6 ms·

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to enviro

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.

smashah 2y ago
Maybe it's not a coincidence that the more shameless politicians ignore peaceful protests while doing the bidding of lobbyists, the more climate-concerned people feel the need to escalate their nuisance tactics which conveniently makes those same shameless politicians feel that they can justify more draconian measures to stifle privacy, speech and activism.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  Ghandi set the standard for effective peaceful protests. Most protests I see people doing are laughably useless. You have to know how to suffer for what is important. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistance-and-results https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistan... "Thus was born satyagraha (“devotion to truth”), a new technique for redressing wrongs through inviting, rather than inflicting, suffering, for resisting adversaries without rancor and fighting them without violence."
  - squigz 2y ago
    Devotion to one's ideals despite suffering for them is admirable, but not an option for many people. They have children to take care of, families to provide for. They just want to live their lives without inviting more pain into it. That is not something I'm going to hold against people or laugh at them for.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      If you are not prepared to sacrifice anything at all for your ideals, you by definition consider your ideals to be worthless.
      - squigz 2y ago
        Of course, a more generous reading of my comment would have you realize I didn't mean literally anything, just as GP didn't mean something as relatively simple as giving up meat.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        The problem is, and always has been, that you can pick a new round of ideals on your next turn in life and, as you grow older, you recognize that most of those ideals are, and I will generalize here, not ideal. The funny part is that most groups would want to tell you that their particular set of ideas are worth dying for. As is often the case, it seems to be only the rank and file and the young is doing the dying part though. With that out of the way, maybe ideals is too charged of a word. Maybe the right word here is: priorities.
  - McDyver 2y ago
    How about politicians setting the standard for not fucking up the whole world and their fellow humans? Why must it be the people suffering the consequence of greedy politicians, who must be the ones behaving with the high moral compass? This seems to me like blaming the victims Edit to add: > You have to know how to suffer for what is important. With that principle, people who have the decisional power should "suffer" by refraining from causing harm to others/the planet
    - nathanaldensr 2y ago
      We as a species have to figure out a fool-proof test for sociopathy at a specific threshold, beyond which those people are not allowed to hold public office. Without this, the power-hungry will always, in the end, rule over those who seek to avoid conflict.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      > How about politicians setting the standard for not fucking up the whole world and their fellow humans? I agree. But can we really only blame the politicians? I do not vote because every politician wants war. That is my small protest that aligns with my morals. They have to earn my vote. What if there were a group of people who got together and said we will only vote for the candidate that is against all war or where serious about climate change? >Why must it be the people suffering the consequence of greedy politicians, who must be the ones behaving with the high moral compass? Yes, unfortunate, but the only way out is for those of us with a moral compass to act as an example for others. To be the heroes who sacrifice and are remembered through history and change things for the better. Start in your town. Keep it local.
  - highcountess 2y ago
    Pretty sure Jesus set that standard many centuries before Gandhi. If anything Gandhi was just taking inspiration from Jesus.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      I agree, but was hoping to avoid religion. But I am sad to see that bringing up Ghandi here even leads to downvotes of my original comment.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Invoking Gandhi's satyagrahas should always come with all the caveats that made the movement successful. It wasn't merely the act of peaceful protest that won India's independence, but the fact that it happened in the backdrop of WW2. Britain had to be much more careful to not risk escalating things into a full-blown revolt. Then, at the end of the war, they needed to focus their resources towards rebuilding.
    - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
      Agree, but he started his work in South Africa with great success. I was just revealing that there are different ways to protest that entail people sacrificing now a little so they do not have to sacrifice a lot in the future. But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing?
      - dotnet00 2y ago
        My intent wasn't to say that Gandhi and satyagraha had no contribution, and I agree that there are better ways to protest than harassing people trying to survive and throwing beans on paintings. I just wanted to emphasize that part of the reason satyagraha remained mainly peaceful was that even the people being protested against couldn't risk it turning violent. > But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing? I think that India would still have gotten independence a few years later, since either way, I don't think post-WW2 Britain had the capacity to hold on to India. However, I do believe that Gandhi's efforts ended up playing a significant role in creating a more unified national identity and helped to foster values that have allowed India to be a mostly stable democracy, in stark contrast to many of its neighbors. So, if he had done nothing, I figure that India might've fragmented into smaller countries with too much conflict to amount to much on the global stage.
- johndunne 2y ago
  I think politicians are skirting democratic accountability because they can, and not enough people are protesting the lack of this accountability. The most concerning thing about this proposed legislation is the fact that it can be used to further skirt accountability, by labeling protesters under the broad terms the bill covers.
  - smashah 2y ago
    Back in the day, in a more localized times (i.e your life was somewhat controlled by those within your vicinity), if our "leaders" were tratiours, we would get the torches and pitchforks and march to their homes as the citizen's form of keeping leaders accountable. Post-enlightenment, we put down the torches and pitchforks, we outsourced the accountability function to the media/press. Shame and transparency were the new "torch and pitchforks". As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. After Clinton, and in order to push the illegal Iraq war, politicians (no longer called "leaders") had to shed all their shame so that they would be immune to any press that came out about their illegal acts for the war machine. Wikileaks happened. Only the messenger was pursued. Shame doesn't work anymore. The press use the power we gave them against us. Therefore no wonder protests don't work. They don't get covered and politicians are rewarded for shamelessly ignoring the people's interests. The system is broken. I don't blame climate protesters escalating. Especially while climate destruction is being escalated.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. How does this square with the rise of insurgents like donald trump? He was basically snubbed by the GOP political establishment in 2016, but now the republican party is now enthralled to him. There was even a period where he tried to fight fox news and urged his supporters to watch OAN instead. Some of Trump's populist policies were so successful that even the democratic party copied it, eg. his anti-china policy. That's despite such policies being arguably anti-business, which under your framework shouldn't have happened.
consp 2y ago
Funny thing with those violent protesters is ... Sometimes they are not protesters. I had the opportunity to be with a peaceful protest against canceling student financing and the people who started violence after it finished were neither part of, nor affected by, the issues or organisation.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Yes, sadly this is a common tactic by the incumbent corruption (politicians, corporations, otherwise) to make the protestors seem dangerous. Nothing new, but maybe it hasn’t been exposed at home as much as it has been abroad.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    There is no need to bring in agent provocateurs in this day and age. Both anti-fa and fa are a bunch of meth heads looking for an excuse to bash someone's head in. They are perfectly happy to start violence if the police doesn't actively stop them.
    - komali2 2y ago
      I'm an antifascist and not a meth head. Nearly every protest I've been to has been peaceful. Sometimes the cops try to instigate violence by kettling or shoving people around really aggressively, but well trained protest leaders have people prepped for this and push hardline pacifism - well all know what happens when the cops "get the green light." Typically when shit kicks off, it's an agent provocateur. Not always, but typically: https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536 https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-rio... There was similar in Oakland, some white kids from who tf knows where were trying to break windows, and everyone around was shouting for them to fuck off and knock it off. Recently nazis and right wingers were allowed to do whatever they want as cops stood by and watched them beat up college protesters. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-counterprotesters-invs/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-... At one point one shouted "we're here to finish what Hitler started" https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/uclas-unholy-alliance/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/uclas-unholy-alliance/ Agent provocateurs are going to become more and more necessary to "justify" the violence against protesters as protesters become more educated on pacifist strategies. The Anarchist Cookbook (new version) https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html is free to read and gets into the effectiveness of peaceful protest and direct action, and the counter-effectiveness of violence. How to Blow Up a Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline takes a slightly different perspective, analyzing the possible necessity of extremely limited, targeted destruction of property, that strives to be completely disassociated from the greater movement so that the benefits of the destruction (such as disrupted oil supply, plus attention) can be combined with the opportunity for the greater movement to condemn the action.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
They have been using violence. Violence against property mostly but that's violence nonetheless. Throwing paint or other things at buildings and pieces of art in museums is violence (criminal damage is not peaceful protest). But in the grand scheme of things this is indeed a weak justification.
- wildrhythms 2y ago
  What's the point of this comment? Some violence is justified. Violence against the Nazis was justified. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was justified. Jesus overturned the tables of the money exchangers, violently I suppose, and that was justified. The focus on the broad term 'violence' without any additional analysis is completely useless. And it's interesting to me that when 'violence' is used on this specific topic, it seems to only be used to label the reaction of the protesters and not the underlying issue they're protesting about, which itself is also a form of violence.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    The point of the comment is that there is no such thing as 'good violence' just as there is no such thing as 'hate speech'. There is just violence. There is just speech. You try to muddle those simple things and you end up with where are today: confused population unable to reason through their way through otherwise simple reality.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Taking black and white thinking so far you're considering dropping one of those colors even! > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        I want to offer you a moment to reconsider this comment. It adds nothing to this discussion. It does not refute my point. It does not undermine it. It does nothing really except maybe confuse the reader. Unless the latter is the point, consider an edit that addresses my point directly. I am only human. It is possible that there is a flaw in my reasoning. It is possible coffee did not hit me yet. As written, this is not an argument at all.
randunel 2y ago
Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? If a protest has exactly 0 risks, why would anyone in a position of power mind it at all?
- faggotbreath 2y ago
  [dead]
- NekkoDroid 2y ago
  No? A strike also doesn't need to have "willingness to use violence" cuz there are non-violent ways to disrupt.
- diggan 2y ago
  > Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but generally people who participate in peaceful protests isn't willing to use violence, then they'd be a part of a different type of protest. That's not to say there are groups within peaceful protests that are willing to use violence, but it isn't the norm.
pelorat 2y ago
I don't even own a car, but those activists that blockade highways might just come out better persons after spending 5 years in prison.
- nickserv 2y ago
  Yes, mingling with hardened criminals for a few years is the perfect way to work on self improvement.
wickedsight 2y ago
Dutch politician Pim Fortuijn was murdered by an environmental activist in 2002. I would say that's a bit more than a nuisance. I agree that most climate activism is more nuisance than violent, but that doesn't mean violence doesn't happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

smashah 2y ago

Maybe it's not a coincidence that the more shameless politicians ignore peaceful protests while doing the bidding of lobbyists, the more climate-concerned people feel the need to escalate their nuisance tactics which conveniently makes those same shameless politicians feel that they can justify more draconian measures to stifle privacy, speech and activism.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
Ghandi set the standard for effective peaceful protests. Most protests I see people doing are laughably useless. You have to know how to suffer for what is important. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistance-and-results https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistan... "Thus was born satyagraha (“devotion to truth”), a new technique for redressing wrongs through inviting, rather than inflicting, suffering, for resisting adversaries without rancor and fighting them without violence."
- squigz 2y ago
  Devotion to one's ideals despite suffering for them is admirable, but not an option for many people. They have children to take care of, families to provide for. They just want to live their lives without inviting more pain into it. That is not something I'm going to hold against people or laugh at them for.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    If you are not prepared to sacrifice anything at all for your ideals, you by definition consider your ideals to be worthless.
    - squigz 2y ago
      Of course, a more generous reading of my comment would have you realize I didn't mean literally anything, just as GP didn't mean something as relatively simple as giving up meat.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      The problem is, and always has been, that you can pick a new round of ideals on your next turn in life and, as you grow older, you recognize that most of those ideals are, and I will generalize here, not ideal. The funny part is that most groups would want to tell you that their particular set of ideas are worth dying for. As is often the case, it seems to be only the rank and file and the young is doing the dying part though. With that out of the way, maybe ideals is too charged of a word. Maybe the right word here is: priorities.
- McDyver 2y ago
  How about politicians setting the standard for not fucking up the whole world and their fellow humans? Why must it be the people suffering the consequence of greedy politicians, who must be the ones behaving with the high moral compass? This seems to me like blaming the victims Edit to add: > You have to know how to suffer for what is important. With that principle, people who have the decisional power should "suffer" by refraining from causing harm to others/the planet
  - nathanaldensr 2y ago
    We as a species have to figure out a fool-proof test for sociopathy at a specific threshold, beyond which those people are not allowed to hold public office. Without this, the power-hungry will always, in the end, rule over those who seek to avoid conflict.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    > How about politicians setting the standard for not fucking up the whole world and their fellow humans? I agree. But can we really only blame the politicians? I do not vote because every politician wants war. That is my small protest that aligns with my morals. They have to earn my vote. What if there were a group of people who got together and said we will only vote for the candidate that is against all war or where serious about climate change? >Why must it be the people suffering the consequence of greedy politicians, who must be the ones behaving with the high moral compass? Yes, unfortunate, but the only way out is for those of us with a moral compass to act as an example for others. To be the heroes who sacrifice and are remembered through history and change things for the better. Start in your town. Keep it local.
- highcountess 2y ago
  Pretty sure Jesus set that standard many centuries before Gandhi. If anything Gandhi was just taking inspiration from Jesus.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    I agree, but was hoping to avoid religion. But I am sad to see that bringing up Ghandi here even leads to downvotes of my original comment.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Invoking Gandhi's satyagrahas should always come with all the caveats that made the movement successful. It wasn't merely the act of peaceful protest that won India's independence, but the fact that it happened in the backdrop of WW2. Britain had to be much more careful to not risk escalating things into a full-blown revolt. Then, at the end of the war, they needed to focus their resources towards rebuilding.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    Agree, but he started his work in South Africa with great success. I was just revealing that there are different ways to protest that entail people sacrificing now a little so they do not have to sacrifice a lot in the future. But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing?
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      My intent wasn't to say that Gandhi and satyagraha had no contribution, and I agree that there are better ways to protest than harassing people trying to survive and throwing beans on paintings. I just wanted to emphasize that part of the reason satyagraha remained mainly peaceful was that even the people being protested against couldn't risk it turning violent. > But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing? I think that India would still have gotten independence a few years later, since either way, I don't think post-WW2 Britain had the capacity to hold on to India. However, I do believe that Gandhi's efforts ended up playing a significant role in creating a more unified national identity and helped to foster values that have allowed India to be a mostly stable democracy, in stark contrast to many of its neighbors. So, if he had done nothing, I figure that India might've fragmented into smaller countries with too much conflict to amount to much on the global stage.
johndunne 2y ago
I think politicians are skirting democratic accountability because they can, and not enough people are protesting the lack of this accountability. The most concerning thing about this proposed legislation is the fact that it can be used to further skirt accountability, by labeling protesters under the broad terms the bill covers.
- smashah 2y ago
  Back in the day, in a more localized times (i.e your life was somewhat controlled by those within your vicinity), if our "leaders" were tratiours, we would get the torches and pitchforks and march to their homes as the citizen's form of keeping leaders accountable. Post-enlightenment, we put down the torches and pitchforks, we outsourced the accountability function to the media/press. Shame and transparency were the new "torch and pitchforks". As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. After Clinton, and in order to push the illegal Iraq war, politicians (no longer called "leaders") had to shed all their shame so that they would be immune to any press that came out about their illegal acts for the war machine. Wikileaks happened. Only the messenger was pursued. Shame doesn't work anymore. The press use the power we gave them against us. Therefore no wonder protests don't work. They don't get covered and politicians are rewarded for shamelessly ignoring the people's interests. The system is broken. I don't blame climate protesters escalating. Especially while climate destruction is being escalated.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. How does this square with the rise of insurgents like donald trump? He was basically snubbed by the GOP political establishment in 2016, but now the republican party is now enthralled to him. There was even a period where he tried to fight fox news and urged his supporters to watch OAN instead. Some of Trump's populist policies were so successful that even the democratic party copied it, eg. his anti-china policy. That's despite such policies being arguably anti-business, which under your framework shouldn't have happened.

consp 2y ago

Funny thing with those violent protesters is ... Sometimes they are not protesters. I had the opportunity to be with a peaceful protest against canceling student financing and the people who started violence after it finished were neither part of, nor affected by, the issues or organisation.

yunohn 2y ago
Yes, sadly this is a common tactic by the incumbent corruption (politicians, corporations, otherwise) to make the protestors seem dangerous. Nothing new, but maybe it hasn’t been exposed at home as much as it has been abroad.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  There is no need to bring in agent provocateurs in this day and age. Both anti-fa and fa are a bunch of meth heads looking for an excuse to bash someone's head in. They are perfectly happy to start violence if the police doesn't actively stop them.
  - komali2 2y ago
    I'm an antifascist and not a meth head. Nearly every protest I've been to has been peaceful. Sometimes the cops try to instigate violence by kettling or shoving people around really aggressively, but well trained protest leaders have people prepped for this and push hardline pacifism - well all know what happens when the cops "get the green light." Typically when shit kicks off, it's an agent provocateur. Not always, but typically: https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536 https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-rio... There was similar in Oakland, some white kids from who tf knows where were trying to break windows, and everyone around was shouting for them to fuck off and knock it off. Recently nazis and right wingers were allowed to do whatever they want as cops stood by and watched them beat up college protesters. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-counterprotesters-invs/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-... At one point one shouted "we're here to finish what Hitler started" https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/uclas-unholy-alliance/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/uclas-unholy-alliance/ Agent provocateurs are going to become more and more necessary to "justify" the violence against protesters as protesters become more educated on pacifist strategies. The Anarchist Cookbook (new version) https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html is free to read and gets into the effectiveness of peaceful protest and direct action, and the counter-effectiveness of violence. How to Blow Up a Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline takes a slightly different perspective, analyzing the possible necessity of extremely limited, targeted destruction of property, that strives to be completely disassociated from the greater movement so that the benefits of the destruction (such as disrupted oil supply, plus attention) can be combined with the opportunity for the greater movement to condemn the action.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

They have been using violence. Violence against property mostly but that's violence nonetheless. Throwing paint or other things at buildings and pieces of art in museums is violence (criminal damage is not peaceful protest). But in the grand scheme of things this is indeed a weak justification.

wildrhythms 2y ago
What's the point of this comment? Some violence is justified. Violence against the Nazis was justified. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was justified. Jesus overturned the tables of the money exchangers, violently I suppose, and that was justified. The focus on the broad term 'violence' without any additional analysis is completely useless. And it's interesting to me that when 'violence' is used on this specific topic, it seems to only be used to label the reaction of the protesters and not the underlying issue they're protesting about, which itself is also a form of violence.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  The point of the comment is that there is no such thing as 'good violence' just as there is no such thing as 'hate speech'. There is just violence. There is just speech. You try to muddle those simple things and you end up with where are today: confused population unable to reason through their way through otherwise simple reality.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Taking black and white thinking so far you're considering dropping one of those colors even! > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      I want to offer you a moment to reconsider this comment. It adds nothing to this discussion. It does not refute my point. It does not undermine it. It does nothing really except maybe confuse the reader. Unless the latter is the point, consider an edit that addresses my point directly. I am only human. It is possible that there is a flaw in my reasoning. It is possible coffee did not hit me yet. As written, this is not an argument at all.

randunel 2y ago

Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? If a protest has exactly 0 risks, why would anyone in a position of power mind it at all?

faggotbreath 2y ago
[dead]
NekkoDroid 2y ago
No? A strike also doesn't need to have "willingness to use violence" cuz there are non-violent ways to disrupt.
diggan 2y ago
> Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but generally people who participate in peaceful protests isn't willing to use violence, then they'd be a part of a different type of protest. That's not to say there are groups within peaceful protests that are willing to use violence, but it isn't the norm.

pelorat 2y ago

I don't even own a car, but those activists that blockade highways might just come out better persons after spending 5 years in prison.

nickserv 2y ago
Yes, mingling with hardened criminals for a few years is the perfect way to work on self improvement.

wickedsight 2y ago

Dutch politician Pim Fortuijn was murdered by an environmental activist in 2002. I would say that's a bit more than a nuisance. I agree that most climate activism is more nuisance than violent, but that doesn't mean violence doesn't happen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]