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.
I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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?___
I doubt it helps when they do shit that gets everyone hating on them
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.
Removed by mod
