4 ms·

> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? You seem

> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? You seem to be suggesting that there's a "right" way to participate in democracy. Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here? > Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint ... I'm curious as to what point you're actually trying to make here. Why do people chain themselves to bulldozers to protest mass deforestation? Why do people perform acts of civil disobedience to protest nations fighting wars? Most of the time the people who are involved in those movements are fundamentally morally compromised. For example if you're protesting the Vietnam war and the general US war mongering as an American, you're doing this from a place of extreme privilege - much of which was afforded to you precisely because of the great success the US has in previous wars. > What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines? This is a bad faith interpretation of what the activists are trying to do. They're not protesting commercial air travel (although I'm sure many of them have strong opinions against our frivolous use of it). They're trying to wake people up to the fact that, while somewhat contentious, there's a pretty large (and growing!) consensus that we're utterly trashing our planet and hurtling headlong into catastrophe.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
There certainly are wrong and undemocratic ways to "participate". Breaking the law, causing public nuisance (to say the least), putting aircrafts are risk are not acceptable.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Come on. Civil disobedience is a cornerstone of peaceful, democratic protest. Every black American who sat at a white lunch counter or in the white seats on a bus was breaking the law and "causing a public nuisance." As for putting aircraft at risk, the Economist won't actually let me read the article (I wish people would stop posting links to sites like this), but I doubt they actually put anyone in danger. It's like the environmentalists who spiked trees to stop loggers--they clearly marked the affected trees, they openly informed the loggers of what they'd done, and even if they went ahead anyway, a properly maintained saw has safety measures that would prevent injury. But they were still spun as trying to murder loggers. Is this a good, effective, worthwhile protest? I dunno. But there's got to be more a more coherent argument you could make.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    This is not civil disobedience. Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison. Such drone attacks are dangerous (they do put aircrafts at risk), affect thousands of people, cause millions in damage, and, simply put, are lightweight terrorism. It is quite right that the article open with a reference to the IRA attacking Heathrow airport with empty mortar rounds to shut it down. This is exactly the same thing. And it is completely ineffective. The only result is to alienate the majority of the public.
    - samcday 7y ago
      Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. Why do I say that? Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group that has made abundantly clear that they intend to engage in acts of civil disobedience that are 100% non violent, you have used the words "drone attack", "terrorism" and have likened them to the IRA. I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here, but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you.
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions. By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless. Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.
        hanniabu 7y ago
        It was criminal to hide jews during the holocaust in order to save them. If we just blindly accept the rules and fate we are handed then let's just accelerate the process and welcome our dystopian 1984 George Orwell future.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part of the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class citizens. Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two.
  - FartyMcFarter 7y ago
    How far does this apologist attitude go? Let's say a "climate activist" causes a plane to go down with a drone, killing 200 people. Then one of the victim's family takes justice into their own hands by hunting down this activist and killing them. Would this be ok since it's breaking laws to solve a serious problem of a family member getting killed?
    - samcday 7y ago
      This hypothetical situation is bordering on the absurd, I think. XR has made it abundantly clear what they intend to do, and when + how they intend to do it. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I would venture that the chances of their actions causing a plane to go down are so extraordinarily slim that it's an utter waste of time to discuss the implications of it happening.
  - navigatesol 7y ago
    >Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part of the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class citizens. Every protest isn't the equivalent of India fighting for independence. >Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two. Fortunately, you don't get to decide which issues are "most important" to other people.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      So, you're saying global extinction isn't important? It's a tough line to swallow from the GP, but I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree that human effected climate change was important. Surely it's the most important issue humans have faced, ever?
tomjen3 7y ago
I have learned more about how to live a low(er) climate impact by bloggers on youtube than any of these people have.
iuguy 7y ago
> Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here? Disrupting highly polluting businesses are probably the way to go. Many people don't care long term if there's some minor disruption to their workday, but if it involves them missing their daughter's wedding, or not being able to see a sick relative before they die then you lose that person along with a ton of other people forever.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

There certainly are wrong and undemocratic ways to "participate". Breaking the law, causing public nuisance (to say the least), putting aircrafts are risk are not acceptable.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Come on. Civil disobedience is a cornerstone of peaceful, democratic protest. Every black American who sat at a white lunch counter or in the white seats on a bus was breaking the law and "causing a public nuisance." As for putting aircraft at risk, the Economist won't actually let me read the article (I wish people would stop posting links to sites like this), but I doubt they actually put anyone in danger. It's like the environmentalists who spiked trees to stop loggers--they clearly marked the affected trees, they openly informed the loggers of what they'd done, and even if they went ahead anyway, a properly maintained saw has safety measures that would prevent injury. But they were still spun as trying to murder loggers. Is this a good, effective, worthwhile protest? I dunno. But there's got to be more a more coherent argument you could make.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  This is not civil disobedience. Flying drones to shut down an airport is nothing like sitting in the white seats of a bus. That's a ludicrous comparison. Such drone attacks are dangerous (they do put aircrafts at risk), affect thousands of people, cause millions in damage, and, simply put, are lightweight terrorism. It is quite right that the article open with a reference to the IRA attacking Heathrow airport with empty mortar rounds to shut it down. This is exactly the same thing. And it is completely ineffective. The only result is to alienate the majority of the public.
  - samcday 7y ago
    Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this. Why do I say that? Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group that has made abundantly clear that they intend to engage in acts of civil disobedience that are 100% non violent, you have used the words "drone attack", "terrorism" and have likened them to the IRA. I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here, but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions. By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless. Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        It was criminal to hide jews during the holocaust in order to save them. If we just blindly accept the rules and fate we are handed then let's just accelerate the process and welcome our dystopian 1984 George Orwell future.
adrianN 7y ago
Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part of the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class citizens. Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two.
- FartyMcFarter 7y ago
  How far does this apologist attitude go? Let's say a "climate activist" causes a plane to go down with a drone, killing 200 people. Then one of the victim's family takes justice into their own hands by hunting down this activist and killing them. Would this be ok since it's breaking laws to solve a serious problem of a family member getting killed?
  - samcday 7y ago
    This hypothetical situation is bordering on the absurd, I think. XR has made it abundantly clear what they intend to do, and when + how they intend to do it. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I would venture that the chances of their actions causing a plane to go down are so extraordinarily slim that it's an utter waste of time to discuss the implications of it happening.
- navigatesol 7y ago
  >Without breaking laws and causing public nuisance India would still be part of the British Empire and African Americans would still be second class citizens. Every protest isn't the equivalent of India fighting for independence. >Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two. Fortunately, you don't get to decide which issues are "most important" to other people.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    So, you're saying global extinction isn't important? It's a tough line to swallow from the GP, but I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree that human effected climate change was important. Surely it's the most important issue humans have faced, ever?

tomjen3 7y ago

I have learned more about how to live a low(er) climate impact by bloggers on youtube than any of these people have.

iuguy 7y ago

> Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here? Disrupting highly polluting businesses are probably the way to go. Many people don't care long term if there's some minor disruption to their workday, but if it involves them missing their daughter's wedding, or not being able to see a sick relative before they die then you lose that person along with a ton of other people forever.