3 ms·

Do you really think giving examples of complacency due to fear to an authoritarian regime and a social change process that ultimately resulted in a democratic c

Do you really think giving examples of complacency due to fear to an authoritarian regime and a social change process that ultimately resulted in a democratic change somehow disproves my point? I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed.

wizzwizz4 3y ago
There were plenty of people who were die-hard in favour of the Nazis' purges (and still are). There were loads of people opposed to women's suffrage (and still are). I don't know if there were objections to Magna Carta, but if there were, I'm pretty sure complacency due to fear wouldn't have been a major factor. And sure, there was lots of support for reform, in each case… but there's currently widespread support for (the idea of) taking positive action against climate change. Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. > I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed. To be clear: I agree with this. But this definition of "authoritarianism" isn't compatible with what you were originally complaining about. Every action is an imposition of will on the universe: imposition of will is neither the main problem with, nor the characteristic feature of, authoritarianism.
- kcplate 3y ago
  > Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Where are these people? If they are in the US, their fears are completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous. However, the lesson here is that those are things authoritarian governments will do. So why would climate change activists advocate for authoritarian solutions if they are already concerned about what authoritarians can do to the people they disagree with? It comes down to a desire for the power they are scared of > Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. So blocking traffic on major roads is pretty extreme and is quite possibly the dumbest way to motivate any public change for their cause (The second dumbest being throwing soup and defacing artwork.).
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    > If they are in the US, their fears are completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous. Get arrested, don't show up at work, get fired (totally legal: it's an at-will state!), lose your health insurance, can't pay rent, eviction, now your former landlord wants you to pay for your own eviction… You can apply for SNAP without an address of residence, so long as you can receive letters, but if not, you're reliant on savings or charity until you can get back on your feet. Alternatively, your employer doesn't like your activism and fires you for it; or your landlord doesn't (though this is potentially less bad than job loss – depends on circumstance). You don't even have to be an activist in the US for these sorts of things to happen: but activism is the opposite of keeping your head down, and makes them more likely. Demonstrative political activism is never without cost. That's basic signalling theory. > So blocking traffic on major roads is pretty extreme Cutting off the king's head is pretty extreme. Falling under the king's horse is pretty extreme, refusing to eat until food is poured into your lungs is pretty extreme, hiding Jews in the basement of a Nazi officer's villa is pretty extreme. How is blocking traffic extreme? Nobody calls it 'pretty extreme' when the rubbernecking after a car crash blocks traffic on major roads: that's just a cost of doing transport. Does the purposefulness, the meaningfulness, make blocking a road for a few days an extreme act? > motivate any public change for their cause The problem is political will. Doesn't matter how many people want universal suffrage, if the people in charge won't call a referendum. > The second dumbest being throwing soup and defacing artwork. If you're referring to the Just Stop Oil protests in October: they threw soup at a piece of glass in front of an artwork, and placed paper in front of another. Damage occurred to two frames and a small amount of varnish: none to the actual paint of any paintings. No artwork was destroyed, or even damaged. (If anything, art was created.)
    - kcplate 3y ago
      > Get arrested, don't show up at work, get fired (totally legal: it's an at-will state!), lose your health insurance, can't pay rent, eviction, now your former landlord wants you to pay for your own eviction… Yes, actions have consequences. You have a right to protest, but if your method of protest has a law breaking component to it and you are arrested for that law you broke, there could be downstream consequences to your action. The very same thing can happen for any reason you may chose to break a law. Activism doesn’t give you a law breaking pass. > How is blocking traffic extreme? Would you do this on the regular just for the fun or utility of it? > The problem is political will. Doesn't matter how many people want universal suffrage…. Is that the problem? Seems to me what you are describing as a lack of “political will” is really your own impatience. > No artwork was destroyed, or even damaged. (If anything, art was created.) Yeah I am sure that striking the protective safety glass over the Velázquez painting 10x with hammers just to test to make sure it wouldn’t break and destroy the painting before they reinterpreted the masterpiece with their bold warholian-pollock style.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

There were plenty of people who were die-hard in favour of the Nazis' purges (and still are). There were loads of people opposed to women's suffrage (and still are). I don't know if there were objections to Magna Carta, but if there were, I'm pretty sure complacency due to fear wouldn't have been a major factor. And sure, there was lots of support for reform, in each case… but there's currently widespread support for (the idea of) taking positive action against climate change. Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. > I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed. To be clear: I agree with this. But this definition of "authoritarianism" isn't compatible with what you were originally complaining about. Every action is an imposition of will on the universe: imposition of will is neither the main problem with, nor the characteristic feature of, authoritarianism.

kcplate 3y ago
> Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Where are these people? If they are in the US, their fears are completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous. However, the lesson here is that those are things authoritarian governments will do. So why would climate change activists advocate for authoritarian solutions if they are already concerned about what authoritarians can do to the people they disagree with? It comes down to a desire for the power they are scared of > Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. So blocking traffic on major roads is pretty extreme and is quite possibly the dumbest way to motivate any public change for their cause (The second dumbest being throwing soup and defacing artwork.).
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > If they are in the US, their fears are completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous. Get arrested, don't show up at work, get fired (totally legal: it's an at-will state!), lose your health insurance, can't pay rent, eviction, now your former landlord wants you to pay for your own eviction… You can apply for SNAP without an address of residence, so long as you can receive letters, but if not, you're reliant on savings or charity until you can get back on your feet. Alternatively, your employer doesn't like your activism and fires you for it; or your landlord doesn't (though this is potentially less bad than job loss – depends on circumstance). You don't even have to be an activist in the US for these sorts of things to happen: but activism is the opposite of keeping your head down, and makes them more likely. Demonstrative political activism is never without cost. That's basic signalling theory. > So blocking traffic on major roads is pretty extreme Cutting off the king's head is pretty extreme. Falling under the king's horse is pretty extreme, refusing to eat until food is poured into your lungs is pretty extreme, hiding Jews in the basement of a Nazi officer's villa is pretty extreme. How is blocking traffic extreme? Nobody calls it 'pretty extreme' when the rubbernecking after a car crash blocks traffic on major roads: that's just a cost of doing transport. Does the purposefulness, the meaningfulness, make blocking a road for a few days an extreme act? > motivate any public change for their cause The problem is political will. Doesn't matter how many people want universal suffrage, if the people in charge won't call a referendum. > The second dumbest being throwing soup and defacing artwork. If you're referring to the Just Stop Oil protests in October: they threw soup at a piece of glass in front of an artwork, and placed paper in front of another. Damage occurred to two frames and a small amount of varnish: none to the actual paint of any paintings. No artwork was destroyed, or even damaged. (If anything, art was created.)
  - kcplate 3y ago
    > Get arrested, don't show up at work, get fired (totally legal: it's an at-will state!), lose your health insurance, can't pay rent, eviction, now your former landlord wants you to pay for your own eviction… Yes, actions have consequences. You have a right to protest, but if your method of protest has a law breaking component to it and you are arrested for that law you broke, there could be downstream consequences to your action. The very same thing can happen for any reason you may chose to break a law. Activism doesn’t give you a law breaking pass. > How is blocking traffic extreme? Would you do this on the regular just for the fun or utility of it? > The problem is political will. Doesn't matter how many people want universal suffrage…. Is that the problem? Seems to me what you are describing as a lack of “political will” is really your own impatience. > No artwork was destroyed, or even damaged. (If anything, art was created.) Yeah I am sure that striking the protective safety glass over the Velázquez painting 10x with hammers just to test to make sure it wouldn’t break and destroy the painting before they reinterpreted the masterpiece with their bold warholian-pollock style.