4 ms·

This is a very patronising article. Do I approve of throwing tomato soup at Sunflowers? Nope. Was Sunflowers damaged? Nope - the frame was glazed. I don't kn

This is a very patronising article. Do I approve of throwing tomato soup at Sunflowers? Nope. Was Sunflowers damaged? Nope - the frame was glazed. I don't know if all these protests have been similar, but I think I'd have heard if any of them had damaged important cultural heritage. I don't see why the author thinks that "Just Stop Oil" protests in particular are tantrums. The same analysis would make any protest, about anything, a tantrum. So he thinks protesters should instead come up with constructive solutions, instead of just whining that they're not happy? Cool, give them some civil servants, so they can build a policy-development team. [Edit] My reaction is that this article is itself an enraged tantrum.

juancn 4y ago
But in a way it's right. The approach is a temper tantrum. There's no clear path or discussion of the issues at hand, it's just a simplistic demand that's essentially impractical. Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. That's why we have democracies and legal systems, learn them and change the system from the inside. Start a political party, petition, argue, discuss and most of all compromise. Without compromise it's impossible to sort these things out and in the end you may end up hurting whatever ill-defined cause that you're pursuing.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. I don't agree. Your advice to "change the system from the inside" is unhelpful, if you don't happen to be on the inside. It's not reasonable to demand that all political activity must be done by lawyers and politicians. Whether or not people trust them, they are not trustworthy. Your assertion that direct action amounts to virtue-signalling is silly; people don't risk arrest and jail to signal their virtue. You can get seriously injured performing direct action. I think you should take the actions of protesters a bit more seriously. And I think the article's author does the opposite, by painting them as tantrum-throwing toddlers.
happythebob 4y ago
It's full of dishonest phrasing, or at least it was until I could no longer continue reading the article.

juancn 4y ago

But in a way it's right. The approach is a temper tantrum. There's no clear path or discussion of the issues at hand, it's just a simplistic demand that's essentially impractical. Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. That's why we have democracies and legal systems, learn them and change the system from the inside. Start a political party, petition, argue, discuss and most of all compromise. Without compromise it's impossible to sort these things out and in the end you may end up hurting whatever ill-defined cause that you're pursuing.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. I don't agree. Your advice to "change the system from the inside" is unhelpful, if you don't happen to be on the inside. It's not reasonable to demand that all political activity must be done by lawyers and politicians. Whether or not people trust them, they are not trustworthy. Your assertion that direct action amounts to virtue-signalling is silly; people don't risk arrest and jail to signal their virtue. You can get seriously injured performing direct action. I think you should take the actions of protesters a bit more seriously. And I think the article's author does the opposite, by painting them as tantrum-throwing toddlers.

happythebob 4y ago

It's full of dishonest phrasing, or at least it was until I could no longer continue reading the article.