Protests Seen as Harming Civil Rights Movement in the '60s

I've recently had some conversations about activism and protesting about climate change on Tildes, which made me remember these polls again. I think they are a good historical reminder, and they demonstrate that masses much too often care more about comfort and privilege rather than justice.

These polls also show that you don't need to convince the majority to effect change. In fact, focusing on that might be detrimental to your cause. People who are bothered by your protest, because it disrupts "order", will try to tell you how to effect change while sitting in their own comfort. But this is not important.

Here is the gist of it, with MLK's own words.

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Believing in the timetables created by comformist opinions would be a grave mistake for climate activists. We need more confrontation, more radical acts, and more direct action. We don't need to make friends with the majority to do this. We need to shake things up, and most people don't like that. You can see this by the worsening majority opinion of the Civil Rights movement after they intensified protests. But the activists were right, it was an urgent matter, and they succeeded. So, we don't need to play nice.

For example, after MLK's asssassination people started burning down cities, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 passing. You can see this in the citations; basically the government feared further escalation, and that's why they had to pass the act. Another example is the suffragettes' bombing and arson campaign in Britain and Ireland, which helped with their cause by putting pressure on people in power.

I'm not giving these examples to say there should or should not be one-to-one copies, but to show that being radically confrontational does work. Radical confrontation and direct action are what we need for climate justice, because time has been running out for a while, and every day past without a radical change makes things much worse. So we should cast off the yoke of mass approval and meekness. We need to embrace the confrontation.

I'm gonna try to be brief. This is the worst I've ever felt, weather-wise, in my life, and it's only the start of summer. It's heavily negatively affecting both my physical and mental health. I can't even properly work. I don't have AC. I can't afford it. Everybody around me is suffering very similarly.

I've been following climate crisis for years, but I've never thought I'd see such an extreme worsening this early. Even if I knew in theory that anomalies like this could happen, as it's very widely agreed upon that they would, it's much different to live through. It's hell on earth.

I'm one of the luckier ones, relatively speaking. There are over hundred thousand people dying from heatwaves each year. It's probably much higher than officially reported, because most governments don't track heatwave deaths. Millions and millions of people in India have been experiencing bigger and bigger water crises. Just in 2019, 600 million people faced a water crisis in India.. Hundreds of millions of people in Africa are suffering due to climate change related climate extremes and food security crises.

I also just found out that a location in Antarctica exhibited 70F (38C) higher than normal temperatures this year. Faster than expected, right?

I think this is inexcusable. Oil companies and such knew what was coming. There are countless documents and studies detailing this. Here are a few.

• Exxon confirmed global warming due to their emissions was happening in 1982.
• American Patroleum Institute similary knew in 1980.
• Exxon knowingly spread climate change denialism in response (source 1, source 2)
• Even in 2015, Exxon was dodging responsibility, telling people to "read the documents". So, two scientists, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, did that. And found out that Exxon acknowledged global warming in the internal documents, while they denied it in public (article 1, source 2). In other words, it's been empirically shown that they fucking manipulated the public with full knowledge.
• Exxon is not alone. ExxonMobil, Chevrontexaco, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Conocophillips spent 3.6 billion dollars for lobbying in US alone during 1986-2015.. 61% of these expenditures are after 2006, when climate change started becoming a hot topic. So, when they attracted attention, they doubled down.
• Another document is of American Patroleum Institute from 1998, showing they intentionally focused on exaggerating the uncertainties of climate science in front of the public.
• Big Oil still opposes science and us. A study published in 2019 shows that ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total spent 1 billion dollars on lobbying and branding after the 2016 Paris Agreement.
• Oil companies are not alone. A study examining the 2000-2016 time-frame in US found that "fossil fuel and transportation corporations, utilities, and affiliated trade associations" are all major climate lobbyists. Only 3% of the total climate change lobbying was done by environmental organizations and renewable energy corporations.

These crimes are inexcusable. The people responsible should pay for them. And these should be treated as crimes against humanity and the planet, of the highest degree. These people don't deserve anything but to pay. They are the evil, who, in great awareness, have unreversibly damaged the planet, caused untold suffering. They still continue to do this, and even if they stopped now (hah!), their evil will continue to haunt humanity and a myriad of other species for unimaginable generations.

They should pay.

This is a topic that's been on my mind for a while, and I wonder what people think about it.

As everybody knows, climate crisis is worsening, is going to continue to worsen, yet the pace of reforms is not nearly enough. "Faster than expected" has even been a meme for years. What's more is that we are very hastily nearing the 1.5 Celcius degrees limit IPCC and countless other climate scientists have been warning about (For details, check out IPCC 1.5oC special report, and IPCC AR6).

Another point is that oil and traditional energy companies, their politicians, and other people working for them have done irreversable damage to humanity and many, many other species of life. Yet, generally speaking, courts don't seem to hold them accountable.

In short, there's a good deal of reason to doubt legal structures will solve the climate crisis fast enough or hold people accountable for the most part.

I suspect this might lead to "violent activism". For example, human ecology professor and activist, Andreas Malm, wrote a book calling for such action. In the book, "How to Blow Up a Pipeline", he contends that non-lethal violence, meaning sabotage, is a necessary and complementary element to peaceful activism, in order to make people in power unable to ignore this issue any longer, and make the peaceful protestors seem the "reasonable alternative", strengthening their hand. This book seems to have found some popularity among a certain crowd.

Another, less specific but still noteworthy example is the growing violent feelings among the young people regarding climate crisis. Many of them are utterly jaded to the reform process, and are openly or semi-jokingly calling for violence.

I suspect we are nearing or maybe even passed a threshold, which will lead to the rise of violent activist groups, quite possibly in the current decade. However, I'm not sure about this, as predicting the future is a very uncertain thing. What do you think, and what are the reasons behind your opinion? I'm interested in how events like this play out in human history, and I feel like, either way, we are going to witness some very important developments.

This is a thought I had, and I'm not saying it's necessarily true, or at least cynically true. But I think it brings to the fore an interesting point, and I want to emphasize how it feels like.

I feel like people are mostly interested in politics from a distant and uninvolved point of view. For example, in more progressive spaces, there's all this talk about fear of climate change, deteriorating international politics, rise of right wing authoritarianism, populism, nationalism, etc. However, I feel like people expect others to do something about it. There's this passivity and inaction, and no real effort to combat such changes. I feel like debates, talking, ruminating and such perform a theatrical function that makes you feel as if you've contributed to "doing good", but you actually don't do anything. This is what I mean by performative.

This is not to say talking is unimportant. It's a major component of politics, and it's a core value and function of democratic and egalitarian approaches. However, it feels to me like doomscrolling and dreading or being angry about political things is seen as being politically conscious and active, while political consciousness can't exist without action.

What are your thoughts about this? Have you had similar thoughts, or do you think differently? How do you emotionally handle this?

In the past few months I have been reading a lot about historical food culture. It's kind of amazing how much things have changed here in the US. Over the last century or so we have basically eliminated communal eating and massively changed the economics of prepared meals. At one point we had automats and cafeterias which skipped out on most of the "front of house" service and focused on serving large volumes of people to keep prices low. There were also diners, which are much different from what we consider to be a diner today; they were very small places that only prepared simple things that needed very little labor to prepare; things like hash browns, sandwiches, or pancakes, so the food was still very cheap. But because they were small, they were able to serve smaller markets that other restaurants were not able to capitalize on. Compare that to today, where diners are just restaurants that have 50s style decor.

But the thing I think is much more unusual is how rare we see food used in service of a message. It's something that has a long history across the globe. Most notably, religions operate food kitchens that help to bring poor people into their folds. Some religions actually have a built-in food culture that includes feeding your neighbors. It's really effective too; there's a small chain of restaurants where I live that has inexpensive food which has some bhuddist texts at the dining tables, and honestly it had me considering joining a religion for the first time. If I spoke Chinese they might have got me! Eating food requires a baseline of trust, so if you can get someone to eat at your restaurant you will bypass a lot of the caution that people approach the world with.

With that being said, why isn't food-based activism a lot more popular? I'm sure that it would work for much more than religion. A restaurant that acts as a messaging platform doesn't necessarily need to be funded by food sales, so they can undercut the competition on price and reach an even greater audience. Given the ways I have seen religions use food to further their means, I think that it could even go farther than changing people's minds about topics and actually motivate people to take action and join communities who are actually making real change. Food is both relatively inexpensive and it's something that everyone needs to survive, so it seems to me that food-based activism is the single largest missed opportunity for community organization.

Long story short, I grew up believing that a great deal of worth of someone's life was effecting change, especially politically. That's why I valued activism. It took courage, especially considering I don't live in a developed country.

The older I got and more problems I faced, I started to realize how unsatisfactory, even hollow this was. Modes of activism I engaged in didn't seem to fulfill me emotionally anymore, they were mostly impersonal, and they didn't seem to change anything. I have a lot of views that are extremely unorthodox for the place I live in, and I don't see any political movement that internalizes those values. I am extremely alienated from the "nation" I am supposedly part of, and from the political movements within it.

Another angle is that I recently realized how misguided I was. I was mostly doing mental labor, believing in the axiom that ideas can change things. But after some time and readings, I started thinking activities that aim for collective action and concrete changes (e.g. syndicates) were much more important. These are not available to me.

I feel like I have wasted a lot of my time. I pursued ideals more than my own emotional needs, believing they would make me happy and fulfilled, and they didn't. I pursued a way of engaging in politics that felt good but didn't effect change.

Don't get me wrong, while this is exasperating, it's also extremely liberating, joyful even. I enjoy the moments of quiet destruction that bring about the new. I no longer feel ashamed to admit I want comfort and stability in my life, and I don't want to take unnecessary risks. I have enough problems as is.

With this being said, I haven't given up on effecting change. I think it's much more convoluted and different than what I imagined when I was younger, and it's not generally about "going out there and showing up" or writing political texts and such. There are also levels to creating change, as it's not a binary thing.

At this point, I want to primarily live for myself, participate in some kind of change without risking myself to the point of overwhelming anxiety, and make more personal and real connections with people in general, including during effecting change.

What I've written here is a bit rough, but it's still an ongoing and raw process for me, and this post is more of a conversation topic, rather than a properly structured argument. I am interested in hearing your opinions. Has anyone had similar experiences, or things this post reminded you of?