Rebelling Against Climate Death: For all its flaws, Extinction Rebellion's direct actions against climate change are growing in popularity and pissing off the right people. We should support them.
Blocking traffic is generally considered a dick move, whatever your motives for doing so. Disrupting public transport is the opposite of what they should be doing if they want to fight climate...
Blocking traffic is generally considered a dick move, whatever your motives for doing so. Disrupting public transport is the opposite of what they should be doing if they want to fight climate change.
I support the right of quiet enjoyment of the place you live over the right to protest, and would quite happily see road blockers rounded up and incarcerated, no matter what the actual protest was about. Stand outside parliament with signs and chants all you like, but when someone just wants to get their kids to school and go to work, you don't have the right to impede them.
i suppose i'm obligated to ask though, since this is a frequent criticism: what's the point of protest if you're not getting in people's way and being heard? is it your view that they'd more of an...
I support the right of quiet enjoyment of the place you live over the right to protest, and would quite happily see road blockers rounded up and incarcerated, no matter what the actual protest was about. Stand outside parliament with signs and chants all you like, but when someone just wants to get their kids to school and go to work, you don't have the right to impede them.
i suppose i'm obligated to ask though, since this is a frequent criticism: what's the point of protest if you're not getting in people's way and being heard? is it your view that they'd more of an impact than they currently do if they just stood in front of parliament looking like assholes for a few hours a day and went home? because i certainly don't think that's the case, and whenever this argument gets levied against any activist group, it feels mostly like people feel entitled to having their convenient routine unsullied, as if their routine is more important than (in this case) demanding that the government take action on a potentially existential threat.
Not vakieh, but I think you're making a bit of a false dichotomy there. Blocking roads is instrusive, non-targeted protest, rallying outside parliament is non-instrusive, targeted protest. I...
Not vakieh, but I think you're making a bit of a false dichotomy there. Blocking roads is instrusive, non-targeted protest, rallying outside parliament is non-instrusive, targeted protest. I wouldn't suggest relying on non-intrusive, non-targeted protest as it would likely be as ineffective as it is unoffensive. Consider intrusive, target protests. This could be something like, going into the parliament building and entering the voting floor. Some will say that this is an illegal affront to democracy, but is it really any worse or more illegal than shutting down roads? I also doubt that anyone will be teargassing the room with the law makers in it.
If you really want to get ambitious, you could ditch protesting and move onto action. If all the good protesting is already illegal, then may as well do something while you break the law. A relevant example would be sabotaging pipeline construction (not necessarily a good example, but you get the point). This works better for some causes than others.
they do also do this, actually. i don't have them handy, but XR made a few headlines by engaging in a nude protest in the house of commons a few weeks back when brexit was about to happen. they...
Consider intrusive, target protests. This could be something like, going into the parliament building and entering the voting floor. Some will say that this is an illegal affront to democracy, but is it really any worse or more illegal than shutting down roads? I also doubt that anyone will be teargassing the room with the law makers in it.
they do also do this, actually. i don't have them handy, but XR made a few headlines by engaging in a nude protest in the house of commons a few weeks back when brexit was about to happen. they certainly do a lot more than just obstruction protests--they just happen to be in the news for that right now.
(also to be clear, i went with the example that was given in vakieh's comment.)
I’d be interested in hearing about any successful protest that created large scale change that wasn’t intrusive. I can think of 0 in the US. Even if I’m thinking of international, where I...
I’d be interested in hearing about any successful protest that created large scale change that wasn’t intrusive. I can think of 0 in the US. Even if I’m thinking of international, where I admittedly am way less informed, I can’t think of any. Maybe small or local ones, but not something at a National level. Civil rights movement, repeal of Jim Crow, gay rights, women’s suffer age, hell even Prohibition was intrusive. If you’re unintrusive, there’s 0 reason for people to pay attention to you and you won’t gather a larger audience.
So, I do believe activism can't really produce results unless something is disrupted (e.g. I remember these protests, and I remember what followed). But it seems that it'd be more effective to...
So, I do believe activism can't really produce results unless something is disrupted (e.g. I remember these protests, and I remember what followed). But it seems that it'd be more effective to target said disruption at the "elites", that is the people who (for better or worse) have significant power to change things, at least as far as regulation/law goes. I don't see how disrupting the lives (however slightly) of the general public will really cause the general public to become more informed/more caring. But, maybe I just need to have a little more faith.
Also, going by this list, it seems their efforts may be better spent on getting China and the United States to drop their emissions.
It seems like researchers and scientists are working on systems and techniques to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless.
Anyway, I do think climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. It's hard to worry about much else when faced with the prospect that the planet could become uninhabitable in a hundred years, or so.
the protesting elites idea is interesting, but to be honest i don't know that it'd be as effective as what they're currently doing for the simple reason that protesting elites doesn't usually do a...
So, I do believe activism can't really produce results unless something is disrupted (e.g. I remember these protests, and I remember what followed). But it seems that it'd be more effective to target said disruption at the "elites", that is the people who (for better or worse) have significant power to change things, at least as far as regulation/law goes. I don't see how disrupting the lives (however slightly) of the general public will really cause the general public to become more informed/more caring. But, maybe I just need to have a little more faith.
the protesting elites idea is interesting, but to be honest i don't know that it'd be as effective as what they're currently doing for the simple reason that protesting elites doesn't usually do a whole lot unless the protest is more of a mass movement. i don't really have any evidence to support the idea, but i suspect one of the (many) reasons you see a lot of protests (regardless of their intentions or goals) begin with actions that don't target elites is because it's just easier to galvanize the public to overpower elites than it is to simply try and win them over by inconveniencing them, since they can almost always just squash or get around such inconveniences with their money and power and whatnot. it might be irritating if some greenpeace activists delay your flight for two hours or something by blockading a private airport you fly into, but it's probably easier to leverage your connections to make that no longer an issue than it is to ignore or quash increasingly large and serious street protests by a population, after all.
Also, going by this list, it seems their efforts may be better spent on getting China and the United States to drop their emissions.
they have actually spread to america so there is that, but for obvious reasons china is probably a nonstarter. protest tends to uh... not go well in china, to say the least. threat to government control and social harmony and whatnot. for that reason i genuinely doubt we'll see a people's green movement of any kind arise in china any time soon, and and most action in mitigating emissions there will presumably be from handed-down government policy.
It seems like researchers and scientists are working on systems and techniques to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless.
almost certainly not fast enough, to be honest. modeling has gotten progressively more depressing and cynical since the millennium began, and the policies and technologies which would mitigate effects in the way we need just aren't being passed or created by most countries in the increasingly small timeframe that we seem to have before shit hits the fan.
Ultimately it seems to come down to short-term economic gain despite long-term consequences. Which...is kind of a human folly*. Especially if you're at the top, really benefiting from the gain....
Ultimately it seems to come down to short-term economic gain despite long-term consequences. Which...is kind of a human folly*. Especially if you're at the top, really benefiting from the gain. Negating incentive for accumulating wealth might be the best thing we could do for the environment, and... other things.
*(Maybe that's unfair and there are other cultures that value the long-term over the short-term, but I speak as an American from the Southern California region.)
Not my problem. I fully believe in the right to convenient routine regardless of the cause - where the people with that routine are not the ones doing the damage. March into the lobbies of oil...
what's the point of protest if you're not getting in people's way and being heard?
Not my problem. I fully believe in the right to convenient routine regardless of the cause - where the people with that routine are not the ones doing the damage. March into the lobbies of oil companies, or government buildings, etc.
well, it's probably a good thing you're not the only person with an opinion then, because otherwise--for example--america would still be a segregationist country given that inconveniencing people...
Not my problem. I fully believe in the right to convenient routine regardless of the cause - where the people with that routine are not the ones doing the damage. March into the lobbies of oil companies, or government buildings, etc.
well, it's probably a good thing you're not the only person with an opinion then, because otherwise--for example--america would still be a segregationist country given that inconveniencing people was the primary mechanism by which civil rights were achieved.
more importantly though, people kinda don't have consistent leverage over their governments? like, if your government is--like in america--entirely resistant to climate change policy, storming into government buildings and demanding change isn't going to do a whole lot because they can just ignore you. what does do a whole lot is when you start shutting things like infrastructure down, because then governments really can't ignore you.
people also just straight do not have leverage over oil companies and most other companies who drive climate change. they can ignore you, regardless of what you do, so protesting them is nice but it's pretty empty as a strategy--because i mean, what are you going to do, not buy petroleum products? oil is in fucking everything.
There are ways to be disruptive and even shut down infrastructure that don't involve blocking someone taking their kids to school. Rather than blocking traffic in the CBD, why not go block in a port?
There are ways to be disruptive and even shut down infrastructure that don't involve blocking someone taking their kids to school. Rather than blocking traffic in the CBD, why not go block in a port?
to be honest, judging by your other replies in this thread, if they blocked a port instead of traffic i do get the sense that you'd just argue that they're disrupting the jobs of fishermen and...
There are ways to be disruptive and even shut down infrastructure that don't involve blocking someone taking their kids to school. Rather than blocking traffic in the CBD, why not go block in a port?
to be honest, judging by your other replies in this thread, if they blocked a port instead of traffic i do get the sense that you'd just argue that they're disrupting the jobs of fishermen and preventing tourism instead of arguing that they're preventing people from getting their children to school or whatever.
Don't you find it difficult to argue with the results that those type of disruptive protests generate? Without things like sit-ins or demonstrations that shut down public thoroughfares it's...
Don't you find it difficult to argue with the results that those type of disruptive protests generate? Without things like sit-ins or demonstrations that shut down public thoroughfares it's difficult to see how the Civil Rights Act would have gotten passed in the US, or how most of the revolutions (good and bad, admittedly) in Egypt's history would have happened, or how India would have gained its independence from Britain.
I mean hell, one of the most defining moments of "contemporary" democracy is the Boston Tea Party, wherein a cadre of men under the cover of night took to British boats docked in Boston and threw all of their tea overboard, causing a huge ruckus in doing so and decidedly robbing people of their right to quiet enjoyment of the place they live, even if just for one night.
The ends do not justify the means, and just because something results in something good does not mean it should be supported - nor is there any argument that just because 1 bad way works means...
The ends do not justify the means, and just because something results in something good does not mean it should be supported - nor is there any argument that just because 1 bad way works means there are no good ways that would also have worked.
Just to be clear, because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: You believe that social progresses like (but not specific or limited to) the Civil Rights Act did not make up for the...
Just to be clear, because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: You believe that social progresses like (but not specific or limited to) the Civil Rights Act did not make up for the inconvenience placed on society as a whole by people like Rosa Parks or the marchers on Bloody Sunday in 1965, just to provide two examples. Yes?
people seem to mostly not like that they're very much a "disrupt to get what we want" group. i've heard this criticism from liberals and conservatives since that argument gets levied against...
people seem to mostly not like that they're very much a "disrupt to get what we want" group. i've heard this criticism from liberals and conservatives since that argument gets levied against really any activist group that does things like sit-ins, but their propensity for actions leading to mass arrests is also something that some leftist circles have also criticized recently since in their view mass arrests really don't do anything but get your record tarred for no material consequence.
(also, some people don't like their rhetoric and find it hyperbolic, but to be honest that's an infrequent criticism of them at best, so mostly i think it's the disruptions they cause.)
I'm trying to find largely agreed-upon flaws in XR's behaviors, but I'm not seeing much. Anyone have any insight?
Blocking traffic is generally considered a dick move, whatever your motives for doing so. Disrupting public transport is the opposite of what they should be doing if they want to fight climate change.
I support the right of quiet enjoyment of the place you live over the right to protest, and would quite happily see road blockers rounded up and incarcerated, no matter what the actual protest was about. Stand outside parliament with signs and chants all you like, but when someone just wants to get their kids to school and go to work, you don't have the right to impede them.
i suppose i'm obligated to ask though, since this is a frequent criticism: what's the point of protest if you're not getting in people's way and being heard? is it your view that they'd more of an impact than they currently do if they just stood in front of parliament looking like assholes for a few hours a day and went home? because i certainly don't think that's the case, and whenever this argument gets levied against any activist group, it feels mostly like people feel entitled to having their convenient routine unsullied, as if their routine is more important than (in this case) demanding that the government take action on a potentially existential threat.
Not vakieh, but I think you're making a bit of a false dichotomy there. Blocking roads is instrusive, non-targeted protest, rallying outside parliament is non-instrusive, targeted protest. I wouldn't suggest relying on non-intrusive, non-targeted protest as it would likely be as ineffective as it is unoffensive. Consider intrusive, target protests. This could be something like, going into the parliament building and entering the voting floor. Some will say that this is an illegal affront to democracy, but is it really any worse or more illegal than shutting down roads? I also doubt that anyone will be teargassing the room with the law makers in it.
If you really want to get ambitious, you could ditch protesting and move onto action. If all the good protesting is already illegal, then may as well do something while you break the law. A relevant example would be sabotaging pipeline construction (not necessarily a good example, but you get the point). This works better for some causes than others.
they do also do this, actually. i don't have them handy, but XR made a few headlines by engaging in a nude protest in the house of commons a few weeks back when brexit was about to happen. they certainly do a lot more than just obstruction protests--they just happen to be in the news for that right now.
(also to be clear, i went with the example that was given in vakieh's comment.)
Glad to hear it! I hadn't heard of it as I'm not from the UK.
I’d be interested in hearing about any successful protest that created large scale change that wasn’t intrusive. I can think of 0 in the US. Even if I’m thinking of international, where I admittedly am way less informed, I can’t think of any. Maybe small or local ones, but not something at a National level. Civil rights movement, repeal of Jim Crow, gay rights, women’s suffer age, hell even Prohibition was intrusive. If you’re unintrusive, there’s 0 reason for people to pay attention to you and you won’t gather a larger audience.
So, I do believe activism can't really produce results unless something is disrupted (e.g. I remember these protests, and I remember what followed). But it seems that it'd be more effective to target said disruption at the "elites", that is the people who (for better or worse) have significant power to change things, at least as far as regulation/law goes. I don't see how disrupting the lives (however slightly) of the general public will really cause the general public to become more informed/more caring. But, maybe I just need to have a little more faith.
Also, going by this list, it seems their efforts may be better spent on getting China and the United States to drop their emissions.
It seems like researchers and scientists are working on systems and techniques to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless.
Anyway, I do think climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. It's hard to worry about much else when faced with the prospect that the planet could become uninhabitable in a hundred years, or so.
the protesting elites idea is interesting, but to be honest i don't know that it'd be as effective as what they're currently doing for the simple reason that protesting elites doesn't usually do a whole lot unless the protest is more of a mass movement. i don't really have any evidence to support the idea, but i suspect one of the (many) reasons you see a lot of protests (regardless of their intentions or goals) begin with actions that don't target elites is because it's just easier to galvanize the public to overpower elites than it is to simply try and win them over by inconveniencing them, since they can almost always just squash or get around such inconveniences with their money and power and whatnot. it might be irritating if some greenpeace activists delay your flight for two hours or something by blockading a private airport you fly into, but it's probably easier to leverage your connections to make that no longer an issue than it is to ignore or quash increasingly large and serious street protests by a population, after all.
they have actually spread to america so there is that, but for obvious reasons china is probably a nonstarter. protest tends to uh... not go well in china, to say the least. threat to government control and social harmony and whatnot. for that reason i genuinely doubt we'll see a people's green movement of any kind arise in china any time soon, and and most action in mitigating emissions there will presumably be from handed-down government policy.
almost certainly not fast enough, to be honest. modeling has gotten progressively more depressing and cynical since the millennium began, and the policies and technologies which would mitigate effects in the way we need just aren't being passed or created by most countries in the increasingly small timeframe that we seem to have before shit hits the fan.
Ultimately it seems to come down to short-term economic gain despite long-term consequences. Which...is kind of a human folly*. Especially if you're at the top, really benefiting from the gain. Negating incentive for accumulating wealth might be the best thing we could do for the environment, and... other things.
*(Maybe that's unfair and there are other cultures that value the long-term over the short-term, but I speak as an American from the Southern California region.)
Not my problem. I fully believe in the right to convenient routine regardless of the cause - where the people with that routine are not the ones doing the damage. March into the lobbies of oil companies, or government buildings, etc.
well, it's probably a good thing you're not the only person with an opinion then, because otherwise--for example--america would still be a segregationist country given that inconveniencing people was the primary mechanism by which civil rights were achieved.
more importantly though, people kinda don't have consistent leverage over their governments? like, if your government is--like in america--entirely resistant to climate change policy, storming into government buildings and demanding change isn't going to do a whole lot because they can just ignore you. what does do a whole lot is when you start shutting things like infrastructure down, because then governments really can't ignore you.
people also just straight do not have leverage over oil companies and most other companies who drive climate change. they can ignore you, regardless of what you do, so protesting them is nice but it's pretty empty as a strategy--because i mean, what are you going to do, not buy petroleum products? oil is in fucking everything.
There are ways to be disruptive and even shut down infrastructure that don't involve blocking someone taking their kids to school. Rather than blocking traffic in the CBD, why not go block in a port?
to be honest, judging by your other replies in this thread, if they blocked a port instead of traffic i do get the sense that you'd just argue that they're disrupting the jobs of fishermen and preventing tourism instead of arguing that they're preventing people from getting their children to school or whatever.
Don't you find it difficult to argue with the results that those type of disruptive protests generate? Without things like sit-ins or demonstrations that shut down public thoroughfares it's difficult to see how the Civil Rights Act would have gotten passed in the US, or how most of the revolutions (good and bad, admittedly) in Egypt's history would have happened, or how India would have gained its independence from Britain.
I mean hell, one of the most defining moments of "contemporary" democracy is the Boston Tea Party, wherein a cadre of men under the cover of night took to British boats docked in Boston and threw all of their tea overboard, causing a huge ruckus in doing so and decidedly robbing people of their right to quiet enjoyment of the place they live, even if just for one night.
The ends do not justify the means, and just because something results in something good does not mean it should be supported - nor is there any argument that just because 1 bad way works means there are no good ways that would also have worked.
Just to be clear, because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: You believe that social progresses like (but not specific or limited to) the Civil Rights Act did not make up for the inconvenience placed on society as a whole by people like Rosa Parks or the marchers on Bloody Sunday in 1965, just to provide two examples. Yes?
No, I believe that the argument isn't about whether things 'make up for' things in the first place.
people seem to mostly not like that they're very much a "disrupt to get what we want" group. i've heard this criticism from liberals and conservatives since that argument gets levied against really any activist group that does things like sit-ins, but their propensity for actions leading to mass arrests is also something that some leftist circles have also criticized recently since in their view mass arrests really don't do anything but get your record tarred for no material consequence.
(also, some people don't like their rhetoric and find it hyperbolic, but to be honest that's an infrequent criticism of them at best, so mostly i think it's the disruptions they cause.)