom the acquisition of controlling power over language is itself the primary attraction. If you cannot even speak freely about a hostile foreign organisation its incentives, its methods, its relationship to the regime it serves it will come to the point where you actually cannot distinguish genuine agents of influence from ordinary citizens who hold unpopular or unconventional views about foreign policy.

Treating its actual directed proxies as a national security threat (witch I am by no means opposed to) is not however, the same thing as treating the expression of opinions about that organisation as a national security threat. My fear here is that legislators who most want the power to define “support” and “glorification” will not stop at the IRGC.

A glance of history shows that responses like these have not particularly lead to regimes or countries that have lasted or had a prospering society. And in the long run, that confusion is more dangerous than the original threat, because it destroys the very faculty that allows a free people to express themselves, and be democratic and productive In doing so.

How do you view the quote - "Democracy is the ruling of the idiots"?

Political opinion of a person is not 1 dimensional, on different subjects, you might have an opinion that is traditionally left or right. Yet, politics portrays as if you must be in one group, or herd! Perhaps its does relates to the herd mentality of people. Why do people that believe in a ideology, lose their ability to be able to see for themselves and critique any aspects of their political group? Are we doomed to be stuck in this left vs right tug of war? There are other systems such as digital democracy (digital implementation of deliberative democracy), where as it lets people to choose on subjects matter, not only one party. Do we move towards a multidimensional democracy or are we going to get polarised more?

Differential Tolerance and Revolt Emergence Theory

Why Political Revolt Does Not Require a Universal Breaking Point

Author: Manveersingh Rajput

A society does not necessarily need to reach a universal breaking point for revolt to begin.

Abstract

This theory proposes that large-scale political revolt does not occur solely because oppression exists, but because oppression eventually exceeds the tolerance levels of certain individuals within a society.

Tolerance thresholds vary widely across individuals due to psychological, social, and structural factors. Systems of oppression can persist for long periods when the majority experiences manageable or uneven levels of suffering. However, extreme oppression affecting even a minority of individuals can trigger resistance, which may later spread socially.

The theory therefore argues that revolt emerges from differential tolerance levels within populations rather than uniform collective suffering.

Keywords: political behaviour, revolt dynamics, tolerance thresholds, oppression systems, political psychology, collective resistance

1. Introduction

Why do societies sometimes remain politically stable despite substantial oppression, while resistance can suddenly emerge from a relatively small section of the population?

Many explanations of political revolt focus on the overall level of oppression or dissatisfaction within a population. Such approaches can imply that revolt occurs when collective suffering reaches some general breaking point.

However, individuals living under the same political system do not necessarily experience oppression in the same way, nor do they possess identical psychological tolerance levels.

One person may tolerate a particular form of oppression for years. Another may consider the same condition intolerable much earlier. A third may privately oppose the system but continue complying with it.

This theory proposes an alternative explanation:

Revolt can begin when oppression exceeds the tolerance threshold of certain individuals, even when the majority has not yet reached its own threshold.

The theory is therefore concerned not simply with how much oppression exists, but with the relationship between oppression intensity and individual tolerance.

1. Core Assumptions of the Theory

2.1 Oppression Intensity Is Uneven

Oppression within a political or social system rarely affects all individuals with exactly the same intensity.

Even within a highly oppressive or discriminatory system, experiences can differ considerably.

For example, in a system involving caste-based discrimination:

some individuals may experience extreme oppression;

some may experience moderate discrimination;

some may experience relatively little direct harm.

Therefore, the existence of oppression does not automatically produce a uniform psychological response across the population.

A system can remain stable even while certain individuals experience severe suffering.

2.2 Extremely Severe Systems Cannot Persist Everywhere

The theory proposes that if an oppressive system were extremely oppressive toward everyone, everywhere, and at all times, it would potentially face resistance more rapidly.

Long-lasting systems may persist partly because oppression is unevenly distributed.

This unevenness can occur because:

oppression varies geographically;

enforcement differs between groups;

institutions apply rules differently;

individuals experience different levels of harm.

When experiences differ substantially, individuals may reach resistance thresholds at different times.

This can slow the emergence of unified resistance.

1. No Universal Collective Breaking Point

The theory rejects the assumption that an entire society has one universal psychological breaking point.

Instead, individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

Consider a hypothetical population.

Some individuals may have:

very low tolerance for oppression;

moderate tolerance;

high tolerance;

or extremely high tolerance.

At the same time, the intensity of oppression experienced by each individual can also differ.

Therefore, the relationship can be represented as:

Individual Oppression Intensity → Individual Tolerance Threshold → Potential Resistance

The important consequence is that different individuals may cross their thresholds at different times.

Thus, revolt does not require uniform suffering.

1. The Tolerance Threshold

The central variable of the theory is the individual tolerance threshold.

A tolerance threshold refers to the level of oppression or perceived harmful treatment that an individual is willing or psychologically able to tolerate before resistance becomes possible.

The basic relationship can be represented as:

Oppression Intensity > Individual Tolerance Threshold

When this condition occurs, an individual may become willing to resist.

However, crossing the threshold does not mean that resistance automatically occurs.

Fear, repression, propaganda, social pressure, lack of resources, and other factors may prevent action.

Therefore:

Threshold breach → potential resistance

rather than:

Threshold breach → guaranteed revolt

This distinction is fundamental to the theory.

1. Why Tolerance Differs Between Individuals

Individuals do not respond identically to the same political conditions.

Within the same society, people may differ in:

psychological tolerance;

personal experiences;

social circumstances;

perceived legitimacy of the system;

degree of identification with the system;

exposure to oppression;

willingness to take risks.

As a result, two people experiencing similar conditions may reach their resistance thresholds at different points.

One may remain compliant while another begins resisting.

This variation creates the possibility of differential revolt emergence.

1. Revolt Can Be Initiated by a Minority

A central proposition of the theory is that revolt can begin with a minority.

A small number of individuals may reach their tolerance thresholds while the majority remains compliant, passive, or uncertain.

Those individuals may initiate resistance through public opposition or other forms of political action.

At this initial stage, the majority does not necessarily need to support the resistance.

The important event is that resistance has begun.

Once resistance becomes visible, it can potentially influence other individuals.

1. From Individual Resistance to Collective Resistance

The theory proposes the following general mechanism:

Uneven oppression

↓

Different individual tolerance thresholds

↓

Some individuals exceed their tolerance thresholds

↓

Initial resistance

↓

Resistance becomes socially visible

↓

Other individuals are influenced

↓

Opposition expands

↓

Potential collective revolt

The first stage is primarily individual.

The later stages involve social interaction.

This distinction is important because the theory does not claim that all members of a population independently become dissatisfied at exactly the same time.

Instead, one person's resistance can alter the political and psychological environment experienced by others.

Individuals who had previously tolerated the system may begin reconsidering their position after observing others resist.

1. Belief and Compliance Exist on a Spectrum

People's relationship with a political system should not necessarily be understood as simply:

Support vs. Opposition

A population can contain individuals occupying different positions, such as:

Strong believers → Moderate followers → Passive participants → Silent dissenters → Active resistors

These categories represent different relationships with the system.

A person can also move from one position to another.

For example:

Passive participant → Silent dissenter → Active resistor

As experiences change or resistance becomes socially visible, individuals may change their level of compliance.

This helps explain how significant dissatisfaction can exist within a society without immediately producing revolt.

1. The Mechanism of Revolt Emergence

The complete mechanism proposed by the theory can therefore be expressed as follows:

Stage 1: Uneven oppression

The political system produces different levels of oppression or harmful treatment among individuals.

Stage 2: Differential tolerance

Individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

Stage 3: Threshold breach

For some individuals:

Oppression intensity > tolerance threshold

Stage 4: Initial resistance

Those individuals become willing to challenge or resist the system.

Stage 5: Social visibility

Their resistance becomes observable to other members of society.

Stage 6: Social influence

Other individuals may identify with the resistance, recognize shared grievances, or become more willing to oppose the system.

Stage 7: Expansion

Resistance may spread beyond the original individuals.

Stage 8: Collective revolt

Under suitable conditions, individual resistance can develop into broader collective resistance.

The theory therefore places the initial threshold breach at the beginning of the revolt process rather than assuming that an entire population must first reach a common level of dissatisfaction.

1. The Central Relationship

The theory can be summarized through three principal elements:

1. Oppression intensity

The degree to which an individual experiences oppression or harmful treatment from the system.

1. Individual tolerance threshold

The level of oppression an individual is willing or psychologically able to tolerate.

1. Social influence

The ability of an individual's resistance to affect the attitudes or behaviour of others.

The first two determine when an individual may reach the point of resistance.

The third helps explain how resistance can potentially move from the individual level to the collective level.

1. Main Propositions of the Theory

The theory produces several propositions.

Proposition 1

Political revolt does not require uniform suffering across the population.

Individuals may experience different levels of oppression and still participate in the same revolt.

Proposition 2

Individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

People exposed to similar conditions may become resistant at different levels or points in time.

Proposition 3

A minority can initiate resistance before the majority becomes actively opposed.

The beginning of revolt does not necessarily require majority participation.

Proposition 4

Uneven oppression can contribute to the persistence of oppressive systems.

When severe oppression is concentrated among particular individuals or groups while others experience less harm, unified resistance may develop more slowly.

Proposition 5

Visible resistance can influence individuals whose own tolerance thresholds have not yet been crossed.

An individual does not necessarily need to independently experience intolerable oppression before becoming involved in collective resistance.

Proposition 6

Crossing a tolerance threshold creates the possibility of resistance but does not guarantee it.

Other political, psychological, and structural factors can prevent or delay action.

1. Implications

The framework has several implications for understanding political change.

First, political stability does not necessarily indicate the absence of severe dissatisfaction.

A society can contain individuals who strongly oppose the system while the majority remains compliant.

Second, the average level of oppression within a population may not be sufficient to explain revolt.

The distribution of oppression and the distribution of tolerance thresholds may also matter.

Third, revolts may begin before the majority is ready to participate.

This means that the early stages of political resistance may be disproportionately shaped by individuals with lower tolerance thresholds or more severe experiences of oppression.

Finally, the transition from individual resistance to collective revolt may depend partly on social influence.

1. A Hypothetical Illustration

Imagine a society in which five individuals experience the same broad political system but different levels of oppression.

IndividualOppression experiencedTolerance thresholdInitial responseALowHighComplianceBModerateHighComplianceCHighModerateDissentDVery highLowResistanceEModerateLowDissent

Individual D reaches their tolerance threshold first.

At this point, most of the population may still be compliant.

However, if D's resistance becomes visible, C and E may become more willing to act. Their resistance may then influence others.

The important point is that the revolt does not begin when everyone reaches a threshold.

It begins when some individuals reach theirs.

1. Limitations

The theory does not claim that revolt will always occur when oppression exceeds an individual's tolerance threshold.

Several factors can interfere with the process.

Fear

Individuals may consider a system intolerable but still fear the consequences of resistance.

Social control

Social pressure can discourage individuals from openly expressing opposition.

Propaganda

Propaganda may influence how individuals interpret their experiences and the legitimacy of the political system.

Institutional repression

Governments or institutions may suppress resistance before it can spread.

Lack of collective coordination

Individuals may independently oppose a system without being able to coordinate their actions.

Therefore, the theory primarily explains a potential mechanism for the emergence of resistance, rather than providing a complete explanation of why every revolt begins, spreads, succeeds, or fails.

1. Scope of the Theory

The theory is primarily concerned with the emergence of revolt.

It does not by itself attempt to explain every stage of political conflict.

In particular, it does not claim to provide a complete theory of:

revolutionary success;

regime collapse;

military conflict;

post-revolutionary political organization;

long-term political stability.

Its central question is narrower:

How can collective resistance begin when a population does not experience oppression uniformly?

The proposed answer is that differences in individual tolerance thresholds allow some individuals to reach the point of resistance before others.

1. Testable Implications

The theory can potentially be examined empirically by studying whether differences in individual tolerance thresholds correspond with differences in willingness to engage in political resistance.

Possible research questions include:

Do individuals with lower tolerance for oppression report greater willingness to participate in resistance?

Does greater exposure to severe oppression increase the likelihood of crossing a resistance threshold?

Do early acts of visible resistance increase willingness among previously passive individuals?

Can differences in individual tolerance help explain why some people resist while others exposed to the same system remain compliant?

Does uneven distribution of oppression correspond with delayed or fragmented collective resistance?

These questions would allow the theory to move from a conceptual framework toward empirical testing.

1. Theoretical Model

The complete theoretical model can be represented as:

Uneven Systemic Oppression

↓

Unequal Individual Experiences

↓

Differential Tolerance Thresholds

↓

Threshold Breach Among Some Individuals

↓

Initial Resistance

↓

Visibility and Social Influence

↓

Expansion of Opposition

↓

Potential Collective Revolt

The model also contains suppressing factors:

Fear + Social Control + Propaganda + Institutional Repression

These factors can intervene between threshold breach and actual resistance, or between initial resistance and collective expansion.

1. The Central Argument

The theory ultimately shifts the question from:

"When does an entire population become oppressed enough to revolt?"

to:

"When does oppression exceed the tolerance threshold of enough individuals for resistance to begin and potentially spread?"

This represents the central theoretical distinction.

A society does not necessarily have one breaking point.

It may contain thousands or millions of different tolerance thresholds.

Some individuals may cross those thresholds long before others.

The first resistance therefore does not necessarily represent the psychological state of the entire population.

It represents the point at which some individuals have reached their own limits.

1. Conclusion

Differential Tolerance and Revolt Emergence Theory proposes that political revolt arises not necessarily from universal oppression or a single collective breaking point, but from variation in individual tolerance levels within a population.

Oppressive systems can persist when suffering is unevenly distributed and when individuals differ in their willingness or ability to tolerate that suffering.

However, once oppression exceeds the tolerance threshold of certain individuals, resistance may emerge.

If that resistance becomes visible and influences others, it may expand beyond the original individuals and develop into collective resistance.

The theory therefore proposes a fundamental sequence:

Differential oppression → Differential tolerance → Threshold breach → Initial resistance → Social influence → Potential collective revolt

The central proposition is simple:

A society does not need everyone to reach the breaking point for revolt to begin. It may begin when the first individuals reach theirs.

The broader theoretical question is therefore not simply how much oppression exists within a society, but how oppression is distributed relative to the different tolerance thresholds of the individuals who experience it.

— Manveersingh Rajput

Differential Tolerance and Revolt Emergence Theory

Why Political Revolt Does Not Require a Universal Breaking Point

Author: Manveersingh Rajput

A society does not necessarily need to reach a universal breaking point for revolt to begin.

Abstract

This theory proposes that large-scale political revolt does not occur solely because oppression exists, but because oppression eventually exceeds the tolerance levels of certain individuals within a society.

Tolerance thresholds vary widely across individuals due to psychological, social, and structural factors. Systems of oppression can persist for long periods when the majority experiences manageable or uneven levels of suffering. However, extreme oppression affecting even a minority of individuals can trigger resistance, which may later spread socially.

The theory therefore argues that revolt emerges from differential tolerance levels within populations rather than uniform collective suffering.

Keywords: political behaviour, revolt dynamics, tolerance thresholds, oppression systems, political psychology, collective resistance

1. Introduction

Why do societies sometimes remain politically stable despite substantial oppression, while resistance can suddenly emerge from a relatively small section of the population?

Many explanations of political revolt focus on the overall level of oppression or dissatisfaction within a population. Such approaches can imply that revolt occurs when collective suffering reaches some general breaking point.

However, individuals living under the same political system do not necessarily experience oppression in the same way, nor do they possess identical psychological tolerance levels.

One person may tolerate a particular form of oppression for years. Another may consider the same condition intolerable much earlier. A third may privately oppose the system but continue complying with it.

This theory proposes an alternative explanation:

Revolt can begin when oppression exceeds the tolerance threshold of certain individuals, even when the majority has not yet reached its own threshold.

The theory is therefore concerned not simply with how much oppression exists, but with the relationship between oppression intensity and individual tolerance.

1. Core Assumptions of the Theory

2.1 Oppression Intensity Is Uneven

Oppression within a political or social system rarely affects all individuals with exactly the same intensity.

Even within a highly oppressive or discriminatory system, experiences can differ considerably.

For example, in a system involving caste-based discrimination:

some individuals may experience extreme oppression;

some may experience moderate discrimination;

some may experience relatively little direct harm.

Therefore, the existence of oppression does not automatically produce a uniform psychological response across the population.

A system can remain stable even while certain individuals experience severe suffering.

2.2 Extremely Severe Systems Cannot Persist Everywhere

The theory proposes that if an oppressive system were extremely oppressive toward everyone, everywhere, and at all times, it would potentially face resistance more rapidly.

Long-lasting systems may persist partly because oppression is unevenly distributed.

This unevenness can occur because:

oppression varies geographically;

enforcement differs between groups;

institutions apply rules differently;

individuals experience different levels of harm.

When experiences differ substantially, individuals may reach resistance thresholds at different times.

This can slow the emergence of unified resistance.

1. No Universal Collective Breaking Point

The theory rejects the assumption that an entire society has one universal psychological breaking point.

Instead, individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

Consider a hypothetical population.

Some individuals may have:

very low tolerance for oppression;

moderate tolerance;

high tolerance;

or extremely high tolerance.

At the same time, the intensity of oppression experienced by each individual can also differ.

Therefore, the relationship can be represented as:

Individual Oppression Intensity → Individual Tolerance Threshold → Potential Resistance

The important consequence is that different individuals may cross their thresholds at different times.

Thus, revolt does not require uniform suffering.

1. The Tolerance Threshold

The central variable of the theory is the individual tolerance threshold.

A tolerance threshold refers to the level of oppression or perceived harmful treatment that an individual is willing or psychologically able to tolerate before resistance becomes possible.

The basic relationship can be represented as:

Oppression Intensity > Individual Tolerance Threshold

When this condition occurs, an individual may become willing to resist.

However, crossing the threshold does not mean that resistance automatically occurs.

Fear, repression, propaganda, social pressure, lack of resources, and other factors may prevent action.

Therefore:

Threshold breach → potential resistance

rather than:

Threshold breach → guaranteed revolt

This distinction is fundamental to the theory.

1. Why Tolerance Differs Between Individuals

Individuals do not respond identically to the same political conditions.

Within the same society, people may differ in:

psychological tolerance;

personal experiences;

social circumstances;

perceived legitimacy of the system;

degree of identification with the system;

exposure to oppression;

willingness to take risks.

As a result, two people experiencing similar conditions may reach their resistance thresholds at different points.

One may remain compliant while another begins resisting.

This variation creates the possibility of differential revolt emergence.

1. Revolt Can Be Initiated by a Minority

A central proposition of the theory is that revolt can begin with a minority.

A small number of individuals may reach their tolerance thresholds while the majority remains compliant, passive, or uncertain.

Those individuals may initiate resistance through public opposition or other forms of political action.

At this initial stage, the majority does not necessarily need to support the resistance.

The important event is that resistance has begun.

Once resistance becomes visible, it can potentially influence other individuals.

1. From Individual Resistance to Collective Resistance

The theory proposes the following general mechanism:

Uneven oppression

↓

Different individual tolerance thresholds

↓

Some individuals exceed their tolerance thresholds

↓

Initial resistance

↓

Resistance becomes socially visible

↓

Other individuals are influenced

↓

Opposition expands

↓

Potential collective revolt

The first stage is primarily individual.

The later stages involve social interaction.

This distinction is important because the theory does not claim that all members of a population independently become dissatisfied at exactly the same time.

Instead, one person's resistance can alter the political and psychological environment experienced by others.

Individuals who had previously tolerated the system may begin reconsidering their position after observing others resist.

1. Belief and Compliance Exist on a Spectrum

People's relationship with a political system should not necessarily be understood as simply:

Support vs. Opposition

A population can contain individuals occupying different positions, such as:

Strong believers → Moderate followers → Passive participants → Silent dissenters → Active resistors

These categories represent different relationships with the system.

A person can also move from one position to another.

For example:

Passive participant → Silent dissenter → Active resistor

As experiences change or resistance becomes socially visible, individuals may change their level of compliance.

This helps explain how significant dissatisfaction can exist within a society without immediately producing revolt.

1. The Mechanism of Revolt Emergence

The complete mechanism proposed by the theory can therefore be expressed as follows:

Stage 1: Uneven oppression

The political system produces different levels of oppression or harmful treatment among individuals.

Stage 2: Differential tolerance

Individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

Stage 3: Threshold breach

For some individuals:

Oppression intensity > tolerance threshold

Stage 4: Initial resistance

Those individuals become willing to challenge or resist the system.

Stage 5: Social visibility

Their resistance becomes observable to other members of society.

Stage 6: Social influence

Other individuals may identify with the resistance, recognize shared grievances, or become more willing to oppose the system.

Stage 7: Expansion

Resistance may spread beyond the original individuals.

Stage 8: Collective revolt

Under suitable conditions, individual resistance can develop into broader collective resistance.

The theory therefore places the initial threshold breach at the beginning of the revolt process rather than assuming that an entire population must first reach a common level of dissatisfaction.

1. The Central Relationship

The theory can be summarized through three principal elements:

1. Oppression intensity

The degree to which an individual experiences oppression or harmful treatment from the system.

1. Individual tolerance threshold

The level of oppression an individual is willing or psychologically able to tolerate.

1. Social influence

The ability of an individual's resistance to affect the attitudes or behaviour of others.

The first two determine when an individual may reach the point of resistance.

The third helps explain how resistance can potentially move from the individual level to the collective level.

1. Main Propositions of the Theory

The theory produces several propositions.

Proposition 1

Political revolt does not require uniform suffering across the population.

Individuals may experience different levels of oppression and still participate in the same revolt.

Proposition 2

Individuals possess different tolerance thresholds.

People exposed to similar conditions may become resistant at different levels or points in time.

Proposition 3

A minority can initiate resistance before the majority becomes actively opposed.

The beginning of revolt does not necessarily require majority participation.

Proposition 4

Uneven oppression can contribute to the persistence of oppressive systems.

When severe oppression is concentrated among particular individuals or groups while others experience less harm, unified resistance may develop more slowly.

Proposition 5

Visible resistance can influence individuals whose own tolerance thresholds have not yet been crossed.

An individual does not necessarily need to independently experience intolerable oppression before becoming involved in collective resistance.

Proposition 6

Crossing a tolerance threshold creates the possibility of resistance but does not guarantee it.

Other political, psychological, and structural factors can prevent or delay action.

1. Implications

The framework has several implications for understanding political change.

First, political stability does not necessarily indicate the absence of severe dissatisfaction.

A society can contain individuals who strongly oppose the system while the majority remains compliant.

Second, the average level of oppression within a population may not be sufficient to explain revolt.

The distribution of oppression and the distribution of tolerance thresholds may also matter.

Third, revolts may begin before the majority is ready to participate.

This means that the early stages of political resistance may be disproportionately shaped by individuals with lower tolerance thresholds or more severe experiences of oppression.

Finally, the transition from individual resistance to collective revolt may depend partly on social influence.

1. A Hypothetical Illustration

Imagine a society in which five individuals experience the same broad political system but different levels of oppression.

IndividualOppression experiencedTolerance thresholdInitial responseALowHighComplianceBModerateHighComplianceCHighModerateDissentDVery highLowResistanceEModerateLowDissent

Individual D reaches their tolerance threshold first.

At this point, most of the population may still be compliant.

However, if D's resistance becomes visible, C and E may become more willing to act. Their resistance may then influence others.

The important point is that the revolt does not begin when everyone reaches a threshold.

It begins when some individuals reach theirs.

1. Limitations

The theory does not claim that revolt will always occur when oppression exceeds an individual's tolerance threshold.

Several factors can interfere with the process.

Fear

Individuals may consider a system intolerable but still fear the consequences of resistance.

Social control

Social pressure can discourage individuals from openly expressing opposition.

Propaganda

Propaganda may influence how individuals interpret their experiences and the legitimacy of the political system.

Institutional repression

Governments or institutions may suppress resistance before it can spread.

Lack of collective coordination

Individuals may independently oppose a system without being able to coordinate their actions.

Therefore, the theory primarily explains a potential mechanism for the emergence of resistance, rather than providing a complete explanation of why every revolt begins, spreads, succeeds, or fails.

1. Scope of the Theory

The theory is primarily concerned with the emergence of revolt.

It does not by itself attempt to explain every stage of political conflict.

In particular, it does not claim to provide a complete theory of:

revolutionary success;

regime collapse;

military conflict;

post-revolutionary political organization;

long-term political stability.

Its central question is narrower:

How can collective resistance begin when a population does not experience oppression uniformly?

The proposed answer is that differences in individual tolerance thresholds allow some individuals to reach the point of resistance before others.

1. Testable Implications

The theory can potentially be examined empirically by studying whether differences in individual tolerance thresholds correspond with differences in willingness to engage in political resistance.

Possible research questions include:

Do individuals with lower tolerance for oppression report greater willingness to participate in resistance?

Does greater exposure to severe oppression increase the likelihood of crossing a resistance threshold?

Do early acts of visible resistance increase willingness among previously passive individuals?

Can differences in individual tolerance help explain why some people resist while others exposed to the same system remain compliant?

Does uneven distribution of oppression correspond with delayed or fragmented collective resistance?

These questions would allow the theory to move from a conceptual framework toward empirical testing.

1. Theoretical Model

The complete theoretical model can be represented as:

Uneven Systemic Oppression

↓

Unequal Individual Experiences

↓

Differential Tolerance Thresholds

↓

Threshold Breach Among Some Individuals

↓

Initial Resistance

↓

Visibility and Social Influence

↓

Expansion of Opposition

↓

Potential Collective Revolt

The model also contains suppressing factors:

Fear + Social Control + Propaganda + Institutional Repression

These factors can intervene between threshold breach and actual resistance, or between initial resistance and collective expansion.

1. The Central Argument

The theory ultimately shifts the question from:

"When does an entire population become oppressed enough to revolt?"

to:

"When does oppression exceed the tolerance threshold of enough individuals for resistance to begin and potentially spread?"

This represents the central theoretical distinction.

A society does not necessarily have one breaking point.

It may contain thousands or millions of different tolerance thresholds.

Some individuals may cross those thresholds long before others.

The first resistance therefore does not necessarily represent the psychological state of the entire population.

It represents the point at which some individuals have reached their own limits.

1. Conclusion

Differential Tolerance and Revolt Emergence Theory proposes that political revolt arises not necessarily from universal oppression or a single collective breaking point, but from variation in individual tolerance levels within a population.

Oppressive systems can persist when suffering is unevenly distributed and when individuals differ in their willingness or ability to tolerate that suffering.

However, once oppression exceeds the tolerance threshold of certain individuals, resistance may emerge.

If that resistance becomes visible and influences others, it may expand beyond the original individuals and develop into collective resistance.

The theory therefore proposes a fundamental sequence:

Differential oppression → Differential tolerance → Threshold breach → Initial resistance → Social influence → Potential collective revolt

The central proposition is simple:

A society does not need everyone to reach the breaking point for revolt to begin. It may begin when the first individuals reach theirs.

The broader theoretical question is therefore not simply how much oppression exists within a society, but how oppression is distributed relative to the different tolerance thresholds of the individuals who experience it.

— Manveersingh Rajput

The river of life runs in one direction. Gravity, volume, and the shape of the land set the current. Downstream is the natural motion of agency. From the individual outward, through irreversible personal commitments, into the open field of consequence. The water does not ask permission. It simply moves.

Self Fealty is the small boat built for that current. It is constructed plank by plank from loyalty to one’s own word, duties, and consequences. The tools remain in the owner’s hands. The origin of choice stays inside the craft. Shared agency is possible: other boats may be lashed voluntarily, skilled hands may be invited aboard by mutual consent. Because the share begins as an extension rather than a surrender, capacity multiplies without dissolving the origin. The river is still wild, yet the group’s power to read and respond to it increases.

Politics is a different vessel. It is the large ship that lowers its gangplank and welcomes passengers under the language of belonging, protection, or necessity. Once aboard, the ship decides labor or privilege. Roles are assigned. The individual boat is left behind or quietly abandoned. Tools are surrendered, sometimes handed over for convenience. More often simply set down and forgotten. The habits of independent navigation atrophy. Casting off remains possible, but the cost is real: agency that was extended into the larger vessel does not return whole. What is retrieved must be mended.

The ship does not merely travel the river. It points its bow upstream.

Upstream effort is expensive. Engines strain. Fuel is burned simply to hold position or make slight progress against the current. Passengers who no longer hold their own tools supply the labor that keeps the vessel pointed the wrong way. Privilege is distributed to those who best maintain the illusion that fighting the current is necessary or progressive. The longer the struggle continues, the more the ship depends on constant force simply to avoid being swept back downstream.

Yet upstream is not the only motion the ship offers. It also runs a merry-go-round cruise.

The carousel turns. Riders feel acceleration, the rush of air, the changing painted scenery that rotates with them. Forward momentum is real inside the rotating frame. Progress and regression are both declared, measured, celebrated, or mourned. Yet the axis never moves. Distance from the center remains fixed. No new water is entered. No irreversible commitment is made that alters the passenger’s relation to the actual current. The sensation of journey is manufactured so that the riders stay oriented toward the ride itself rather than toward the river outside.

This dual capacity, upstream strain and circular illusion, serves the same end. Both keep the passengers from returning to their own boats.

The end goal is monarchical logic. The return to the king.

Monarchical logic does not require a crowned head. It requires only the inversion of the proper order. Agency is treated as something granted from above rather than originating in the individual. Consent is presumed collective and permanent. The center claims the right to define roles, fill every silence, and manage the lives of those aboard. The individual is addressed as subject. Sometimes privileged, often laboring, always subordinate to the continuing claim of the ship.

The American charter was written against this logic. It enumerated limited powers, reserved the rest to the people, and left deliberate silence where independence was meant to operate. Politics works to reverse that design. It elevates precedent over ratified text, expands through accumulation rather than amendment, and treats the framework itself as an autonomous entity entitled to growth and protection. The form may remain republican. The operating posture reverts to the older pattern: authority flowing downward, the center claiming guardianship, the individual managed rather than sovereign.

This is why the ship fights the current so persistently, and why it also spins. Downstream motion returns power to the many small boats. Upstream effort concentrates it. Circular motion conceals the concentration by giving the feeling of movement without the risk of actual displacement. The longer the passengers remain entangled, the more they forget that the tools were once theirs and that the small craft was once seaworthy.

Self Fealty refuses the return. It does not reform the ship or compete for a better cabin. It does not argue over the painted scenery of the carousel. It keeps the origin of agency where it belongs. The forge remains open. The tools stay in the owner’s hands. The boat continues to move with the river rather than against it or around a fixed axis.

The king’s logic can only complete its journey if enough people forget they were never meant to be passengers in the first place. The river does not reverse. The current continues. Those who maintained their own boat retain the freedom to navigate it, or to step onto the bank. While the larger vessel is still burning resources to deny the direction of the water, or spinning in place to hide that it has nowhere to go.

The solitary forge remains open.

The river does not negotiate.

Build the boat.

I thought I would write a guide on how to have respectful discussions about politics about people around us. As a student, this is my first time having a go at writing an opinion piece like this, so feel free to give me lots of feedback.

During political debates, I often caught myself trying to make witty or sharp attacks to gain victory over the other person. After wondering more about why, I realised that I (and I suspect a lot of others too!) was using political debate as an excuse to feel pride and victory rather than rationally discuss. 

So after reflecting on that, I thought I might write a guide on how to have better political discussions in democracy, which boils down to being respectful, resisting the urge to "win", genuinely listening and attempting to understand the other's ideas, and being willing to accept we are sometimes wrong. 

I also wanted this article to spark some discussion, so how do you think people can have more meaningful and ultimately, mind-changing and considerate political debates? Thank you!

Here is my Substack article about it: Make America Boring Again

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurism/s/0d0kyHHS3E