I consider myself an extremist, in that I believe for things to change extreme measures must be taken.

Now with that in mind, get this: most of us are probably familiar with trying to explain how something mundane and socially accepted is actually bad for everyone and should be changed, right?
It's always a sisyphean effort that leads nowhere but downwards, proven time and time again.

But why do we bother explaining and arguing? - Because we need the manpower to make those necessary and extreme changes.

Therefore, since acquiring said manpower is impossible, what can you do? - It's not like you can achieve anything noticeable all on your own...

But what if you could?

See, extremes tend to have two sides, the best and the worst.

Now, what are you trying to achieve in the end? The best.

But as we have already established you cannot achieve the best without the people - That leaves you only with the other extreme - The worst.

The worst doesn't require manpower, at least a significant one. It doesn't need social approval - And in fact it cannot get one!

But now think about it... What makes the people yearn for a bettering? What makes the normies finally notice? - The answer is simple, the fire spreading beyond their neighbor and onto their own house.

Naturally, this leads to the one and only conclusion:

Spread the flame and behold - your manpower rising from their knees - The bettering is nigh.

You just invented accelerationism, congrats.

accelerationism is associated with poltards and commie pedotroons which is bad rep for something that may not necessarily have anything to do with killing blacks or being a kike

nothing speaks to people louder than the problem itself so why not help it out?

slippery slope
you could find yourself in a fire that cant be extinguished

You'd have to be delicate with it.

Most likely what you'll end up doing is making things worse, without ANY changes.

When something extreme happens that also affects normies, at most what they'll do is protest for a few weeks or sign a petition and that's it.

No one will die for your cause.

How can you speak of neighbors? The concept is almost nonexistent in a modern Western country. Not only in the literal sense, but any sense of community tied to locality is gone. We are all incredibly isolated and we've known this since the beginning of the 20th century and apparently, never figured out a solution for that.
In general, your talk of neighbors and your overextended fire metaphor, makes me wonder what you're actually trying to say. It's just accelerationism, right?
Travel back twenty years ago, ask everyone if they would like every corporation to be trying to record their conversations, tracking their precise location 24/7, access all purchase history, map their relationships, track women's period cycles, and just about everything else? All this at once would have resulted in a violent uprising that OP has wet dreams about; but all this has been introduced, and the uprising didn't happen.
The powers that be modify the population to be acclimitized to whatever they introduce. They are always pushing and nudging consumers, enough to cause discomfort but no outcry, to see what they can get away with. The people acclimitize, and they can push even further.
You people assume that there is a fixed threshold where people will get so fed up they'll do something, but the system works to avoid hitting that threshold, as well as works to move it for their benefit.

>no one will die for your cause
if normies think signing a petition is enough then you haven't made things bad enough

>uprising didn't happen
boiled frog

You cannot expect the spiritless to do what requires spirit. You must live innawoods.

>if normies think signing a petition is enough then you haven't made things bad enough

You'd have to make them starve, but that would only make them revolt until the majority no longer experience starvation.

Could you provide a hypothetical example of how you think they'd be motivated to do something extreme?