You must log in or register to comment.
The people who make these decisions, make their lives difficult, then you’ll have some change.
This is not the way, because you alienate too many middle ground people, when you need to attract them.
You either need numbers, masses of people attending a concert in the park. Get a million . 2 million. ActivateJoe Public . Create disruption by filling the public realm with willing participants.
Or, you have to fire bomb to the offices and go to war.
Civil disobedience gets you in the news, and the media interview a bunch of members of the public, who are pissed about having their commute disrupted, and the public turn against you and they turned against the cause literally over night .
Xtinction Rebellion have made far more enemies than they have won friends.
XR is widely hated, but it is extremely successful in making people talk about the climate crisis. Actions such as blocking oil refineries, coal power plants and so forth certainly work and cause massive damage to large emitters. The problem is that the media does not report on it, so when you want to recruit, you do so by blocking streets.
The simple truth is that you need both. Large scale mobilization and some more radical action. It is very clear that large scale protests have not worked as well as needed.
I would disagree that it’s widely hated, I only hear the worst, most obnoxious assholes talking about how much they hate it. If anyone wants to say it’s “widely hated” they’ll need to give some numbers.
Also, anyone making a good faith effort to combat climate change in any way gets a pass from me, as long as we don’t yet know it’s actually counter-productive.
Anyone who actually cares about climate change would understand that there’s no measure too ridiculous. If throwing soup on a painting’s glass cover moves the needle on climate change even a millionth of a percent towards a solution then great, fucking do it. Even if it makes no difference at all fuck it, you’re trying, I support you. Fuck the paintings, they won’t matter if nobody’s left to look at or preserve them. That’s the point of that particular protest, to ask “Why do you care about this painting more than our climate?”
These people hate on activism despite never having any evidence that it’s counter-productive beyond “I reckon it is,” which just means they don’t like it. They don’t care about climate change or the human race, they’re just here to shit on activists because they’ve been taught to hate them by fossil fuel industry propaganda.
So these aren’t persuadable people, we shouldn’t care about what they have to say, fuck 'em.
This sub constantly shitting on everything that isn’t the “right way” has gotten really old. Can’t do individual action, better to focus on policies. Can’t change laws because lobbyists are more powerful, need to organize. And according to you, can’t organize because Karen, who didn’t give a shit to begin with, will think protesters are annoying. This specific effort is focused on Citibank and not general traffic disruption anyway. You’re more than welcome to organize your 2M people and try not to disrupt, I’ll support that too.
Throwing soup at paintings is the dumbest, most counter-productive way possible.
I’ll shit on that all day long.
Paintings in museums have glass in front of them. They are not damaged by this. However it gets clicks and then people talk about the climate crisis.
Yeah, great.
The climate crisis could have been represented better. And attacking museums is just low. Like they need that.
However it gets clicks and then people talk about the climate crisis.
So it generates ad revenue for the media, helps sell whatever useless shit the ads are about, eats energy serving the content, and ‘gets people talking’ about something people are already constantly talking about. Sounds like a big win for the planet!
That doesn’t define every climate movement though, and anyone suggesting it does is acting in bad faith and undermining the entire concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. It’s dumb, sure, kids do lots of dumb stuff but I wouldn’t even call it counterproductive. It sure got people talking and raised awareness, and now the groups tactics have evolved. Anyone that magically ignores the climate catastrophe because someone threw soup at the bulletproof glass covering the Mona Lisa wasn’t actually going to do anything to further the cause anyway. Why not focus your energy on something more productive than shitting on some trivial event that happened awhile back?
It sure got people talking and raised awareness, and now the groups tactics have evolved.
One would hope their tactics evolved, the awareness of it being incredibly stupid is what people were talking about.
Public demonstrations are not new. Lessons learned are abundant. Changes in technology are new and that’s what could be useful but making a spectacle and preventing people from going home is not the best avenue, so to speak.
The post is about an upcoming movement that’s vague on specifics, other than they are focusing on Citibank and trying to limit disruption for regulars. It hasn’t even happened yet, but you and others here are already shitting on it. That’s the issue I have with the criticisms here.
Oh, sorry, no didn’t mean to shit on a specific thing, just saying there’s good ways to do it and bad ways to do it and some of the sort-of recent ones were obviously bad.
Right ? I fucking love soup.
And according to you, can’t organize because Karen, who didn’t give a shit to begin with, will think protesters are annoying.
In this case it’s more about me, who does give a shit, thinking protesters are annoying and counterproductive.
The article doesn’t go into specifics about what ‘disruptions’ they want to cause but quotes MLK "to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.”
Problem is this isn’t the civil rights movement and the motives and actors are entirely different. Literally everyone in the US uses petroleum, even the people protesting petroleum depend on petroleum to engage in their protests.
I’ll accept ‘creating a crisis’ to help people already in crisis gain the same rights I have. But a bunch of shitheads that probably use more gas than I do ‘creating a crisis’ that will solve nothing is going to make me an opponent of them even if I’m an ally of the general cause.
You’re preemptively upset about an upcomimg movement that you acknowledge is vague on specifics. Do you even live in NYC? Why are they are all “shitheads”? Saying protesters also use petroleum is a bullshit point too. It’s got dumb Charlie Kirk “you criticize society but are a member of society, curious” energy. Just say you hate protests and move on. Every other post here is someone that thinks whatever someone else is doing is wrong and it’s not remotely helpful or interesting.
Saying protesters also use petroleum is a bullshit point too.
Again “Literally everyone in the US uses petroleum, even the people protesting petroleum depend on petroleum to engage in their protests.” I guess you missed that was a point about the comparison to the civil rights movement. Civil rights protesters didn’t depend on actively violating civil rights. The whole MLK invocation is absurd.
In any case you should offer to do some outreach for their org. You seem to care more about feeling righteous than actually achieving the outcome you supposedly support. Seems like a good fit with this group.
I could similarly say you should meet with them in person and explain to them directly the error in their ways. Saying there are zero lessons that can be learned from the civil rights movement is also absurd. Obviously it’s different in many ways, but not completely.
I don’t live anywhere near NYC and was just offering a counterpoint to the unnecessary criticisms of something that hasn’t even happened yet. If that counts as “feeling righteous” to you, that’s your conclusion and not anything to do with me. I’ve dedicated my career and significant time and expsne to this cause that I “supposedly support”, but I do so without shitting on others in the way you’ve chosen to. I wish you success in however you are planning to dedicate your resources to the cause. We’re on the same team friend.
I’ve dedicated my career and significant time and expsne to this cause that I “supposedly support”.
I never doubt the bona fides of anonymous internet strangers ;) Sorry but when someone has to pull that out to make a point to another anonymous internet stranger it reeks of “need to win” desperation.
but I do so without shitting on others in the way you’ve chosen to.
except…
It’s got dumb Charlie Kirk “you criticize society but are a member of society, curious” energy.
Yeah you’ve got the high ground- lol. I called a hypothetical group ‘shitheads’ and you compare me directly to Charlie Kirk. No irony there.
But anyway keep up the great work- you’re winning hearts and minds for our ‘team’, friend ;)
But anyway keep up the great work- you’re winning hearts and minds for our ‘team’, friend ;)
His attitude is certainly a lot better than yours.
I’ll accept ‘creating a crisis’ to help people already in crisis gain the same rights I have. But a bunch of shitheads that probably use more gas than I do ‘creating a crisis’ that will solve nothing is going to make me an opponent of them even if I’m an ally of the general cause.
Lmao, weren’t you just chasing me around c/politicalmemes telling me that causing a crisis to agitate for an end to American support to Israel’s war crimes dumb and inconvenient?
Really seems like you just don’t like being inconvenienced.
Are you talking to the version of me you made up in your head again? That is flattering but also intensely weird.
Because this has worked so well for the past 4 decades, look, emissions are at an all time low!
if climate change protests are making enemies, those people were never on our side anyway. so be it then, at least we are doing anything at all.
We need a diversity of tactics.
n
I don’t want to help people I hate, even when they do have a point.
