4 ms·

It is an actionable solution. Riots got the poll tax repealed. Civil disobedience achieved independence in India, and civil rights in the US. A march from A to

It is an actionable solution. Riots got the poll tax repealed. Civil disobedience achieved independence in India, and civil rights in the US. A march from A to B highlights something - and is always easy to ignore. They always are. The aim of XR is not to tell about climate change. Everyone should know about that. The science was settled decades ago. Just about everyone knows what needs to be done, too. Yet governments do nothing but bleat on about an opportunity from shale oil, or some new coal contract. Then bring a little green washing with far future targets, long after they have retired, or outlawing plastic bags. Civil disobedience and intentional law breaking does not aim to tell anyone the problem, it's bloody obvious. It aims to become a permanent and ongoing drain upon resources. Like a tax or a labour strike. To cause actual costs to the system and state, their people and potentially companies. Costs of policing, of removing chained up protesters, of flooding the courts with formerly law-abiding citizens. At some point government must react.

SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
Because of a few great wins in history, we have a rather romantic and rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption. And so they've become well-worn tools of the modern activist. Its worth questioning whether these are the best tools to use in so many circumstances. Its a very real possibility that the gamble doesn't pay off. It might even drive polarization and skepticism among the very people you need to reach the most. It may just create civil unrest and reduce our resources, leaving us less able to fight climate change. Or a few smart people who might otherwise be able to contribute to a solution, end up spending their valuable time in jail, instead.
- jquery 8y ago
  Survivor bias in civil disobedience makes some people think that “on average” it produces positive results, especially when the cause is “just” (which every violent extremist does, of course). Anyone even casually familiar with history would blush at such arrogance.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption Personally I see protesting and marching as a nice Saturday afternoon out that achieves precisely nothing. Just look what the massive march and demo against the Iraq war achieved - nowt. It's important not to conflate them with civil disobedience which has very different aims and tactics. It's being an ongoing thorn in the side of the state that has historically made a difference. I certainly don't see that as a well-worn tool of the modern activist - it's a forgotten tactic, replaced by one-off marches or demos, and the online petition. Which achieve almost nothing. If a few smart people feel it's gone too long being ignored that they are now willing to risk prison, well good on them. If they're smart enough and presentable enough to not be easily dismissed as eco-nuts by the right wing media, they can often achieve positive press for their aims. It's hard to dismiss a retiree with 40 years in industry, doctor, or IT consultant quite so easily. It remains to be seen if the gamble and assessment of public opinion is correct. For both XR and the school strikes, the public reaction has appeared hugely positive so far - far more so than I would have expected. Which is a problem for a government that would prefer not to act.
jquery 8y ago
You talk about ending the poll tax as a good thing and 90% of your post is why democracy is a bad thing. Which is it?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Of course it was a good thing, it was a flat rate per head, regardless of income or wealth. Making it one of the most regressive taxes we've had. Trivial for the income of many HN readers, crippling for a typical nurse, teacher or shop worker.
  - jquery 8y ago
    You're absolutely right, I was just pointing out in your post you believe that governance via violent extremists is good, but governance via land-owners (wealth) is bad. How do you reconcile that: is there any underlying principle behind your belief? Should we enshrine violent tactics into law as a Good Thing or should we, as a society, oppose you and your kind with all our might?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      I very clearly don't advocate violent resistance, but civil disobedience. An entirely non-violent resistance, such as seen in the school strikes and XR protests, or the well known historic examples. The anti-poll tax riots were as counter productive as they were productive due to their violence. A reasonable police response is necessarily very different to a reaction to polite society women chaining themselves to railings seeking suffrage, or the entirely non violent blocking of bridges of XR. Yet they are an example of law breaking achieving change. So no, using it as a for-instance of change is no indicator whatsoever I believe in violent extremism. I don't. Violent tactics can entirely reasonably provoke a draconian response. A draconian or violent response to entirely peaceful protest, such as XR or civil rights protests is counter productive for government, and may actually incite riot.
altitudinous 8y ago
> At some point government must react. Yes, the government must react - with a solution. What do you propose that the government does?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I'm reasonably comfortable with XR's aims, which are, off the top of my head: Tell the truth about the scale of the problem and time available in all parts of the state, and zero carbon by 2025. That would require a rethink of almost everything to be sustainable, and a short enough timescale that governments can't simply kick it into the long grass of "not during our term".

SmirkingRevenge 8y ago

Because of a few great wins in history, we have a rather romantic and rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption. And so they've become well-worn tools of the modern activist. Its worth questioning whether these are the best tools to use in so many circumstances. Its a very real possibility that the gamble doesn't pay off. It might even drive polarization and skepticism among the very people you need to reach the most. It may just create civil unrest and reduce our resources, leaving us less able to fight climate change. Or a few smart people who might otherwise be able to contribute to a solution, end up spending their valuable time in jail, instead.

jquery 8y ago
Survivor bias in civil disobedience makes some people think that “on average” it produces positive results, especially when the cause is “just” (which every violent extremist does, of course). Anyone even casually familiar with history would blush at such arrogance.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> rosie notion of civil disobedience, protesting, marching, and general civil disruption Personally I see protesting and marching as a nice Saturday afternoon out that achieves precisely nothing. Just look what the massive march and demo against the Iraq war achieved - nowt. It's important not to conflate them with civil disobedience which has very different aims and tactics. It's being an ongoing thorn in the side of the state that has historically made a difference. I certainly don't see that as a well-worn tool of the modern activist - it's a forgotten tactic, replaced by one-off marches or demos, and the online petition. Which achieve almost nothing. If a few smart people feel it's gone too long being ignored that they are now willing to risk prison, well good on them. If they're smart enough and presentable enough to not be easily dismissed as eco-nuts by the right wing media, they can often achieve positive press for their aims. It's hard to dismiss a retiree with 40 years in industry, doctor, or IT consultant quite so easily. It remains to be seen if the gamble and assessment of public opinion is correct. For both XR and the school strikes, the public reaction has appeared hugely positive so far - far more so than I would have expected. Which is a problem for a government that would prefer not to act.

jquery 8y ago

You talk about ending the poll tax as a good thing and 90% of your post is why democracy is a bad thing. Which is it?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Of course it was a good thing, it was a flat rate per head, regardless of income or wealth. Making it one of the most regressive taxes we've had. Trivial for the income of many HN readers, crippling for a typical nurse, teacher or shop worker.
- jquery 8y ago
  You're absolutely right, I was just pointing out in your post you believe that governance via violent extremists is good, but governance via land-owners (wealth) is bad. How do you reconcile that: is there any underlying principle behind your belief? Should we enshrine violent tactics into law as a Good Thing or should we, as a society, oppose you and your kind with all our might?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    I very clearly don't advocate violent resistance, but civil disobedience. An entirely non-violent resistance, such as seen in the school strikes and XR protests, or the well known historic examples. The anti-poll tax riots were as counter productive as they were productive due to their violence. A reasonable police response is necessarily very different to a reaction to polite society women chaining themselves to railings seeking suffrage, or the entirely non violent blocking of bridges of XR. Yet they are an example of law breaking achieving change. So no, using it as a for-instance of change is no indicator whatsoever I believe in violent extremism. I don't. Violent tactics can entirely reasonably provoke a draconian response. A draconian or violent response to entirely peaceful protest, such as XR or civil rights protests is counter productive for government, and may actually incite riot.

altitudinous 8y ago

> At some point government must react. Yes, the government must react - with a solution. What do you propose that the government does?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I'm reasonably comfortable with XR's aims, which are, off the top of my head: Tell the truth about the scale of the problem and time available in all parts of the state, and zero carbon by 2025. That would require a rethink of almost everything to be sustainable, and a short enough timescale that governments can't simply kick it into the long grass of "not during our term".