6 ms·

It warms my heart to see continued protests by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Direct Action Everywhere. Nonviolent, disruptive action is a powerful force

It warms my heart to see continued protests by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Direct Action Everywhere. Nonviolent, disruptive action is a powerful force with such rich history. On reddit when this group protested at the Louvre by gluing themselves to well known landscapes the comments were full of vitriol, which were difficult to determine as being genuine or representative of actual general feelings towards such protests. I hope we all see these illegal disruptions as the important work they are.

factcheckdec 4y ago
Knowingly preventing ambulances from reaching those in urgent need or transporting critically ill patients to a hospital is violence.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  If we allow indirect violence, so is doing nothing to stop a misaligned system burning down the planet and poisoning all of us willingly. Drawing the line is what the political debate is about
astorsnk 4y ago
Someone with actual general feelings here. People’s lives are miserable enough at the minute without being disrupted further by climate protest groups. This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive but other XR protests and the Stop Oil folks blockading roads can fuck right off. Demanding that we stop using oil during an energy crisis is idiotic and blocking working class people from getting to work at a time when they’re struggling financially is not helping your cause. As important as it is that we make massive changes to benefit our climate and planet, I think the middle classes that are typically involved in these protests need to read the room and realise ordinary people have much more pressing concerns (like heating their homes and feeding themselves) and they could do with a break from hearing that “the earth is burning”. It’s part of the reason a lot of the working class abandoned the Labour Party - the left is focussed on things that the middle/upper middle class care about instead of representing the working class.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  In the case of the protest in the article, how do you see their demands as being representative of only the upper class? Same with the protests at the Louvre?
  - astorsnk 4y ago
    > This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive As I said it depends on the style of protest. This is not disruptive. Blockading roads during rush hour (a frequent tactic in the past year) is and is something I have more of an issue with. In the art gallery cases (of which there have been several) I would be annoyed if the art was damaged in any way. Damaging something that’s been taken care of for so long to make your point is selfish. In the case of climate protestors invading the track during the British Grand Prix I also have an issue. If the race hadn’t already been stopped due to an accident there was a very good chance protestors or drivers or spectators would have been killed. Regarding the demands generally being of only the upper class, looking at British liberal politics in general, there is a focus on climate, immigration, gender etc and little focus on economic policies. When so many people are struggling financially the focus needs to be on economics first and everything else needs to take a backseat for a while.
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      It sounds like you’re saying that as long as their aren’t negative consequences, then the protests are fine. Is that accurate or an oversimplification? I think by definition there need to be consequences, as that is what forces people to notice and to talk. A common retort to this is that it will actually harm the movement more than help it, since the press that is generated tends to skew negative, but the research on the blowback effect is inconclusive. Also, do you think that the climate crisis is not an economic issue?
      - astorsnk 4y ago
        It’s an oversimplification. Protests that cause disruption are not a problem, but you need to keep in mind who you are disrupting. For example: some action to block/prevent private jets from taking off and disrupting wealthy users = great. Blocking the road to airport causing families that have spent years saving for their family trip to miss their flight = bad. I also disagree that “by definition there needs to be consequences”. Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre. Regarding the climate crisis being an economic issue - that doesn’t matter to the people struggling to heat their homes, or feed their children. Those concerns are much more immediate than how we can build a new green economy over the next decades, or how we may be impacting their grandchildren who don’t even exist yet.
CaptArmchair 4y ago
The Louvre is a public institution and the art preserved and on display in such institutions is a public good. It's nonsensical to glue oneself to / destroy a public good - especially one that has cultural value (and other types of value) - when trying to make a point about the impact unchecked private property has on the world. If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause. Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  > But there are other, more poignant ways to do that. What would you recommend?
  - CaptArmchair 4y ago
    Support any activist initiative that doesn't try to stimulate societal change through destroying public property.
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      What public property was destroyed? Also, as I said elsewhere, the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. If glue on the frame of a painting is too much destruction, will you only consider protests which have negligible effect appropriate?
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children. It’s not clear they even have any concrete policies positions on e.g. nuclear power generation, or zoning. They’re just agitators and I wish they’d go away because they aren’t exactly helping, and become just a giant distraction.
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
XR blocking public roads full of angry people trying to get to job/school is always just a step away from public lynching and really are not helping their cause.

factcheckdec 4y ago

Knowingly preventing ambulances from reaching those in urgent need or transporting critically ill patients to a hospital is violence.

igorkraw 4y ago
If we allow indirect violence, so is doing nothing to stop a misaligned system burning down the planet and poisoning all of us willingly. Drawing the line is what the political debate is about

astorsnk 4y ago

Someone with actual general feelings here. People’s lives are miserable enough at the minute without being disrupted further by climate protest groups. This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive but other XR protests and the Stop Oil folks blockading roads can fuck right off. Demanding that we stop using oil during an energy crisis is idiotic and blocking working class people from getting to work at a time when they’re struggling financially is not helping your cause. As important as it is that we make massive changes to benefit our climate and planet, I think the middle classes that are typically involved in these protests need to read the room and realise ordinary people have much more pressing concerns (like heating their homes and feeding themselves) and they could do with a break from hearing that “the earth is burning”. It’s part of the reason a lot of the working class abandoned the Labour Party - the left is focussed on things that the middle/upper middle class care about instead of representing the working class.

sweetheart 4y ago
In the case of the protest in the article, how do you see their demands as being representative of only the upper class? Same with the protests at the Louvre?
- astorsnk 4y ago
  > This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive As I said it depends on the style of protest. This is not disruptive. Blockading roads during rush hour (a frequent tactic in the past year) is and is something I have more of an issue with. In the art gallery cases (of which there have been several) I would be annoyed if the art was damaged in any way. Damaging something that’s been taken care of for so long to make your point is selfish. In the case of climate protestors invading the track during the British Grand Prix I also have an issue. If the race hadn’t already been stopped due to an accident there was a very good chance protestors or drivers or spectators would have been killed. Regarding the demands generally being of only the upper class, looking at British liberal politics in general, there is a focus on climate, immigration, gender etc and little focus on economic policies. When so many people are struggling financially the focus needs to be on economics first and everything else needs to take a backseat for a while.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    It sounds like you’re saying that as long as their aren’t negative consequences, then the protests are fine. Is that accurate or an oversimplification? I think by definition there need to be consequences, as that is what forces people to notice and to talk. A common retort to this is that it will actually harm the movement more than help it, since the press that is generated tends to skew negative, but the research on the blowback effect is inconclusive. Also, do you think that the climate crisis is not an economic issue?
    - astorsnk 4y ago
      It’s an oversimplification. Protests that cause disruption are not a problem, but you need to keep in mind who you are disrupting. For example: some action to block/prevent private jets from taking off and disrupting wealthy users = great. Blocking the road to airport causing families that have spent years saving for their family trip to miss their flight = bad. I also disagree that “by definition there needs to be consequences”. Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre. Regarding the climate crisis being an economic issue - that doesn’t matter to the people struggling to heat their homes, or feed their children. Those concerns are much more immediate than how we can build a new green economy over the next decades, or how we may be impacting their grandchildren who don’t even exist yet.

CaptArmchair 4y ago

The Louvre is a public institution and the art preserved and on display in such institutions is a public good. It's nonsensical to glue oneself to / destroy a public good - especially one that has cultural value (and other types of value) - when trying to make a point about the impact unchecked private property has on the world. If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause. Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.

sweetheart 4y ago
> But there are other, more poignant ways to do that. What would you recommend?
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  Support any activist initiative that doesn't try to stimulate societal change through destroying public property.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    What public property was destroyed? Also, as I said elsewhere, the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. If glue on the frame of a painting is too much destruction, will you only consider protests which have negligible effect appropriate?
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children. It’s not clear they even have any concrete policies positions on e.g. nuclear power generation, or zoning. They’re just agitators and I wish they’d go away because they aren’t exactly helping, and become just a giant distraction.

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago

XR blocking public roads full of angry people trying to get to job/school is always just a step away from public lynching and really are not helping their cause.