

Even if a movement went all “blood and violence” it wouldn’t be done in a day. What makes you so certain that something is useless just because it doesn’t immediately solve everything?
Even if a movement went all “blood and violence” it wouldn’t be done in a day. What makes you so certain that something is useless just because it doesn’t immediately solve everything?
The newer zelda games are interesting since you can see how the world has changed between botw and totk, but on the macro scale you’re definitely right. Most zelda games have formula of “all is well, bad guy appears to threaten realm, link saves the day, back to normal”. BOTW was an interesting way to change that formula - hyrule isn’t restored after you beat ganon, but things change with new settlements being formed and so on in totk
One of the factors in whether a nonviolent resistance movement can succeed or not is whether any state forces end up shifting loyalty. “Appealing to the moral sense of the people oppressing them” may be false if you’re just talking about whoever’s at the top, but it absolutely is a factor for the day-to-day bureaucrats and security forces. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to cause these sorts of changes (particularly when violent crackdowns against nonviolent resistance backfires).
Consider the success of the following movements:
There’s several other cases of this happening over the past century, but I hope you get my point - nobody’s appealing to the guy on the throne, they’re appealing to all the other cogs in the machine.
Yeah, the tricky thing about the “analog” Renaissance is the folks going for film cameras, typewrites, vinyl, and so on are looking for higher-quality equipment, rather than “mass market” stuff. Kodak could plausibly rebrand itself to appeal to this crowd.
The assumption that you’ll lose a lawsuit against a large corporation probably stops a lot of viable lawsuits from ever happening - good for him for giving it a go.