[_carbyau_]

Where is the line on tyranny?

Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out?

Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace?

Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?

This has mess written all over it.

Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too.

As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.

[lan321]

It's essentially a critical mass type of thing, no?

The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences.

It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans.

It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.

[_carbyau_]

I understand that "there has to be a counter to dictatorship" and such actions are not without consequence.

But the words "critical mass" don't seem much more helpful than the definition of tyranny. The questionable boundaries apply, it's like a "you'll know it if you see it" thing.

The problem here is perception. Some people may "see" an outrage that causes them to act. While others don't. Jan 6 and George Floyd riots are two examples of people "seeing something" that caused them to act.

But if you are going up against the most well funded military in the world by some margin - well, whatever is seen had better motivate a LOT of people.

[fn-mote]

The questions here are very good.

I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but:

> Where is the line on tyranny?

> Who decides?

> when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?

Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.

[coldtea]

One could make the exact same arguments in favor of monarchy.

In fact the loyalists did.

>This has mess written all over it

History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.

[johnisgood]

Since you mentioned "moral duty", yeah, of course not, and it should not, IMO.