3 ms·

We see pro-abortion activists in the US arrested during protests. We've seen anti-abortion activists murder doctors. We've seen Q-Anon supporters arrested for t

We see pro-abortion activists in the US arrested during protests. We've seen anti-abortion activists murder doctors. We've seen Q-Anon supporters arrested for their attempted coup. We saw anti-nuclear activists jailed for their vandalism (famously including a nun). We've seen eco-terrorists and anti-vivisectionists sent to jail. Some suffragettes broke the law, deliberately and in public, and the more militant suffragettes committed vandalism, set off bombs, and more. One thousand suffragettes were in jail. Many of these prisoners went on hunger strikes. I don't think any of these people would have been dissuaded by fines and community service.

Bostonian 4y ago
The mainstream pro-life movement condemned the murder of abortion doctors. It achieved success through the political process -- supporting GOP presidents who appointed judges that overturned Roe and electing state legislators who enacted abortion restrictions.
- eesmith 4y ago
  And mainstream environmentalists condemned eco-terrorists and mainstream animal rights activists condemned the militant actions of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. I'm sure mainstream climate activates will also condemn militant actions in the name of CO2 emissions. But as the video points out, people talk about the non-violent civil rights movement, and ignore the militant civil rights movement. ("A riot is the language of the unheard"); ignore the militancy of the suffragette movement in the UK; etc. The question is: why do/did all of these movements have/had a militant arm willing to break the law, while the modern anti-global warming doesn't. gus_massa suggested it was due to the risk of being caught, fined, and punished. Which doesn't make sense to me given the examples I listed of people willing to risk much more severe consequences in the name of their causes.

Bostonian 4y ago

The mainstream pro-life movement condemned the murder of abortion doctors. It achieved success through the political process -- supporting GOP presidents who appointed judges that overturned Roe and electing state legislators who enacted abortion restrictions.

eesmith 4y ago
And mainstream environmentalists condemned eco-terrorists and mainstream animal rights activists condemned the militant actions of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. I'm sure mainstream climate activates will also condemn militant actions in the name of CO2 emissions. But as the video points out, people talk about the non-violent civil rights movement, and ignore the militant civil rights movement. ("A riot is the language of the unheard"); ignore the militancy of the suffragette movement in the UK; etc. The question is: why do/did all of these movements have/had a militant arm willing to break the law, while the modern anti-global warming doesn't. gus_massa suggested it was due to the risk of being caught, fined, and punished. Which doesn't make sense to me given the examples I listed of people willing to risk much more severe consequences in the name of their causes.