4 ms·

The protesters are rightly being arrested. Sorry but you don’t get to blockade people from getting to where they want to go (work in this case) just because you

The protesters are rightly being arrested. Sorry but you don’t get to blockade people from getting to where they want to go (work in this case) just because you personally think your opinions/issues are a higher priority than others’ priorities. And climbing onto the roofs of private property is not a “peaceful protest”, it is vigilantism. Furthermore some of the demands outlined in the article (asking google to censor videos) are not reasonable.

thrower123 7y ago
Environmental activists would do much better if they weren't so hell-bent on being a pain in the ass and inconveniencing everyone else. All it accomplishes is breeding distaste. Maybe it's just me, but this kind of childish behavior doesn't make me sympathetic, it engenders the complete opposite effect.
- adwww 7y ago
  Maybe they should write a petition or something. That ought to work right?
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    What gives them a right to do anything that "work[s]"? If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works.
    - megous 7y ago
      Rational persuasion is really not how democracy works, or ever worked.
    - perfunctory 7y ago
      > What gives them a right to do anything that "work[s]"? Nothing. At least not the legal rights. They accept the arrest and corresponding consequences. That's what civil disobedience is about.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works." Is that the case for other activist groups in the past? I was aware that other activist groups have been disruptive also (anti-war protests during vietnam, throwing literal ashes of the dead onto white house grounds during the AIDS crisis, the civil rights movement had plenty of nonviolent and violent protests...)
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      I see, so how would Indian independence, civil rights and universal suffrage have been achieved?
    - chaosite 7y ago
      No, that's how silencing minorities works, which is explicitly the thing that democracy is not about. You know the line, "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box: please use in that order"? Note that last one. Democracy is merely a system wherein the first three boxes have a good chance of fixing whatever issue is occurring. But the ammo box is still there if the issue is important and nothing else works.
    - deadbunny 7y ago
      You mean the last 40+ years of climate change science politely and rationally explaining that we are killing the planet with little to no action being taken? I think after that length of time politely explaining with no one listening that you need to kick it up a notch.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      So, being a democracy, if we can't rationally persuade a person to abstain from breaking a law, we have no right to do anything disruptive to them?
    - vidarh 7y ago
      Democracy itself only exists because people were willing to go much further than 'rational persuasion' to secure it. The destruction of the environment is aggression against us all - that people have not responded more firmly before now is the surprising part. Democracy depends on the governed if not giving their explicit consent, then at least acknowledging the governing authority, it is not a carte blanche to do whatever in the name of an untested majority. Not least on a global scale, where most people have no say in most of the destructive acts.
- truculent 7y ago
  What exactly do you think activism is?
  - thrower123 7y ago
    This is too polite a forum for my real thoughts on this kind of activism. If I were trying to convince someone of my cause, I'd try to couch it so that doing what I wanted would be in the other person's best interest. Instead I tend to see a playbook of 1.) Make things more difficult. 2.) Make things more expensive. 3.) Lower your quality of life. Selling asceticism only works for people that already have everything.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
They are aiming to be arrested. That's part of the point. Whilst remaining entirely peaceful. Peaceful does not mean cooperative. Climbing onto roofs is entirely peaceful protest, and I think you have misunderstood what vigilante means. I see no delivery of summary justice in climbing onto a roof.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  No, it is not peaceful. A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities to be a lawful assembly (this is true in the US and I am assuming the UK has similar law). Such an assembly would take place on public property. Climbing onto roofs is a violation of private property that they have no right to access. A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.
  - Miner49er 7y ago
    A protest that is non-disruptive accomplishes nothing.
  - dekken_ 7y ago
    > A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities. Define "authorities", therein lies the rub. Authority is earned not assumed. If they were authorities the protests would be unnecessary
    - throwawaysea 7y ago
      It depends on the jurisdiction. Usually there’s a process defined in local law to get approval for an assembly. In the US people do not have a universal right to protest when and where they want. Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.
hidiegomariani 7y ago
Well said
pjc50 7y ago
Not a "whatabout", but more a "compare and contrast": how does this relate to the unlawful protests in Hong Kong?

thrower123 7y ago

Environmental activists would do much better if they weren't so hell-bent on being a pain in the ass and inconveniencing everyone else. All it accomplishes is breeding distaste. Maybe it's just me, but this kind of childish behavior doesn't make me sympathetic, it engenders the complete opposite effect.

adwww 7y ago
Maybe they should write a petition or something. That ought to work right?
- quotemstr 7y ago
  What gives them a right to do anything that "work[s]"? If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works.
  - megous 7y ago
    Rational persuasion is really not how democracy works, or ever worked.
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    > What gives them a right to do anything that "work[s]"? Nothing. At least not the legal rights. They accept the arrest and corresponding consequences. That's what civil disobedience is about.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "If they can't get their way through rational persuasion, they don't get to have their way at all. That's how democracy works." Is that the case for other activist groups in the past? I was aware that other activist groups have been disruptive also (anti-war protests during vietnam, throwing literal ashes of the dead onto white house grounds during the AIDS crisis, the civil rights movement had plenty of nonviolent and violent protests...)
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I see, so how would Indian independence, civil rights and universal suffrage have been achieved?
  - chaosite 7y ago
    No, that's how silencing minorities works, which is explicitly the thing that democracy is not about. You know the line, "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box: please use in that order"? Note that last one. Democracy is merely a system wherein the first three boxes have a good chance of fixing whatever issue is occurring. But the ammo box is still there if the issue is important and nothing else works.
  - deadbunny 7y ago
    You mean the last 40+ years of climate change science politely and rationally explaining that we are killing the planet with little to no action being taken? I think after that length of time politely explaining with no one listening that you need to kick it up a notch.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    So, being a democracy, if we can't rationally persuade a person to abstain from breaking a law, we have no right to do anything disruptive to them?
  - vidarh 7y ago
    Democracy itself only exists because people were willing to go much further than 'rational persuasion' to secure it. The destruction of the environment is aggression against us all - that people have not responded more firmly before now is the surprising part. Democracy depends on the governed if not giving their explicit consent, then at least acknowledging the governing authority, it is not a carte blanche to do whatever in the name of an untested majority. Not least on a global scale, where most people have no say in most of the destructive acts.
truculent 7y ago
What exactly do you think activism is?
- thrower123 7y ago
  This is too polite a forum for my real thoughts on this kind of activism. If I were trying to convince someone of my cause, I'd try to couch it so that doing what I wanted would be in the other person's best interest. Instead I tend to see a playbook of 1.) Make things more difficult. 2.) Make things more expensive. 3.) Lower your quality of life. Selling asceticism only works for people that already have everything.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

They are aiming to be arrested. That's part of the point. Whilst remaining entirely peaceful. Peaceful does not mean cooperative. Climbing onto roofs is entirely peaceful protest, and I think you have misunderstood what vigilante means. I see no delivery of summary justice in climbing onto a roof.

throwawaysea 7y ago
No, it is not peaceful. A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities to be a lawful assembly (this is true in the US and I am assuming the UK has similar law). Such an assembly would take place on public property. Climbing onto roofs is a violation of private property that they have no right to access. A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  A protest that is non-disruptive accomplishes nothing.
- dekken_ 7y ago
  > A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities. Define "authorities", therein lies the rub. Authority is earned not assumed. If they were authorities the protests would be unnecessary
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    It depends on the jurisdiction. Usually there’s a process defined in local law to get approval for an assembly. In the US people do not have a universal right to protest when and where they want. Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.

hidiegomariani 7y ago

Well said

pjc50 7y ago

Not a "whatabout", but more a "compare and contrast": how does this relate to the unlawful protests in Hong Kong?