Should Climate Protesters Be Less Annoying?
Activists interrupted a pro tennis tournament in Washington, D.C., last week—and reignited a debate about how best to wage the climate fight.
If you're not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.
The "I support the right to protest as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone" reeks of a "negative peace" ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.
Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.
Again, that's bullshit. If they "disrupt pollution" by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that's how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention.
At a pro tennis event in Washington DC, on the other hand, the media is already there, peaceful protest isn't called terrorism and due to the location, there's an excellent chance that some of the very representatives who are standing in the way of climate action or at least someone from their inner circle are actually THERE.
TL;DR: You seem to either have no clue what you're talking about or be exactly like the negative peace demanders that held back MLK and his fight for justice.
Nah, but if you did more disrupting , they could stop annoying you.
I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.
For anyone annoyed by climate activists: wake the hell up. LISTEN to the message.
We are on course for an UNLIVABLE FUTURE. A BILLION climate refugees, mass crop failures, cities under water, temperatures too hot for human survival. Economic and societal collapse.
These disruptions damage nothing and inconvenience a small amount of people for 5-30 minutes. It's not a big deal. In a world of reactionary social media and news, these are the tactics that get attention. It is not the activist's fault for how the media reports it.
This is not "their cause". This is the fight for everything we know and love.
If you don't like what they're doing, start doing what you think works.
bUt We jUsT wANT to WaTcH tENniS
You’ll get your fucking tennis when we start killing each other for food. Human brains are incapable of comprehending what we are continuing to do to our future. Its so fucking frustrating seeing this society being completely oblivious to the tortures we could’ve avoided by relatively small changes 60 years ago and which we still can lessen by doing something now.
buT iM GoNna gEt a TeSla fOr my NeXt Car
You won't get anyone not already convinced to listen to your message if the people are hung up on hating what you're doing and thinking you're a moron.
It just seems like a bad way to reach or convince anyone.
Not really true, the evidence shows the popularity of the group may go down but concern over the issue goes up.
Tell us a better way that hasn't already been tried, one that's proportional to the urgency. Genuinely open to ideas.
The suffragettes were more than annoying, they blew stuff up and burnt down buildings and they were effective.
When is it appropriate for climate protests to turn into climate violence? When is it appropriate for a victim to fight back? Or must we allow billionaires and conservatives to kill us all?
to answer your questions:
These protests have no connection to the issue. I honestly think many of them are paid by oil companies to make the environmental movement look bad.
Stopping personal traffic by blocking cars and being "annoying" in places that often are lit for no reason through entire nights are both protests very close to the issue.
Very interesting! I hadn't thought of that.
Victims? They are the reason behind the climate change!
Um. What?
The victims of climate change are the normal people who are prevented from doing anything to stop it.
Conservatives have worked hard for decades to make sure normal people are not able to curtail climate change in any way. There is a clear villain in the story of how we are being killed. It is conservatives.
They tried being acceptable, and nobody listens. Now they are being unacceptable, and still nobody listens.
The US and EU have both shifted significantly towards decarbonization. It's not fast enough, but it's getting started.
So what should they do?
I don't have the answer to that question.
You ever see The Last Starfighter?
Get better PR
I get the point of the question, but frankly, I think climate protestors can do whatever they want as long as Big Oil can do whatever it wants. It's way more annoying having my planet ruined.
Yes, all us Lambs must march quietly and obediently to the slaughter.
I'd say climate destroyers should be less destructive.
Of course they're whiny; they're literally begging for their lives. What would people prefer instead, Ted Turner to run around in tight spandex, throwing people out of windows and screaming "Captain Planeeeet!?"
There's only one solution for earth's pollution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_VYFyVaFOw
And with "less annoying", of course they mean "powerless".
The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren't paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn't be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.
If and when protests turn violent because people are desperate and there's nothing else left you'll realise how innocuous these types of protests are. They hurt nobody, disrupt people for a very short time and get the message out there.
This idea that it's funded by big oil is just ridiculous. I am in activism and I know people from JSO, they are some of the kindest and caring people you could meet. They understand the urgency of the crisis and are willing to their bodies and freedom on the line to get the message out. Being popular is not their goal, they get people talking and that is undeniable.
@raginghummus @AceFuzzLord @climate
Good job that being popular isn't their primary goal because they won't be fairly treated by the popular press (where many folk get their opinions from)
The painting was protected by a plexiglass cover. The painting thing caused zero property damage and did good by reigniting the conversation.
Judging by the foolishness of unfocused anger I see on reddit, tumblr, twitter, etc... I think it's very likely they're just incredibly stupid but well meaning people.
See also: "vote 3rd party", "oh you eat meat you must like torturing animals", "we should literally ban all cars" etc
This is exactly what comes to mind. It's incoherent and will never help the issue.
They should be less annoying to the common people. They should target people in power, glue themselves on the road to the house of parlement for example, not prevent common people from going to work or vandalize art work.
It makes them look like idiots who have no clue.
I think the idea is to wake up normal people. If protesters only annoy the rich then nothing changes because it’s easy for the rich to ignore a couple of protesters.
If you annoy regular people then hopefully more people wake up. It’s a lot harder to ignore regular people especially if a lot wake up.
We need everyone in this world to be pissed off, not just a few activists. The sooner everyone is pissed the less leverage rich people have to ignore it all.
Also, publicity is a big factor. You pretty much guarantee some degree of media coverage when you do something like shut down a busy highway. I don't think people consider often enough how important even negative press is in spreading the message.
This is too simple of a view. There are few, if any, effective ways to strike at people in power without hitting common folk at the same time. Maybe you can mildly inconvenience them, but that's it. Their power isn't isolated, it often derives from the complicity of common folk. Protests are disruptive for a reason, and it's not because "everybody involved is stupid."
For example, by blocking streets you inhibit commerce, and therefore inhibit anybody whose power derives from that commerce. But at the same time, you're blocking the average person from going to work. How great must the threat be, how dire the circumstances, before you view that as an acceptable trade-off? Because if we are not at that point now, I find it hard to believe you'd ever find it acceptable, yet I've never been given an actionable and effective alternative from the people who are squeamish over these kinds of protests. So I have to ask; if not this, then what? If not now, then when?
I've never been given an actionable and effective alternative from the people who are squeamish over these kinds of protests. So I have to ask; if not this, then what? If not now, then when?
Infiltrate the political parties, especially the conservative right-wing ones that right now have disastrous environmental policies. These organisations are currently echo chambers driving a narrative that environmental policies are the enemy. They need to be reformed from within to get the message across that capitalism won't work if there isn't anyone around for the wealthy to sell their shit to. As long as political change is confined to what is seen as the "radical left", it is easy to marginalize the moment.
Not at all, we are getting desperate out here. Our margins for actions to lessen, stop and revert climate change are getting smaller by the minute. So we need to be very annoying.
I support most (maybe even all) climate protests, violent and nonviolent ones.
I still think that it might be good to shift or expand(edit) tactics, because at least to me most tactics do not feel to be actually achieving any substantial goals while putting folks at high risk of injury and repression. Like yeah there is discourse, polarization and mobilization, but those are not actually the things that will mitigate climate change, reducing carbon emissions etc. will. This is my perspective from Germany so of course elsewhere things might be different.
Are there any success stories from other countries (or Germany) that show that currently dominant climate protest tactics(non violence, blocking roads, public stunts, glue everywhere, social media all the time) leading to actual changes getting implemented from public institutions, legislation or the private sector or changes in the behaviors of large parts of the population?___
Well not about climate, but if you take at the Stop de Kindermoord movement, that happened in the 1970s in the Netherlands, you can find some similarities: https://www.ejatlas.org/print/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles Blocking streets was one of their protest forms, too. And now take a look at the Dutch cities - it's a pain to drive a car, while walking and cycling are far superior modes of transportation, while there is real life happening. And that's not even only true for Amsterdam, but also for relatively small cities like Groningen
even seemingly meaningless protests like the soup thing are somewhat effective. it gets people talking about the protests, which increases the number of people that will see it and protest in more effective ways.
I doubt it helps when they do shit that gets everyone hating on them
No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they're lashing out incoherently.
They're actively working against environmentalism. I really think they're bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don't care about the environment.
There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.
Read some books about how to do politics strategically and you’ll see why they do this
Your anger works in their favor
They should not exist.
** They should not have to exist**
You first
