I'm sure many will here will disagree but I'm happy to see more radical wings of progressive movements take violent action against corporations and governments which cause harm without directing...
I'm sure many will here will disagree but I'm happy to see more radical wings of progressive movements take violent action against corporations and governments which cause harm without directing physical violence towards people, but instead aimed at property and profit. The literature seems to suggest that peaceful protests are best for mobilizing supporters who share ideals, and that radical/violent protests are best for creating systemic change in the face of a resistant opposition. In the case of climate change, where the issue is small contingents of people exercising violence on a broad scale (in this case a real, physical violence, albeit indirect in nature), there needs to be a violent resistance otherwise they simply will continue doing what they are already doing. To be clear, when I use the word violence here, I am using it in a broad sense - I consider a strike a form of violence, in this case directed at the means of generating profit or violence against wealth/resources and I do not necessarily mean physical violence directed towards humans. In general I am against physical violence directed at humans except as a means of self-defense.
I disagree with the restriction of the word violence to only one of its many definitions. You are welcome to substitute destruction if you wish, but I think it is important to call out all the...
I disagree with the restriction of the word violence to only one of its many definitions. You are welcome to substitute destruction if you wish, but I think it is important to call out all the different forms of violence which exist in the world. To pose a counter-point, do you consider the actions of for-profit corporations and governments which destroy the environment are enacting destruction or violence on the world? What if I were to ask you about whether this inflicted violence on individuals which do not have the means to escape the dangerous outcomes they are causing? When more folks die of a heat stroke each year, is that violence or destruction?
I believe most people like to draw very strong lines in the sand here because they have strong feelings about hurting humans directly. I think this is an important distinction to make. But I also think that people draw the lines in ways which often obscure the violence born of 'destructive' action. This allows people to excuse what I consider violent behavior, such as the erasing of human rights, the creation of environments which are hostile, dangerous, or even life-threatening and violent towards humans that currently exist on this planet. The only way which makes sense to me to frame this appropriately is to highlight the kinds of violence that these corporations and governments are enacting on humanity more broadly, which necessitates using broader definitions of violence such as legal definitions (unlawful exercise of physical force) or other more simple definitions (the direction of harm) and to always highlight a particular disgust with human-directed violence born of anything but self-defense. I also think this model is important to highlight because it allows for affected individuals who are systematically oppressed to defend themselves against this violence which is so often erased with wordsmithing.
Is it just me who is somewhat alarmed at the rather casual attitude toward violence in this article? To be clear, I am on the same "side" as she is, to the extent that I think climate change is an...
Exemplary
Is it just me who is somewhat alarmed at the rather casual attitude toward violence in this article?
To be clear, I am on the same "side" as she is, to the extent that I think climate change is an issue that 1) needs addressing and 2) is currently under-addressed.
Lazare (and presumably the rest of the Les Soulevements organisation) seem to believe that they are entirely in the right to perform sabotage / cause property damage:
“We refuse to be labeled as criminals,” she says. After French interior minister Gérald Darmanin compared some members of Les Soulèvements de la Terre to ecoterrorists and the government outlawed the organization in June 2023, it was Lazare who went on TV to defend the group’s activities.
But the scale and nature of their activities seem very extreme to me, although that's perhaps me coming from a part of the world which is orderly and has a strong rule of law. (In particular I am not from France or the USA.) For instance:
In March 2023, Lazare helped organize a second protest [...] At least 6,000 protesters were met by some 3,000 French gendarmes [...] attempted to push through the cordon, trying to reach and sabotage the site [...] more than 200 people were injured. Two people were left in a coma. Organizers claim someone lost an eye. Police say 47 officers were hurt and four vehicles burned. [...] Lazare says a small minority of protesters threw Molotov cocktails.
I worry that there seems to be a strong "hero/martyr" narrative around Lazare in this story. However I think it is all too easy for any person to believe that violence is justified in service of a cause that the person believes in.
Imagine for a moment that the violence described in the article was in service of a cause that is "wrong". For instance, what if instead of writing about Lazare digging up a water pipeline, the article wrote about about some religious group self-righteously cutting the power cables of an abortion clinic? Or perhaps setting fire to a solar panel factory, after working hours so that no person is hurt?
I don't see a way to condemn the latter acts of violence in a democratic society without also condemning violence in service of causes that I believe in.
Perhaps I'm privileged to be able to say so. But I think that resorting to violence, or glorifying violence (even restricted to property, and in service of a (subjectively) worthy cause) is not compatible with civil society. It is a unilateral imposition of the beliefs of a subset of the population unto the remainder. And while in this case my beliefs are aligned, there is no such guarantee in general.
For instance, I believe with medium confidence that nuclear power is a good way of reducing emissions. But:
In 1975, two homemade bombs exploded in a yet-to-be opened French nuclear power station, delaying its construction by several months.
Who gave the bombers the right to decide for everyone that nuclear power is bad? Are we saying that executive power derives from the ability to construct and deploy IEDs?
I'm not sure that I would want to live in such a society.
I realise at this point that I'm echoing a few points from an essay I read long ago, touching on a somewhat related topic, so I'll close with a link to it. In Favor Of Niceness, Community And Civilization
I think this is a big mental trap that people can fall into with all sorts of big activist movements. If youre fighting against some big thing like climate change or capitalism or something like...
I think this is a big mental trap that people can fall into with all sorts of big activist movements.
If youre fighting against some big thing like climate change or capitalism or something like that, youre fighting for something that will have world changing consequences. So if you think you are on the right side of whatever issue youve chosen, youre kind of saving the world.
Some massive good like fixing the whole world is enough of a net good to justify all kinds of minor transgressions in service of that good.
Furthermore, when you are acting as a part of a big movement like that, theres really no such thing as failure. Maybe you do a certain protest, do some certain action, and it doesnt immediately stop climate change. Maybe you don't really affect anything at all in the long run. But that doesnt mean youve failed, because its all contributing to the movement.
If you stopped at some given point in time and tried to do some ethical accounting of all your actions, it might add up to you having done more harm than good in the world. But if at some point in the future climate change gets addressed, you can claim credit for having contributed to that, if in a roundabout way.
This creates a moral framework where you can absolve yourself of all accountability by just cloaking yourself in enough layers of sanctimony and self righteousness, as long as you are willing to commit hard enough to the idea that everyrhing you are doing is for a greater good.
The status quo is violence. People are dying due to climate change. By your own argument, you've made violence permissable. Your quibble, though, is not with the targets, it's with the...
The status quo is violence. People are dying due to climate change. By your own argument, you've made violence permissable. Your quibble, though, is not with the targets, it's with the perpetrators. As long as they're holding keyboards and clip boards instead of pickaxes, it's permissible, even if the pickaxes don't kill anyone and the clipboards kill thousands.
You say ecoterrorists belong in prison, I say petrobillionaires do.
I think this overlooks the fact that corporations contributing to climate change are doing violence to people. It's indirect and cloaked in layers of paperwork, but people are still dying. If we...
I think this overlooks the fact that corporations contributing to climate change are doing violence to people. It's indirect and cloaked in layers of paperwork, but people are still dying. If we agree as a democracy that it's fine to commit that violence against those people, are they stripped of their right to self-defense?
Often in cases of self-defense, there's a duty to flee. In this case, that can't be imposed. Flee to where? Microplastics are at the bottom of the ocean and the whole planet is cooking. There's a duty to do the least possible harm to immobilize your attacker. The Soulèvements certainly haven't bypassed that point yet.
I definitely don't want to accuse you of approaching this in bad faith -- I don't think you are. But I do think it's worth considering that your gut reaction can be influenced by sexism simply due...
I definitely don't want to accuse you of approaching this in bad faith -- I don't think you are. But I do think it's worth considering that your gut reaction can be influenced by sexism simply due to living and growing up in a sexist world. You live in a world in which women are scrutinized for how they present themselves to a greater degree than men. Maybe it's true that you'd criticize a man in the same position -- but it may also be true that doing so wouldn't have occurred to you. That's not necessarily something to hold against you individually, but it still can play a role in the aggregate pattern.
I don't think the existence of bias against women in terms of image and how they present themselves is unfalsifiable, and I think it's unfair to accuse me of sexism based on the idea that it is. When there are patterns of sexism (or racism or homophobia or transphobia or whatever else) in society, it's worth examining when we say or think things that might play into or be influenced by those things, even if that wasn't our intent. If your ultimate conclusion is that it wasn't sexist, that's fine (you could argue that your criticisms are actually of unconscious sexism on the part of the article writers in how they chose to frame her story). But I think being mindful of the possibility is much more important than you're giving it credit for.
I deliberately framed my comment in a way that didn't directly accuse you of anything (addressing the criticism itself seeming of the type that would be applied in a gender biased way), so I'll...
I deliberately framed my comment in a way that didn't directly accuse you of anything (addressing the criticism itself seeming of the type that would be applied in a gender biased way), so I'll confess I'm not sure how I could have been less accusatory than I was without watering down the actual content of what I wanted to say.
I'm sure many will here will disagree but I'm happy to see more radical wings of progressive movements take violent action against corporations and governments which cause harm without directing physical violence towards people, but instead aimed at property and profit. The literature seems to suggest that peaceful protests are best for mobilizing supporters who share ideals, and that radical/violent protests are best for creating systemic change in the face of a resistant opposition. In the case of climate change, where the issue is small contingents of people exercising violence on a broad scale (in this case a real, physical violence, albeit indirect in nature), there needs to be a violent resistance otherwise they simply will continue doing what they are already doing. To be clear, when I use the word violence here, I am using it in a broad sense - I consider a strike a form of violence, in this case directed at the means of generating profit or violence against wealth/resources and I do not necessarily mean physical violence directed towards humans. In general I am against physical violence directed at humans except as a means of self-defense.
I get what you're saying and that using the term violence here can be misleading. How do you feel about destruction instead?
I disagree with the restriction of the word violence to only one of its many definitions. You are welcome to substitute destruction if you wish, but I think it is important to call out all the different forms of violence which exist in the world. To pose a counter-point, do you consider the actions of for-profit corporations and governments which destroy the environment are enacting destruction or violence on the world? What if I were to ask you about whether this inflicted violence on individuals which do not have the means to escape the dangerous outcomes they are causing? When more folks die of a heat stroke each year, is that violence or destruction?
I believe most people like to draw very strong lines in the sand here because they have strong feelings about hurting humans directly. I think this is an important distinction to make. But I also think that people draw the lines in ways which often obscure the violence born of 'destructive' action. This allows people to excuse what I consider violent behavior, such as the erasing of human rights, the creation of environments which are hostile, dangerous, or even life-threatening and violent towards humans that currently exist on this planet. The only way which makes sense to me to frame this appropriately is to highlight the kinds of violence that these corporations and governments are enacting on humanity more broadly, which necessitates using broader definitions of violence such as legal definitions (unlawful exercise of physical force) or other more simple definitions (the direction of harm) and to always highlight a particular disgust with human-directed violence born of anything but self-defense. I also think this model is important to highlight because it allows for affected individuals who are systematically oppressed to defend themselves against this violence which is so often erased with wordsmithing.
We are all Children of Kali on this blessed day.
Is it just me who is somewhat alarmed at the rather casual attitude toward violence in this article?
To be clear, I am on the same "side" as she is, to the extent that I think climate change is an issue that 1) needs addressing and 2) is currently under-addressed.
Lazare (and presumably the rest of the Les Soulevements organisation) seem to believe that they are entirely in the right to perform sabotage / cause property damage:
But the scale and nature of their activities seem very extreme to me, although that's perhaps me coming from a part of the world which is orderly and has a strong rule of law. (In particular I am not from France or the USA.) For instance:
I worry that there seems to be a strong "hero/martyr" narrative around Lazare in this story. However I think it is all too easy for any person to believe that violence is justified in service of a cause that the person believes in.
Imagine for a moment that the violence described in the article was in service of a cause that is "wrong". For instance, what if instead of writing about Lazare digging up a water pipeline, the article wrote about about some religious group self-righteously cutting the power cables of an abortion clinic? Or perhaps setting fire to a solar panel factory, after working hours so that no person is hurt?
I don't see a way to condemn the latter acts of violence in a democratic society without also condemning violence in service of causes that I believe in.
Perhaps I'm privileged to be able to say so. But I think that resorting to violence, or glorifying violence (even restricted to property, and in service of a (subjectively) worthy cause) is not compatible with civil society. It is a unilateral imposition of the beliefs of a subset of the population unto the remainder. And while in this case my beliefs are aligned, there is no such guarantee in general.
For instance, I believe with medium confidence that nuclear power is a good way of reducing emissions. But:
Who gave the bombers the right to decide for everyone that nuclear power is bad? Are we saying that executive power derives from the ability to construct and deploy IEDs?
I'm not sure that I would want to live in such a society.
I realise at this point that I'm echoing a few points from an essay I read long ago, touching on a somewhat related topic, so I'll close with a link to it. In Favor Of Niceness, Community And Civilization
I think this is a big mental trap that people can fall into with all sorts of big activist movements.
If youre fighting against some big thing like climate change or capitalism or something like that, youre fighting for something that will have world changing consequences. So if you think you are on the right side of whatever issue youve chosen, youre kind of saving the world.
Some massive good like fixing the whole world is enough of a net good to justify all kinds of minor transgressions in service of that good.
Furthermore, when you are acting as a part of a big movement like that, theres really no such thing as failure. Maybe you do a certain protest, do some certain action, and it doesnt immediately stop climate change. Maybe you don't really affect anything at all in the long run. But that doesnt mean youve failed, because its all contributing to the movement.
If you stopped at some given point in time and tried to do some ethical accounting of all your actions, it might add up to you having done more harm than good in the world. But if at some point in the future climate change gets addressed, you can claim credit for having contributed to that, if in a roundabout way.
This creates a moral framework where you can absolve yourself of all accountability by just cloaking yourself in enough layers of sanctimony and self righteousness, as long as you are willing to commit hard enough to the idea that everyrhing you are doing is for a greater good.
The status quo is violence. People are dying due to climate change. By your own argument, you've made violence permissable. Your quibble, though, is not with the targets, it's with the perpetrators. As long as they're holding keyboards and clip boards instead of pickaxes, it's permissible, even if the pickaxes don't kill anyone and the clipboards kill thousands.
You say ecoterrorists belong in prison, I say petrobillionaires do.
I think this overlooks the fact that corporations contributing to climate change are doing violence to people. It's indirect and cloaked in layers of paperwork, but people are still dying. If we agree as a democracy that it's fine to commit that violence against those people, are they stripped of their right to self-defense?
Often in cases of self-defense, there's a duty to flee. In this case, that can't be imposed. Flee to where? Microplastics are at the bottom of the ocean and the whole planet is cooking. There's a duty to do the least possible harm to immobilize your attacker. The Soulèvements certainly haven't bypassed that point yet.
This seems like the kind of criticism that a man in the same position would not get.
I definitely don't want to accuse you of approaching this in bad faith -- I don't think you are. But I do think it's worth considering that your gut reaction can be influenced by sexism simply due to living and growing up in a sexist world. You live in a world in which women are scrutinized for how they present themselves to a greater degree than men. Maybe it's true that you'd criticize a man in the same position -- but it may also be true that doing so wouldn't have occurred to you. That's not necessarily something to hold against you individually, but it still can play a role in the aggregate pattern.
I don't think the existence of bias against women in terms of image and how they present themselves is unfalsifiable, and I think it's unfair to accuse me of sexism based on the idea that it is. When there are patterns of sexism (or racism or homophobia or transphobia or whatever else) in society, it's worth examining when we say or think things that might play into or be influenced by those things, even if that wasn't our intent. If your ultimate conclusion is that it wasn't sexist, that's fine (you could argue that your criticisms are actually of unconscious sexism on the part of the article writers in how they chose to frame her story). But I think being mindful of the possibility is much more important than you're giving it credit for.
I deliberately framed my comment in a way that didn't directly accuse you of anything (addressing the criticism itself seeming of the type that would be applied in a gender biased way), so I'll confess I'm not sure how I could have been less accusatory than I was without watering down the actual content of what I wanted to say.