> It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. I'd say it's much more than a bit like that. The exact same tactic

> It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. I'd say it's much more than a bit like that. The exact same tactics are used in both places. It's a standard technique to complain about the technique rather than the message. For police violence, riots are (rightfully, to be clear) met with "you should protest peacefully." Then peaceful protests are met with "you shouldn't be so disruptive." Peaceful protests organized to avoid busy roads are criticized for being annoying or using up police resources for crowd control or leaving too much trash behind. Non-protest speech is criticized for being out of place. And finally we reach a point where people do nothing but kneel to draw attention to the issue, and they're still criticized for being disrespectful. The message is always, "I agree with what you say, but I don't agree with how you're saying it." But they'll never agree with how it's said. Same deal with climate change. Supposedly well meaning critics are always saying that we should tone it down. But it doesn't matter whether the message is "We're all going to die if we don't do something drastic" or "there might be a temperature increase with a mix of good and bad effects." The message is never good enough.