If you’re not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.
The “I support the right to protest as long as it doesn’t inconvenience anyone” reeks of a “negative peace” ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.
Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.
Again, that’s bullshit. If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention.
At a pro tennis event in Washington DC, on the other hand, the media is already there, peaceful protest isn’t called terrorism and due to the location, there’s an excellent chance that some of the very representatives who are standing in the way of climate action or at least someone from their inner circle are actually THERE.
TL;DR: You seem to either have no clue what you’re talking about or be exactly like the negative peace demanders that held back MLK and his fight for justice.
If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention
And there’s a reason that actual disruption is illegal, and performative nonsense carries lighter consequences. The reason is that oil companies absolutely LOVE for protests to be ineffectual and just cause disruptions among leftists. Obviously these “gluing myself to stuff” protests have NOT helped the environment. Nobody ever actually thought they would.
I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.
They tried being acceptable, and nobody listens. Now they are being unacceptable, and still nobody listens.
The US and EU have both shifted significantly towards decarbonization. It’s not fast enough, but it’s getting started.
I get the point of the question, but frankly, I think climate protestors can do whatever they want as long as Big Oil can do whatever it wants. It’s way more annoying having my planet ruined.
I’d say climate destroyers should be less destructive.
Of course they’re whiny; they’re literally begging for their lives. What would people prefer instead, Ted Turner to run around in tight spandex, throwing people out of windows and screaming “Captain Planeeeet!?”
And with “less annoying”, of course they mean “powerless”.
Not at all, we are getting desperate out here. Our margins for actions to lessen, stop and revert climate change are getting smaller by the minute. So we need to be very annoying.
The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren’t paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn’t be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.
If and when protests turn violent because people are desperate and there’s nothing else left you’ll realise how innocuous these types of protests are. They hurt nobody, disrupt people for a very short time and get the message out there.
This idea that it’s funded by big oil is just ridiculous. I am in activism and I know people from JSO, they are some of the kindest and caring people you could meet. They understand the urgency of the crisis and are willing to their bodies and freedom on the line to get the message out. Being popular is not their goal, they get people talking and that is undeniable.
Judging by the foolishness of unfocused anger I see on reddit, tumblr, twitter, etc… I think it’s very likely they’re just incredibly stupid but well meaning people.
See also: “vote 3rd party”, “oh you eat meat you must like torturing animals”, “we should literally ban all cars” etc
- No, you shouldn’t vote third party in America, or any country with a first-past-the-post system captured by a duopoly, because it flies in the face of the reality of game theory. Tactical voting is real, no matter how upset the idea makes people. Yes, this even includes deep-red and deep-blue states, or whatever your country’s equivalent is.
- Yes, choosing to eat meat when you have alternatives means you place your convenience and consumption above the death of sentient and pain-feeling creatures. I think it’s bad to cause harm when you have the option to not, even if it benefits you in some way.
- Yes, we should literally ban all fossil fuels, and restructure all cities such that the public transportation is more than enough for everyone. That this is even a matter of question is ludicrous.
I support most (maybe even all) climate protests, violent and nonviolent ones.
I still think that it might be good to shift or expand(edit) tactics, because at least to me most tactics do not feel to be actually achieving any substantial goals while putting folks at high risk of injury and repression. Like yeah there is discourse, polarization and mobilization, but those are not actually the things that will mitigate climate change, reducing carbon emissions etc. will. This is my perspective from Germany so of course elsewhere things might be different.
Are there any success stories from other countries (or Germany) that show that currently dominant climate protest tactics(non violence, blocking roads, public stunts, glue everywhere, social media all the time) leading to actual changes getting implemented from public institutions, legislation or the private sector or changes in the behaviors of large parts of the population?___
For anyone annoyed by climate activists: wake the hell up. LISTEN to the message.
We are on course for an UNLIVABLE FUTURE. A BILLION climate refugees, mass crop failures, cities under water, temperatures too hot for human survival. Economic and societal collapse.
These disruptions damage nothing and inconvenience a small amount of people for 5-30 minutes. It’s not a big deal. In a world of reactionary social media and news, these are the tactics that get attention. It is not the activist’s fault for how the media reports it.
This is not “their cause”. This is the fight for everything we know and love.
If you don’t like what they’re doing, start doing what you think works.
bUt We jUsT wANT to WaTcH tENniS
You’ll get your fucking tennis when we start killing each other for food. Human brains are incapable of comprehending what we are continuing to do to our future. Its so fucking frustrating seeing this society being completely oblivious to the tortures we could’ve avoided by relatively small changes 60 years ago and which we still can lessen by doing something now.
buT iM GoNna gEt a TeSla fOr my NeXt Car
You won’t get anyone not already convinced to listen to your message if the people are hung up on hating what you’re doing and thinking you’re a moron.
It just seems like a bad way to reach or convince anyone.
Not really true, the evidence shows the popularity of the group may go down but concern over the issue goes up.
Tell us a better way that hasn’t already been tried, one that’s proportional to the urgency. Genuinely open to ideas.
The suffragettes were more than annoying, they blew stuff up and burnt down buildings and they were effective.
even seemingly meaningless protests like the soup thing are somewhat effective. it gets people talking about the protests, which increases the number of people that will see it and protest in more effective ways.
I doubt it helps when they do shit that gets everyone hating on them
No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they’re lashing out incoherently.
They’re actively working against environmentalism. I really think they’re bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don’t care about the environment.
There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.
Read some books about how to do politics strategically and you’ll see why they do this
Your anger works in their favor
When you vaguely tell somebody to read more it’s because you have no actual argument.
There is no connection to environmental issues. They are doing this to look cool to their friends.
Removed by mod
