4 ms·

> if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon. Now the question is how to achieve the drastic shift. The popular opinion is that we need to v

> if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon. Now the question is how to achieve the drastic shift. The popular opinion is that we need to vote in the right politicians and the change should come from the top. I used to think this way for a long time. I've changed my opinion recently. Think about any significant societal change in the last century or so. Women suffrage, civil rights movement, anti-war movement, gay rights. None of these changes have come from the top. None were initiated by the parliament. They all started as a popular rebellion, direct action and civil disobedience.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
Indeed, politicians are quite cowardly. Even the "progressive" ones won't move forward until the majority has.
eyko 7y ago
Completely agree. To that I add catastrophes, because most environmental acts (e.g. the air pollution control act in the USA or the watershed act in the UK, both in the 50s) came about in part because of previous environmental disasters or dangers we were not careful enough to prevent, and only after tragic incidents did the politicians decide they had to push for these types of acts. The other tool we have in our toolbox nowadays is consumerism. We can choose what to buy, so if there are alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and that are gaining momentum because of our shifting ethical and moral values, every other opportunist will want to, at the very least, not miss out on an opportunity. This is why I support extinction rebellion even though I find them quite annoying. It brings an issue into the mainstream conversation which will hopefully change our attitudes towards excessive consumerism.
avip 7y ago
Another point I find relevant is all your examples involved a non-trivial (possibly overwhelming for this crowd) use of violence (which I think you somewhat understated as civil disobedience). So... do we have the stamina to ramp up our "protest" into something mildly violent?
- perfunctory 7y ago
  civil disobedience is by definition non-violent. Unless by non-trivial violence you mean the violence against the protesters (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders)
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Desegregation & civil rights was by no means non-violent. Gay Rights was by no means non-violent- in fact, one of the penultimate moments of the gay movements was the stonewall riots, a series of violent acts against the police that are still ceberated to this day within the community. (Not that I'm arguing they are unjustified in their behavior- but there's nothing peaceful about throwing a brick- and most importantly, that brick thrown has practically been enshrined into LGBTQ mythology.) Arguing that violence is never the answer and pointing to movements that had violent elements that then are regarded as successfully rising up against oppressive systems is nonsensical.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

Indeed, politicians are quite cowardly. Even the "progressive" ones won't move forward until the majority has.

eyko 7y ago

Completely agree. To that I add catastrophes, because most environmental acts (e.g. the air pollution control act in the USA or the watershed act in the UK, both in the 50s) came about in part because of previous environmental disasters or dangers we were not careful enough to prevent, and only after tragic incidents did the politicians decide they had to push for these types of acts. The other tool we have in our toolbox nowadays is consumerism. We can choose what to buy, so if there are alternatives that are more environmentally friendly and that are gaining momentum because of our shifting ethical and moral values, every other opportunist will want to, at the very least, not miss out on an opportunity. This is why I support extinction rebellion even though I find them quite annoying. It brings an issue into the mainstream conversation which will hopefully change our attitudes towards excessive consumerism.

avip 7y ago

Another point I find relevant is all your examples involved a non-trivial (possibly overwhelming for this crowd) use of violence (which I think you somewhat understated as civil disobedience). So... do we have the stamina to ramp up our "protest" into something mildly violent?

perfunctory 7y ago
civil disobedience is by definition non-violent. Unless by non-trivial violence you mean the violence against the protesters (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders)
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Desegregation & civil rights was by no means non-violent. Gay Rights was by no means non-violent- in fact, one of the penultimate moments of the gay movements was the stonewall riots, a series of violent acts against the police that are still ceberated to this day within the community. (Not that I'm arguing they are unjustified in their behavior- but there's nothing peaceful about throwing a brick- and most importantly, that brick thrown has practically been enshrined into LGBTQ mythology.) Arguing that violence is never the answer and pointing to movements that had violent elements that then are regarded as successfully rising up against oppressive systems is nonsensical.