“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with “so they should risk everything for you.” That’s like responding with “so you hate waffles” to a tweet saying “pancakes taste good”
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad.
I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.
This is so hilariously wrong. There’s a lot of stuff I won’t admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don’t support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can’t possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they’re just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It’s not so much the “damage” done but that it doesn’t feel like a productive protest and that it’ll piss of more people than anything.
“Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers” is what I’m hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We’re long past the point of polite protests, and they didn’t work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you’re standing up to.
I’ve read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn’t to say they shouldn’t do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It’s usually reactionary claims of “you’re making people mad, so it’s counterproductive”, while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests should be disruptive in that they incite change, not in that they incite rage. This.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is “is it justified?”. In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
I was literally agreeing with you, but alright
and somebody else should be taking that kind of risk for us, for you?
This is the waffles tweet
Explain
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with “so they should risk everything for you.” That’s like responding with “so you hate waffles” to a tweet saying “pancakes taste good”
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad. I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
I don’t think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group’s political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement…I’m not sure if that’s a productive use of political capital.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question a group’s motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
I’d hardly say paying some teens to “vandalize” a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them… That would be radical.
This is so hilariously wrong. There’s a lot of stuff I won’t admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don’t support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
haha
Yes, and?
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can’t possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they’re just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
I’m sorry dog but spray painting an ancient wonder isn’t an environmental protest.
It’s corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It’s not so much the “damage” done but that it doesn’t feel like a productive protest and that it’ll piss of more people than anything.
Non-violently blocking the entrance to an oil refinery = good protest
Defacing ancient monument temporarily = bad protest