4 ms·

Are climate activists expected to "take some loss" or what exactly are you implying with this question? If people die because they engage in non-violent activi

Are climate activists expected to "take some loss" or what exactly are you implying with this question? If people die because they engage in non-violent activism it's just wrong, plain and simple, there's no gray area (at least I have a very hard time thinking of one). The overall number of activists or the growth thereof has absolutely nothing to do with that.

_dain_ 5y ago
it has everything to do with it. if the murder rate remains constant and a group doubles in size, then on average twice as many people in that group will get murdered.
- spuz 5y ago
  Why would you expect the murder rate to be constant? It's plausible the opposite is true that the more murders there are, the more publicity they get overall and the more cautious would-be murderers become.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Perhaps. Maybe it's constant, maybe it's rising, or maybe it's falling. To be able to tell, you need the denominator - that's why it's important.
  - jamesrcole 5y ago
    > Why would you expect the murder rate to be constant? they didn't expect it to be, they said if it remains constant. You seem to be the one making the assumption -- that it wouldn't remain constant -- otherwise why would you have made that comment?
    - spuz 5y ago
      The commenter I replied to said "It (the number of activists) has everything to do with it". That is pretty strong language to me. I infer from that the commenter wanted to suggest that the number of activists is the only factor that matters because we can assume that murder-rate would remain constant. If I am making the wrong inference here then I put it down to the strong and yet imprecise language of "it has everything to do with it".
      - jamesrcole 5y ago
        I think their absolutist statement was more to do with responding in kind to the comment they were replying to, which said “The overall number of activists or the growth thereof has absolutely nothing to do with that.”
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  then the question is why does the murder rate remain constant, is the chance of death by corporation a part of being an activist.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chki 5y ago
I don't think anybody is arguing whether killing innocent activists is wrong. But the implications of the headline are different if the increase in murders correlates with an increase in activism. That could for example imply that activists are murdered for being activists and not for being environmental activists specifically.

_dain_ 5y ago

it has everything to do with it. if the murder rate remains constant and a group doubles in size, then on average twice as many people in that group will get murdered.

spuz 5y ago
Why would you expect the murder rate to be constant? It's plausible the opposite is true that the more murders there are, the more publicity they get overall and the more cautious would-be murderers become.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Perhaps. Maybe it's constant, maybe it's rising, or maybe it's falling. To be able to tell, you need the denominator - that's why it's important.
- jamesrcole 5y ago
  > Why would you expect the murder rate to be constant? they didn't expect it to be, they said if it remains constant. You seem to be the one making the assumption -- that it wouldn't remain constant -- otherwise why would you have made that comment?
  - spuz 5y ago
    The commenter I replied to said "It (the number of activists) has everything to do with it". That is pretty strong language to me. I infer from that the commenter wanted to suggest that the number of activists is the only factor that matters because we can assume that murder-rate would remain constant. If I am making the wrong inference here then I put it down to the strong and yet imprecise language of "it has everything to do with it".
    - jamesrcole 5y ago
      I think their absolutist statement was more to do with responding in kind to the comment they were replying to, which said “The overall number of activists or the growth thereof has absolutely nothing to do with that.”
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
then the question is why does the murder rate remain constant, is the chance of death by corporation a part of being an activist.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chki 5y ago

I don't think anybody is arguing whether killing innocent activists is wrong. But the implications of the headline are different if the increase in murders correlates with an increase in activism. That could for example imply that activists are murdered for being activists and not for being environmental activists specifically.