Léna Lazare is the new face of climate activism—and she's carrying a pickax

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.

Euphemisms in politics are only useful if you're trying to conceal what you're actually doing. The reason for concealment is almost always because one is trying to avoid legal ramifications, or if they're dishonest about their intentions.

I'm not saying to write off euphemisms in every context, but in this context they would hinder more than help. What the radical wing is trying to do is a) sabotage b) establish the legitimacy of a radical and violent response against the climate status quo.

In other words, owning the legitimacy of violence is a key point in shifting the perceptions about this matter. This won't work for everybody, but it will speak to people who have had enough, the very people you are trying to reach. Unashamedly owning violence is the optimal way to go about it. It's basically declaring a big fuck you to the status quo, signalling that you don't even care to pretend to care.

This doesn't mean radicals have to legitimize every kind of violence. But for this way to work, they would benefit from not mincing words about what kind of violence they espouse. Using euphemisms seems half-hearted, indirect, and not radical enough. It undercuts the heart of radicalism.

This is, of course, assuming you can afford to bear the burden of legal ramifications. If you're facing too much oppression, as a certain character put it, "theatricality and deception are powerful agents."

I took that into consideration before commenting, and thought about whether I was reacting based on some unfaced sexism. It's a fair criticism, because nobody is immune to stuff like this, and I had some internal questioning before commenting. My decision was that, no, I'd react the same regardless of gender.

My dislike of the photos is based on the oversaturated "model photoshoot" vibes it gives. If a man was to get a similar photoshoot, I think I'd react the same. Furthermore, if you combine this with my endorsement of her, criticism about the article's overfocus on the personal story of Lazare rather than her ideas, and the last part of my comment about how media might be turning her struggle into a more "marketable" buzz, you'd see that I'm not trying to criticize her as a person but I'm trying to warn about how media markets causes and in the process hurts them.

But again, I want to emphasize, this was based on my reaction on it. Time might prove me wrong and it could turn out that such photos do more good than harm. Especially, again, if you consider how much cultural differences there are in reacting to this stuff.

Furthermore, even if she did want some cool photoshoots, I would hardly blame her for such a human thing. Especially considering she's 26 years old. In those ages I did much more questionable things, and I certainly did not lead a radical struggle against the powers-that-be. So, even if it's the case that her motive was to get a glamorous photoshoot, my point isn't that it's a "sin", but it's a criticism about the optics.

My only wish is for people reading this to remember I'm trying to approach this topic from a place of as much as good faith I could muster, because I know how online discussions can turn into a cycle of counter-productive criticisms that focus on stupid stuff, making the slacktivists appear to have the moral highground while harming actual people of action. There's also the dimension of checking yourself to consider whether you're acting on some internalized conservatism. I don't think that's the case, but there might always be biases at play I'm unaware of, as is the case for everybody, but the same goes for you too. Assuming any criticism of a woman in a context like this should come from a place of sexism is a bias too.

I mean, I imagine it to be true in most cases, I don't think this needs even proving because a brief look at the internet very much shows that to be the case. But it's still a bias if it overgeneralizes, and it's especially a bias if it doesn't leave room for any other explanation, making it unfalsifiable.

I'm not saying you necessarily have an opinion this extreme. After all, you made a one-sentence comment. It's very hard to ascertain where you are exactly coming from. But I wanted to cover every ground from the start.