4 ms·

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 t

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.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  > Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity. Wait, how do you know the tactics are ineffective? > 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? Again, I'm not saying there aren't big differences... I'm saying that the specific complaint you had about XR, like them coming across as self-absorbed whiny children, is something that easily could have been said about important protests of the past. So the comparison is still relevant. You complained about these protests disrupting normal people (like the family on the way to the airport in your example), but that same type of disruption was common in these revered protests from the past. So I'll try one last time: if protests from the past caused similar levels of disruption, but we can agree that those who engaged in them were not "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children", then what makes protesters today using similarly disruptive methods "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children"? I can't tell if you're trying to argue dishonestly. I'm not arguing that XR's goals are good, or sane. I'm not saying there are no differences between Civil Rights protests and climate crisis protests. I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    You started this entire thread by lauding XR and comparing them to powerful movements of the past, implying that showy and click-baity protests are the same thing as African Americans marching against specific laws that harmed them. You have offered no evidence that what they do specifically is actually effective at anything, and are hiding behind a forced and contrived comparison to the civil rights movement in the US. You have not offered anything beyond things like: > the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. > Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. And so on. How this works in reality is: if XR threatens to glue their faces to the pavement to block traffic if governments don’t shut down their economies, you end up with some people with their face glued to the pavement and nothing else. > I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent. You are not trying to understand anything. You have a romantic view of XR and liken then to civil rights protests because it excuses the absurdity of what they do. I’ve pointed out the unseriousness of this organization and I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate further on why comparisons to the civil rights movement are inappropriate. It’s not me who is arguing dishonestly.
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      Welp, no one can say I didn’t try with you! Later!

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.

sweetheart 4y ago
> Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity. Wait, how do you know the tactics are ineffective? > 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? Again, I'm not saying there aren't big differences... I'm saying that the specific complaint you had about XR, like them coming across as self-absorbed whiny children, is something that easily could have been said about important protests of the past. So the comparison is still relevant. You complained about these protests disrupting normal people (like the family on the way to the airport in your example), but that same type of disruption was common in these revered protests from the past. So I'll try one last time: if protests from the past caused similar levels of disruption, but we can agree that those who engaged in them were not "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children", then what makes protesters today using similarly disruptive methods "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children"? I can't tell if you're trying to argue dishonestly. I'm not arguing that XR's goals are good, or sane. I'm not saying there are no differences between Civil Rights protests and climate crisis protests. I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  You started this entire thread by lauding XR and comparing them to powerful movements of the past, implying that showy and click-baity protests are the same thing as African Americans marching against specific laws that harmed them. You have offered no evidence that what they do specifically is actually effective at anything, and are hiding behind a forced and contrived comparison to the civil rights movement in the US. You have not offered anything beyond things like: > the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. > Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. And so on. How this works in reality is: if XR threatens to glue their faces to the pavement to block traffic if governments don’t shut down their economies, you end up with some people with their face glued to the pavement and nothing else. > I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent. You are not trying to understand anything. You have a romantic view of XR and liken then to civil rights protests because it excuses the absurdity of what they do. I’ve pointed out the unseriousness of this organization and I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate further on why comparisons to the civil rights movement are inappropriate. It’s not me who is arguing dishonestly.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    Welp, no one can say I didn’t try with you! Later!