Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

IBAZERKERI t1_ivs92yk wrote

now i understand the whole being annoying so people talk about you schtick these guys are doing. but honestly i feel like its gonna backfire on them sooner rather than later

17

IBAZERKERI t1_ivsdimt wrote

Replying to IMtoppercentage97 (#490,904)

i have no idea they made that statement. your arguing with me like i really care about these people or what they do.

ive seen the headlines in the news, and it comes across as bad press. thats what im commenting on.

8

Salmonforest t1_ivsfes9 wrote

Replying to Madcap_Miguel (#490,900)

Liberal media always love to hate on the environmenist movement because of they status quo bias. Not saying the cyclist thing wasn't bad or creating accidents and it should be criticized even within the movement but so long as the protesters don't harm working class people I don't really care how extreme they're.
Voting don't fix the climate change before lobbism and politicians love more lobby money then the will of the people.

−11

Madcap_Miguel t1_ivsinvm wrote

Replying to Salmonforest (#490,985)

>Not saying the cyclist thing wasn't bad or creating accidents and it should be criticized even within the movement but so long as the protesters don't harm working class people I don't really care how extreme they're.

They are, in both examples.

>Voting don't fix the climate

Neither does protesting evidently.

6

HotdogsArePate t1_ivsuwsg wrote

Doing this doesn't help the fucking cause. All it does is make people tie negative feelings to the idea of being anti oil. These people are self righteous fucking idiots who are more concerned with being seen as being a part of something than actually making any real difference.

−1

FugaziEconomy t1_ivsx44d wrote

If the police dont want to get hurt, they shouldve just complied.

13

xiconic t1_ivsxymy wrote

Replying to IBAZERKERI (#490,907)

I have nothing against protesting for climate change because its an issue that needs to be solve, but these guys are being total dicks about it. Don't target the average person as there is jack shit we can really do about it. If you spent your entire life from the moment you were born till about age 70 you would save the world overall 1 second worth of carbon emissions, we produce so little compared to corporations its insane, they are the ones that need to be targeted not the average person who is just trying to get to work to earn a living.

2

HotdogsArePate t1_ivsy7p9 wrote

Replying to Pr0m3th3u51410 (#491,663)

Check this out. then look up more articles on that point and see what you find.

Believing that these passionate poetic acts of violence and self harm brought about women's suffrage is certainly alluring but it was actually peacefully massive organizations that did the leg work. These acts of public violence were considered harmful to the suffrage movement at the time and modern scholars also agree with that sentiment. People have romanticized it because it's a more exciting thing to believe than the truth.

6

colossalboom t1_ivu8838 wrote

Asshats, do something constructive than damaging property. We live in an attention economy and it's sad as hell.|

−6

Most-Resident t1_ivufy1e wrote

Replying to Shadowbanned24601 (#491,343)

Every time I look at that I read that the extreme tactics were controversial at the time and still are.

I’m sure you can find the wikipedia article, but here’s a relevant quote.

“Searle says the methods of the suffragettes harmed the Liberal Party but failed to advance women's suffrage. When the Pankhursts decided to stop their militancy at the start of the war and enthusiastically support the war effort, the movement split and their leadership role ended. Suffrage came four years later, but the feminist movement in Britain permanently abandoned the militant tactics that had made the suffragettes famous.”

And if you think about it, there is obviously some limit where extreme tactics will hurt more than help. Would you advocate bombings because some suffragettes used that tactic? Burning cars?

Civil disobedience is a critically important tactic to get attention and drive change, but we should be able to discuss particular tactics and not just say “but the suffragettes”.

3

radicalelation t1_ivujd2v wrote

Replying to xiconic (#491,690)

Historically, targeting oil lords makes them all kill-y. These days at best, if you're in a Western democracy country, you'd probably be blacklisted and buried to whatever extent possible.

Unfortunately making a ruckus among us is probably one of the most effective options, and if they believe their, and all our, lives are on the line I'm thankful it's at least this sort of thing.

Historically, nothing to lose mentalities for existential causes don't go well either. Shit, less on the line in the 70s and there were the bombing type of eco-terrorism. I'm honestly surprised we haven't hit that, but maybe it's just less lead in the air...

3

PM_ME_KITTYNIPPLES t1_ivvnxo2 wrote

Protests are most effective when they're disruptive. If you think protesters shouldn't block anything or be a nuisance, you're not a supporter of the right to protest. Climate activists needs massive, prolonged, and above all disruptive protests to have any hope of effectively pressuring the government to take decisive and effective action. There's no time to wait, the negatives of climate change are already here.

3

elguerodiablo t1_ivxexzh wrote

Man imagine if politicians had the same energy they have to stop protestors and applied that to stoping massive corps from trashing our planet.

0

elguerodiablo t1_ivxfa0d wrote

Like many here I question their methods. Why don't they ever take the fight to the pricks causing the problem. Road block a fucking oil refinery or a private jet runway not a fucking busy city full of mopes just trying to get to work and back to home. Fuck up rich peoples lives not other peasants.

1