Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Uncle_Charnia t1_j6b7gjr wrote

Some of the people in stopped traffic are on their way to care for children, dependent elders, and developmentally disabled adults. Some are on their way to court, and if they are late, an abusive or negligent parent will get custody. Some are hospice nurses on their way to help a patient in agony. Some are on court supervision, and will go to prison if they don't go straight home or straight to work. Some are diabetic with plummeting blood sugar. Some are police officers on their way to a distress call. Some are bringing dozens or hundreds of paychecks from a bank to a workplace. Some have diarrhea. Some have enlarged prostates and urinary tract infections, and need to stop frequently to urinate. Some are on their first week on a job their families desperately need. Some have infants in the car. Never, ever block traffic. There are other ways to effect positive change. Use your imagination. Have a heart.

18

thijser2 t1_j6c1k8j wrote

The road they blocked has an easy bypass, traffic was not significantly impacted, it is the last bit of a highway before it ends. Remember Den Hague is a seaside city, meaning that a highway going east-west is going to end there(this is the a12). During the protests my google maps suggested a 3 minute detour* if I wanted to get to Nassaubuurt (other side of the protests).

Another interesting question is the legal one, the protesters said they were planning on closing down the highway so the government closed it for them. Does that mean they even did anything unlawful?

Another bit of background: recently, Dutch farmers closed down almost all highways by driving their tractors on them and dumping trash on them to protest environmental regulations. Almost nobody was arrested for that. However, shortly before these climate demonstrations most of the organizers were arrested. This greatly increased the size of these demonstrations as they were joined by oxfam novib and others because it was a great example of how climate protestors are punished far harder than industrial/commercial-based protests.

*Assuming of course that you aren't willing to take public transport as the region has excellent accessibility by train/tram/bus (the whole thing happened in sight of Den Hague central station.)

47

DougDougDougDoug t1_j6cd93n wrote

Yeah, protests aren’t supposed to be for your fucking convenience.

29

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6cjayj wrote

If your protest is causing innocent people to be hurt or killed, you’re doing it wrong.

−14

GeneraalSorryPardon t1_j6ckyfo wrote

If your protest isn't causing any inconvenience you're doing it wrong. Because if it doesn't politicians will simply ignore the protest.

21

Uncle_Charnia t1_j6dm9p4 wrote

This isn't about convenience. It's about harm.

−8

palcatraz t1_j6dmqb2 wrote

Feel free to produce evidence to prove anyone was harmed by this protest.

11

Uncle_Charnia t1_j6ebquy wrote

Every time people deliberately block traffic, the impose an increased risk of harm on others. It is immoral.

−8

GeneraalSorryPardon t1_j6e1eh2 wrote

The news is bringing it like a major highway was disrupted: This is simply not true. Also, no one was harmed so I don't know what you mean by that.

6

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6d5mag wrote

And these road protests are getting the job done? Politicians don’t care about inconvenience, they care about votes. If you convince the electorate to support your cause then the politician is forced to comply. You don’t get that by pissing off locals.

Not to mention people die because of these road blockages.

−14

crafting-ur-end t1_j6d5tfl wrote

Politicians certainly care about the economy

19

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6dhcw0 wrote

Yeah, because voters care about the economy.

−13

Rpanich t1_j6eypy0 wrote

Uh yeah, it is the top issue amongst likely voters.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/05/politics/voters-issues-economy-midterms-2022/index.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/404243/economy-top-election-issue-abortion-crime-next.aspx

5

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6f0oas wrote

Yes, politicians care about the economy because their constituents care about the economy. My comment was not sarcastic.

3

Rpanich t1_j6fg1kl wrote

So you now understand why it’s important that protestors do things that harm the economy so that they are not ignored by politicians?

1

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6gz5ng wrote

Blocking a road for a few hours isn’t hurting the economy in any meaningful way. It’s just angering the people you need to have on your side and giving your detractors a lot of ammunition to use against your cause.

Public perception is the entire point here. If you lose the public then it doesn’t really matter what you disrupt.

If disrupting things alone worked, why haven’t animal rights activists ever made any meaningful progress? They block trucks from entering slaughter houses and cause disruptions at restaurants or clothing stores. That’s definitely causing an economic effect so why haven’t politicians done anything?

1

Rpanich t1_j6i6dc8 wrote

> That’s definitely causing an economic effect so why haven’t politicians done anything?

Wait, are you now changing your argument to “politicians don’t care about the economy”?

Didn’t we just decide that politicians DO care about the economy?

1

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6ia8ec wrote

I never said politicians care about the economy. I said politicians care about whatever their constituents care about

0

Rpanich t1_j6iakw2 wrote

So if politicians care about the economy because voters care about the economy, then what do you mean by this?

> That’s definitely causing an economic effect so why haven’t politicians done anything?

1

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6ibkpd wrote

If the reasons politicians made public policy were based on economic reasons, why haven’t we seen any major changes to the meat industry?

Protestors block roads to slaughter houses, disrupt operations at factory farms, and routinely engage in actions that screw up the daily operations of restaurants that sell meat or stores that sell animal products.

Why does that economic disruption fail but you think the same kind of disruption on a road would work?

0

Rpanich t1_j6ie45k wrote

So if you are saying that economic disruption will work, but it has not worked yet, is the thing that you are calling for larger scale economic disruptions?

0

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6in25i wrote

I’m saying you need to get the voting populace on your side.

>Why does that economic disruption fail but you think the same kind of disruption on a road would work?

Care to answer?

0

Rpanich t1_j6iqakr wrote

> Why does that economic disruption fail

Well, according to your logic, because it wasn’t a sufficient amount?

Or are you saying that politicians don’t care about economic disruption?

What are you calling for?

Because it sounds like you either don’t believe that politicians care about the economy, or that you want protestors to do larger economic disruptions.

0

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6j844n wrote

So you’re only going to answer by asking questions, gotcha.

0

Rpanich t1_j6j8u9p wrote

I’ve simply been asking you to clarify your first message, which seemed to be sarcastically saying that politicians don’t care about the economy, and then turning heel and then claiming you were earnestly claiming that when faced with evidence; which is strange because if so, you seem to be arguing against yourself.

Can you simply clarify your statement and state your stance clearly?

0

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6jbpxh wrote

Where do you think the line between causing economic consequences with a protest and turning the voting group against you lies?

0

Rpanich t1_j6jc794 wrote

Are we answering questions by asking questions now?

−1

slide_into_my_BM t1_j6jk3mz wrote

It’s easy to argue a point when you don’t have one

1

Rpanich t1_j6jm80k wrote

Uh yeah, which is why I called you out on trying to save face when being met with evidence.

The point I made was: voters care about the economy, and that you need to clarify your argument, which you have refused to do.

I’ll rebut your argument once you make one, but so far all I’ve done is fact check you while you tried to save face/ avoided making a clear argument.

−1

puiterken t1_j6moc8a wrote

So forcing people to make a slight detour is hurting and killing people? This is basically the same situation as a traffic accident. People will need to find another route. And you know what, that's exactly what you can do with a car.

−1

kstinfo t1_j6bs08v wrote

> on their way to care for children

Not to worry. Those kids probably won't make it in the new environment anyway.

11

GinTonicDev t1_j6cj04q wrote

Those people are expecting that either themself or their children will die a rather ugly death due to the climate crisis. Have a heart - but also make a rescue alley when in a traffic jam.

8

Sebekiz t1_j6bc3yc wrote

Also while they are blocking traffic all those vehicles are sitting there idling, spewing the very greenhouse gases they are protesting against. If the goal is to reduce GHG emissions, forcing people to burn extra gas while they sit in a traffic jam that the activists created is achieving the exact opposite effect. And it angers a lot of people who are then less likely to support their agenda.

But they do get to pat themselves on the back and give themselves participation awards for "doing something" about a crisis that continues to go on exactly as it was the day before.

−8

GinTonicDev t1_j6clqzg wrote

The amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere due to this traffic jams is basicly 0, if you meassure it against what needs to be changed.

12