11 ms·

> But there are other, more poignant ways to do that. What would you recommend?

by sweetheart 4y ago

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.
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      > What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. The idea is to get from pre-contemplation to contemplation [1], which is a very important process for advocacy of any issue. The goal isn't to sway you to their side. The goal is to get you to think about this thing more. With that being said, they have definitely succeeded. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the evidence that there is some sort of "blowback" effect, where these things ultimately harm the movement more than help it, isn't really verified in any way. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but the rich history of similar disruptive protests make me feel that they are ultimately helpful. > 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. How does this differ from similar protests in the past? E.g. Rosa Parks, sit-ins, etc. Those protests similarly enraged and annoyed people, but they are now iconic demonstrations. 1. https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-model#:~:text=The%20stages%20of%20change%20are,Determination%20(Getting%20ready%20to%20change) https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-m...
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        I just looked at their website and one of their stated goals is “Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.” This is not a serious organization, it’s useless fantasy. There is no scenario where net emissions are zero by 2025 outside of intentionally plunging the entire globe into unimaginable poverty. This isn’t going to happen because there is no scenario where people sign up for that, and if anyone tried there would be war. Their game is a distraction that takes away from people who are serious about real approaches to get to net zero on a realistic timeline. Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
        sweetheart 4y ago
        Wait, I feel like the goal posts are being moved - I was never arguing for their specific demands, we were talking about the methods of protest they use. Does that mean you've come around on your viewpoint? > Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much. How so? I drew the comparison because you were saying that protests which are viewed as whiny, annoying demonstrations are ineffective (I'm paraphrasing here), but I was making the point that many important and effective protests of the past were viewed the same way before. I'm not saying their cause is as noble, just that the methodology is comparable. If you think that they are not comparable, even though the reaction to each is generally the same, I'd be curious as to what you think makes them so unrelated.
        remarkEon 4y ago
        I’m not moving anything. I’m expanding my argument. Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity. As for Rosa Parks, do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you? You can’t possibly not see the difference here, right? Their cause is not noble, it’s nuts. “Shut everything down by 2025!” is not a reasonable or realistic objective, and gluing yourself to stuff or pouring concrete in golf courses to annoy people just makes you look unserious, which they are. Inasmuch as they become the face of the movement to address climate change - and that seems to be at least an indirect outcome if not an objective - climate advocates will get associated with the stupidity. That hurts the overall movement away from fossil fuels.

> 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.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    > What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. The idea is to get from pre-contemplation to contemplation [1], which is a very important process for advocacy of any issue. The goal isn't to sway you to their side. The goal is to get you to think about this thing more. With that being said, they have definitely succeeded. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the evidence that there is some sort of "blowback" effect, where these things ultimately harm the movement more than help it, isn't really verified in any way. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but the rich history of similar disruptive protests make me feel that they are ultimately helpful. > 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. How does this differ from similar protests in the past? E.g. Rosa Parks, sit-ins, etc. Those protests similarly enraged and annoyed people, but they are now iconic demonstrations. 1. https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-model#:~:text=The%20stages%20of%20change%20are,Determination%20(Getting%20ready%20to%20change) https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-m...
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I just looked at their website and one of their stated goals is “Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.” This is not a serious organization, it’s useless fantasy. There is no scenario where net emissions are zero by 2025 outside of intentionally plunging the entire globe into unimaginable poverty. This isn’t going to happen because there is no scenario where people sign up for that, and if anyone tried there would be war. Their game is a distraction that takes away from people who are serious about real approaches to get to net zero on a realistic timeline. Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
      - sweetheart 4y ago
        Wait, I feel like the goal posts are being moved - I was never arguing for their specific demands, we were talking about the methods of protest they use. Does that mean you've come around on your viewpoint? > Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much. How so? I drew the comparison because you were saying that protests which are viewed as whiny, annoying demonstrations are ineffective (I'm paraphrasing here), but I was making the point that many important and effective protests of the past were viewed the same way before. I'm not saying their cause is as noble, just that the methodology is comparable. If you think that they are not comparable, even though the reaction to each is generally the same, I'd be curious as to what you think makes them so unrelated.
        remarkEon 4y ago
        I’m not moving anything. I’m expanding my argument. Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity. As for Rosa Parks, do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you? You can’t possibly not see the difference here, right? Their cause is not noble, it’s nuts. “Shut everything down by 2025!” is not a reasonable or realistic objective, and gluing yourself to stuff or pouring concrete in golf courses to annoy people just makes you look unserious, which they are. Inasmuch as they become the face of the movement to address climate change - and that seems to be at least an indirect outcome if not an objective - climate advocates will get associated with the stupidity. That hurts the overall movement away from fossil fuels.