Comments
nexusband t1_j6artzx wrote
I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but in Germany, if that demo has been forbidden after registering, it's a felony.
That has been like this for years and has happened quite a few times. Also, Demos are not forbidden because of political reasons (a judge would be removed from office immediately), but because it's a hazard that can't be controlled ,the police has not enough people or other reasons like that...
IkLms t1_j6axfm7 wrote
Yeah, that's dystopian as fuck.
memus_dankus t1_j6azhet wrote
Blocking the roads is illegal, making the protest illegal. Wether you agree with it or not, the judge is upholding the law. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
CasperIG t1_j6b8cgg wrote
Blocking a road is a legal form of protest in the EU
memus_dankus t1_j6b98sq wrote
Can you give me a source?
Because article 162 of the Dutch code of law states this:
>Any person who willfully destroys, renders unusable or damages any work serving public or air traffic, obstructs any public land or waterway or defeats any safety measure taken with regard to such work or road, shall be punished: 1 a term of imprisonment not exceeding nine years or a fine of the fifth category, if this is likely to endanger the safety of traffic; 2 a term of imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years or a fine of the fifth category, if this is likely to endanger the safety of traffic and the act results in the death of someone.
Which seems pretty reasonable imo
CasperIG t1_j6b9wud wrote
Source is the lawyer of the people that got arrested before they even went to the protest: https://twitter.com/khalidensophie/status/1618675855626014724 (Dutch video)
Better source that you can translate;
> Ook uit Europeesrechtelijke jurisprudentie blijkt dat een blokkadeactie wel degelijk de bescherming van het demonstratierecht kan toekomen. Zo oordeelde het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) in de zaak Kudrevičius e.a. tegen Litouwen (2015) bijvoorbeeld dat een demonstratieve blokkade van drie autosnelwegen door boeren onder de reikwijdte van de vrijheid van demonstreren in de zin van artikel 11 EVRM valt.
https://www.openbareorde.nl/tijdschrift/de-grenzen-van-het-recht-om-te-demonstreren/
bjanos t1_j6biaex wrote
kan toekomen
onekhador t1_j6bm0su wrote
That's why all those Friesian racists were arrested when they blocked the road to stop the bus filled with people going to protest against the racist Black Piet, right? Right?
memus_dankus t1_j6bmcks wrote
It was one of the reasons, yes.
whiteandyellowcat t1_j6cawoq wrote
Stop talking about shit you know nothing about. They were not arrested, neither were farmers who blocked way more roads. The Dutch state definitely took a side against the climate and left wing activists.
memus_dankus t1_j6cmoh7 wrote
What do you think arrested means?
And I agree, the government is clearly not treating farmers and climate protestors equally but that still doesn’t have anything to do with the point I’m trying to make here.
CasperIG t1_j6dy2e8 wrote
Actually the article I shared in the parent thread says
> In de zogeheten ‘blokkeerfriezen’-zaak oordeelt de Rechtbank Noord-Nederland dat de door de blokkeerfriezen opgeworpen blokkadeactie op de snelweg niet de bescherming van het recht om te demonsteren toekomt.
So I’d assume some people got arrested.
HolaMadridQuePasa t1_j6cqn5z wrote
Or maybe they learned form the farmers case and are more proactive now?
SaltTutor7550 t1_j6dhndx wrote
Also a great way to get splattered in America
smolheals t1_j6c8l49 wrote
I don't know why you think lawfulness is at odds with dystopian. There's plenty of fucked up, immoral laws around, coincidentally they protect the genocidal oligarchs.
Torifyme12 t1_j6b0etu wrote
I dunno plenty of Europeans were telling us we should just listen to what the people blocking the freeways here in the US said.
​
I guess it's annoying when it's your freeway not someone else's
memus_dankus t1_j6b0zka wrote
I didn’t say that and I’m not saying that now.
I’m just giving the reason why they were arrested. It doesn’t really effect me because I don’t live in The Hague and don’t even have a car. But personally I don’t think protestors should block roads for any reason.
_carmimarrill t1_j6bh8dj wrote
So we only allow convenient protests then, what a firebrand you must be
memus_dankus t1_j6bhtgp wrote
Oh, fuck off, I was only giving the reason why they were arrested. It doesn’t even matter what you think. As it turns out, Inciting people to do something that is illegal is also illegal by itself.
Blocking roads not only inconveniences people, it also endangers them. We either allow all protestors to block roads or we allow none. I’m going for the latter.
whiteandyellowcat t1_j6capiy wrote
Demonstrating is allowed on public roads in the Netherlands, otherwise you could just protest on side walks. Next to this highway there was another road which emergency services could take.
The main reason for the blocking wasn't to block normal people, the road lies right in between the parliament and the ministry of economic affairs and climate.
[deleted] t1_j6bj0cq wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6bjj53 wrote
[deleted]
CinnamonSniffer t1_j6bmxcc wrote
Former!
memus_dankus t1_j6bn85s wrote
If you never want to be able use the roads or emergency services I guess you could go for that.
koreamax t1_j6bwg66 wrote
Only teenagers and unemployed people think disrupting normal people trying to make a living is a good way to protest
MrTimscampi t1_j6c1z63 wrote
Because paid holidays, unemployment benefits and other social changes were brought by the kindness of the ruling class, through peaceful discussions, not through disruption and violence.
koreamax t1_j6c2n9y wrote
You're advocating for violence to get things we already have?
MrTimscampi t1_j6c5wzr wrote
I’m only responding to what you said. If our ancestors agreed with you, we’d have none of these.
_carmimarrill t1_j6cqhxw wrote
I should note, I never said that occupying the road was a good way to protest. It might be, but it usually won’t be, that kind if thing is highly contextual. But I gotta say what an excellent way to shut down all nuance. “Only kids and poors would ever do this, but NORMAL people know better”. That’s gotta be the douchiest way to be anti-protester I’ve ever seen, one glance at the photos of the incident and obviously it isn’t just minors and the unemployed there. You will make an excellent propagandist one day
[deleted] t1_j6cp1jr wrote
[deleted]
idontagreewitu t1_j6c1gyx wrote
They also liked to criticize US border control policies until they started seeing high immigration numbers from the Middle East.
IkLms t1_j6djuqi wrote
Those seven people were not even protesting. They were arrested for posting about the event before it even happened. That's insane
memus_dankus t1_j6dl4p0 wrote
You can be arrested for Inciting people to commit criminal behaviour.
If you were openly conspiring to do something illegal in the US and tried using social media to recruit people to help you, you’d also get a knock on the door.
Plenty of people get arrested for such things, it’s how we stop terrorism, assassinations, etc.
While blocking highways is not as bad as murder or terrorism, it’s still considered a major offense in most countries. But I’m sure that in this case the circumstances will be taken into account and these people won’t face any serious punishment.
Victor_2501 t1_j6f6e0c wrote
Yeah, busting into peoples houses and drag them out seems to be a thing for Americans, domestic and abroad. You say it's not as bad as terrorism but justifies similar procedures.
Come on dude, no one takes you seriously outside of the US. Blocking roads is somewhat terroristic but blowing someone's face of for being on "your" lawn or you feeling threatened is just your God given right? :D Seems like a sane approach, for sure.
memus_dankus t1_j6fby2c wrote
I’m Dutch for the record.
And most of us are sick of people blocking our infrastructure for their protests. So don’t try to speak for us.
I’m not ok with farmers doing it and I’m not ok with climate protestors doing it. And it’s certainly not something that should be normalised.
All crimes require similar procedures. It’s the punishments that are different.
Victor_2501 t1_j6hobu8 wrote
We know that you don't like that :D That's the point. Yeah yeah, people get mad about it but didn't give a single shit about all the other protests, warnings and major events that you should have cared about. You always want to ignore things so you just can live in your small world, believing that would be the solution. You thinking that blocking of the infrastructure would be problematic? Having years of drought, a dying eco-system and collapse of societal structures are kinda more devastating.
I don't need to frame you. You give away your worldview pretty easily and it's not that complex.
myles_cassidy t1_j6cj28i wrote
> It has nothing to do with freedom of speech
People were literally being arrested for speaking. That definitrly makes it a freedom if speech matter. Unless you are suggesting it can't be because it's lawful?
WaltKerman t1_j6cjjku wrote
Something can still be dystopian and legal.
Nervous_Original_450 t1_j6d3h9z wrote
>Blocking the roads is illegal, making the protest illegal. Wether you agree with it or not, the judge is upholding the law. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Well the law is dystopian as fuck
memus_dankus t1_j6d3r2w wrote
No it isn’t, I’m pretty sure most countries have laws against sabotaging critical infrastructure and for good reason.
They literally blocked one of the main arteries going into The Hague. It’s dangerous and irresponsible.
nexusband t1_j6cgt0h wrote
I think our definition of "dystopian" is very different then.
koreamax t1_j6bwciu wrote
Are you new here?
arthoer t1_j6bxakv wrote
Blocking that specific road is dangerous as fuck. Even attempting it is a felony as people can get hurt. Let alone being stuck during any protest for a day with a newborn in your car. Aside from that; its the only entry into the city out of 3. Going to the other 2 is a massive detour for anyone; let alone emergency responses. Even if it was legal; screw those guys. We have plenty of ways of protesting in a sensible manner. I 100% stand by their cause, but not on how they handle this. Cause what happens now is that their protest has a negative vibe and the news is only talking about the road block instead of their cause.
Regardless, the protestors complimented the police for their emphatic approach. It all went peaceful. As it should. I personally just think its not a smart idea to sit on a highway in a tunnel. Greenpeace, oxfam novib and many others think the same. So they protested on thr Malieveld; which is a designated default terrain (besides the highway entry) for protesting/ festivals, etc.
ZoDalek t1_j6cxeq3 wrote
> Blocking that specific road is dangerous as fuck.
It’s not. Police (and traffic lights) reroute traffic so the protestors can enter safely. There are plenty of other routes available. This isn’t much different from similar road closures like sports events, like this very road for the CPC run.
> We have plenty of ways of protesting in a sensible manner. > ... > Greenpeace, oxfam novib and many others think the same
Greenpeace was blocking a private jet platform just a few months ago and people were similarly going on the “it’s not safe! go to the proper place!” angle.
But when back in 2019 Greenpace had a protest at Schiphol Plaza (a lawful place to protest) the municipality tried to forbid it anyway and sent in the military police. Afterwards of course the judge overturned the ban, the emergency order (to clear the protest), and the clearing of the protest in itself.
> Malieveld; which is a designated default terrain
This is simply not how the law works, protests are not a favour to be granted at a specific place. Instead, the starting point is the protestor’s choice where and how to protest and that the government must do their very best to facilitate this. Restrictions and bans can only be instituted for a handful of specific reasons and must a applied as sparingly as possible.
It was quite egregious that police tried to clear out the support protest on the viaduct. People there were standing peacefully in safe places and there were no lawful grounds (in the WOM) to evict them.
manwithcellphone t1_j6cztm2 wrote
But you don’t get it- when they close the roads for events there’s money to be made so obviously it can’t be a bad thing then
/s
arthoer t1_j6e4w68 wrote
You do not live in den hague, thats obvious
[deleted] t1_j6djf4h wrote
[removed]
green_flash t1_j6ah0p3 wrote
Phasing out government subsidies for fossil fuels should be completely non-controversial.
It's crazy that we still subsidize climate-damaging actions.
GMFPs_sweat_towel t1_j6ai4o9 wrote
Hate to break it to you, but the world runs on fossil fuels. Life in an industrialized nation requires a shit ton of energy and unless people are willing to drastically lower their standard of living, they will continue to demand cheap energy. Just look how upset people are when gas prices spike or their heating bill goes up.
green_flash t1_j6ajpi5 wrote
No need to subsidize fossil fuels for that. Just give people a transport premium or a heating premium and let them decide for themselves how they want to use it. Forcing people to buy fossil fuels so they can benefit is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
pzerr t1_j6dupu1 wrote
How is Europe subsidizing fossil fuels when then enact windfall taxes?
keithps t1_j6bdr5t wrote
It's not quite that simple. The subsidies pay for things like upgrades to refineries, because the fossil fuel company knows its life is short and thus won't invest the money. But without the upgrades it will shut down, driving the cost up for consumers.
Mycroft_Cadburry t1_j6bu9ft wrote
You’re basically just making the case for nationalizing energy companies since they will gladly take record profits and refuse to pay for their own equipment. They are blood sucking parasites on Government treasuries, why should they be private.
green_flash t1_j6be6sd wrote
> But without the upgrades it will shut down, driving the cost up for consumers.
That's a good thing though. It makes alternatives more competitive.
O_K_D t1_j6bizmi wrote
It doesnt make the alternative cheaper though. It just means everything becomes more expensive, hence a reduction in standards of living and purchasing power.
The key is to make the alternative more competitive by making it cheaper than fossil fuels, not by making fossil fuels more expensive than renewables. And that can only happen if industry keeps doing R&D at low costs by using the cheapest form of energy possible (fossil fuels) until they bring down the price of renewable technology to the level of fossil fuels. Then society will naturally switch to using renewables.
AGVann t1_j6bsli0 wrote
And that switch is being delayed because there's an artificial economic lever being pulled in favor of oil and gas corporations. You can't have this bullshit about the invisible hand of the free market but also argue for interventions in the market to prevent transitions.
koreamax t1_j6bxa2o wrote
So, that means for a pretty extended period of time, energy prices will go way up. Most of the world cannot afford that
AGVann t1_j6bz18t wrote
No, because the price of oil and gas is artificially inflated already due to OPEC. Every time there's a risk of competition, Saudi Arabia intentionally crashes the price of oil to force companies into unprofitability. The US fracking industry was collateral in the Russo-Saudi oil price war.
All these subsidies do is guarantee that western nations are subsidizing the extremely high price of oil and gas that Saudi Arabia sets. If there was genuine competition, the price of energy overall would fall.
koreamax t1_j6bz9hf wrote
Yes, Opec artificially inflates prices. What does that have to do with the Netherlands? Industrialized society is build on fossil fuels and you can't just replace them right away. Especially with the extremely high start up cost for renewables
SandAndAlum t1_j6c1c2x wrote
If this is necessary (it's not, but pretend that it is), tax it back out downstream (or upstream) the distribute it as a dividend.
People will have the same net buying power, the 'necessary' investment still gets made, and there's no net subsidy. There's no downside.
Telemachuss t1_j6be4j2 wrote
“Hate to break it to you” but stuffing cash into the pockets of oil and gas companies is nit the only way to keep the world running. We could just as easily directly offer people premiums to assist in their living.
Simon676 t1_j6dxtkg wrote
Fossil fuels are a lot more expensive than renewables... there's a reason a lot of them need subsidies to not go out of business.
Kaito__1412 t1_j6bb41q wrote
> unless people are willing to drastically lower their standard of living die.
There. I fixed it for you. Modern human civilization can not function without hydrocarbons. I'm all for transitioning to renewables (+ nuclear), but it's nowhere near close to replacing hydrocarbons. transition is going to take a long time if we want to do it without collapsing the current system. There is no other way.
​
Pointing the urgency is a good thing, but one need to be careful about the communication. Protests like this can be inspiring, but it can also have the opposite. Take the previous protests by extinction rebellion for example. The general public turned on them very quickly.
koreamax t1_j6bxew5 wrote
Seriously. People have no idea how most of the world is. It's not just maybe paying an extra 5 bucks a month for heating
ImjusttestingBANG t1_j6cfupp wrote
People have know how the world works they also know what will will happen if we don’t do act.
Fossil fuel companies have been playing delaying and denying tactics for years(since the 70s). They have lied , set up organisations to deny it’s happening, paid influencers and bought our politicians. We can’t leave it to companies whose best interest is served by maintaining the status quo. Continued sponsorship of their activities puts all our futures in danger.
Kaito__1412 t1_j6dao56 wrote
The whole conversation about climate change is getting super emotional and cynical. Everyone want's to lecture, instead of educate, inspire or motivate. I really don't see how this is going to change anything.
No one disagrees that fossil fuel companies overstayed their welcome and should be on their way out. But the conversations we have about that should be realistic and rational.
pzerr t1_j6duk8a wrote
Yes let us ensure countries like Russia become energy giants. That works out well.
MonitorSuper9042 t1_j6axmpg wrote
And how many anti-environmental regulations protesters got arrested?
autotldr t1_j69ozds wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)
> Hundreds of climate activists were arrested in The Hague after blocking the A12 highway in both ways on Saturday afternoon in protest at government subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil and gas.
> By late afternoon, police said at least 200 people were arrested but Extinction Rebellion, which organised the protest, said some 500 people had been picked up.
> Earlier this week, seven people were arrested in their homes for calling on people to attended today's demonstration.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: arrest^#1 people^#2 police^#3 activists^#4 around^#5
Nose-Nuggets t1_j6bkdo7 wrote
Don't block roads, dont block emergency vehicles. But do protest.
whiteandyellowcat t1_j6cb6ir wrote
Emergency vehicles could easily take a separate lane that was just a 20 meters over, they weren't blocked.
DoremusJessup OP t1_j6buaq6 wrote
Playing by the rules has not worked up until now. Actions are needed. MLK Jr. came to this same conclusion for the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.
Nose-Nuggets t1_j6c02m7 wrote
Ah nice, the ends justify the means? That sure does make things easy for you.
SandAndAlum t1_j6c1kmj wrote
If the cars are a major part of the problem, then the means of directly stopping the problem to indirectly stop the problem because literally everything else has been tried seem pretty justified.
Your logic would say someone who responded to being shot at by disarming the gunman was a thief.
Nose-Nuggets t1_j6c1rox wrote
There is no justification for impeding emergency vehicles.
I have no idea what your last sentence means.
SandAndAlum t1_j6c2qlt wrote
> There is no justification for impeding emergency vehicles.
If this is the issue then the police could shut down the road and keep cars off it, or enforce the laws stating cars must make room. Protestors impede emergency vehicles less than traffic does.
koreamax t1_j6bxhsx wrote
Lol. Get over yourself
[deleted] t1_j6cbhf5 wrote
[deleted]
v052020 t1_j6cbkr8 wrote
For all you know-it-all nerds out there outside NL:
Yes we care about our climate
Yes you can demonstrate if approved.
In case it has been denied, you provoke and tell everyone to protest anyway, you're breaking the law and can therefore be arrested.
Why was it denied? Blocking a high road is stupid and dangerous.
ZoDalek t1_j6cz1lb wrote
> Yes you can demonstrate if approved.
You can protest full stop. There is no approval process, despite some local governments trying to turn the registration requirement into a de facto permit system.
The government may impose restrictions for a handful of reasons, but only ever the least possible to alleviate them.
This blockade may have been unlawful (that’s really up for a judge to decide if it comes to that) but you can’t turn protest law upside down like this.
> Blocking a high road is stupid and dangerous.
It’s done all the time for road works, sporting events, etc. Traffic is rerouted. No one gets hurt.
[deleted] t1_j6cbncg wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6djpqb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6b3ocb wrote
[removed]
MrYogiMan t1_j6bg334 wrote
I love how these demonstrations always take place in the already most green conscious countries. Can't go wrong with protesting for the popular I guess.
idontagreewitu t1_j6c1uwp wrote
>Fossil fuel-fired power plants produced over 80% of the electricity in the Netherlands, mainly natural gas (42%) and coal (35%). More than 12% of the Netherland's electricity is generated from renewable sources, mainly biomass and waste (5% of the total) and wind (7% of the total).
GreenPowerTrader t1_j6el0s1 wrote
Not denying the overall point that the Netherlands still need a long way, but this source is from 2016. In the western european power world this is an eternity ago. The current renewable percentage of ELECTRICITY is roughly 40 percent (with e.g. solar growing by 4GWp yearly!) - albeit with like 15-20 percentage points biomass.
The overall renewable share of energy, i.e including fuels, is still super mediocre at 15% or so. So enough reason to protest.
P.S. if you want to be green, using less energy in general is the single best way to save carbon. Your electric SUV is not making anything better.
JustMrNic3 t1_j6bg57u wrote
WTF is with Netherlands, why doesn't it care about the climate changes?
koreamax t1_j6bxigx wrote
It does.
JustMrNic3 t1_j6bypxf wrote
Subsidizing the fossil fuels?
koreamax t1_j6byue5 wrote
Because the economy would collapse if it didn't. It's not as simple as just getting rid of oil.
SandAndAlum t1_j6c1p7y wrote
So oil is making the wealthy parts of their society money and they don't want to. Gotchya.
Seems like the solution is to stop them making money until they figure out a better answer.
koreamax t1_j6c2o7l wrote
Oh to be young and naive.
SandAndAlum t1_j6c3n22 wrote
You've got the second part down if you believe that subsidizing oil infrastructure with public money whilst oil companies make record profits is the only possible way to have a stable society.
If they have an operating profit, they don't need subsidy, they need to pay for it themselves. If they don't want to after knowingly signing the death warrants of hundreds of millions for the last 50 years, seize their assets and throw them in jail.
ZoDalek t1_j6cz9nq wrote
It’s subsidising fossil fuels by € 17,5 bn yearly, not meeting binding targets (like the Paris Accord) and ignoring court orders to protect their citizens from climate change (Urgenda), not to speak of other environmental issues like nitrogen (again that had to come to the high court).
Regularguy10369 t1_j69qpnp wrote
These protests need to spread to every country. Solar is the future no matter what anyone says, panels on every roof in the eu would mean there was an abundance of electricity possibly double or even triple what is used right now.
There are just too many examples of where solar has been more successful than even the developers have anticipated.
derkonigistnackt t1_j6a1jbh wrote
Maybe in 15 or 20 years when/if materials science has figured a way to store this stuff. As it currently is, not only is solar ineffective in most geographies, but the carbon footprint of panels and batteries is faaaaarr from carbon neutral, and the effort it would take to scale it up to every green's wet dream is unsustainable.
Source before I get screamed at https://youtu.be/LtH9rJAHbEA
WalkerMx t1_j6a45o3 wrote
Batteries will pretty much never be the way to go, but we've had the technology to store energy en-mass for nearly a century.
Store it as hydro. During the day, use the surplus solar power to pump water into a reservoir. At night, when the solar wanes, begin emptying the reservoir and generating hydro power.
CucumberBoy00 t1_j6a7x7a wrote
There are a lot of ways to store energy we're just not sticking out neck out to build the infrastructure
CarpetbaggerForPeace t1_j6al8iz wrote
We should do that but it isn't optimal for everywhere. For instance, lack of mountains with areas you are willing to flood. That said, there are other ways to store energy for nighttime.
AGVann t1_j6bsq06 wrote
Climate change is also a risk factor since hydro of course depends on rainfall, which is going to be changing over this century.
CarpetbaggerForPeace t1_j6al1db wrote
Solar cells last more than 20 years and definitely are net negative on carbon multiple times on that time scale. Also, energy use is at a maximum when the sun is up. Something about people being awake.
GaloComCastanhas t1_j69r9fl wrote
Solar energy is intermittent.
[deleted] t1_j6a6s2k wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j69v1hf wrote
[removed]
Scapenator1 t1_j69nfkv wrote
No matter the topic, both right ánd left extremists should not be given a stage or an exception.
DoremusJessup OP t1_j69ulw2 wrote
Civil disobedience is not extremism.
[deleted] t1_j69vazm wrote
[removed]
O0O00O000O0000O t1_j6a4xwu wrote
Why not? It worked for ghandi and MLK?
Scapenator1 t1_j6a9fkl wrote
Not civil
Nervous_Original_450 t1_j6d3x1p wrote
Right... rich oligarchs who ruin the planet and murder journalists who write about it are quite civil huh?
Gamerboy11116 t1_j6dacag wrote
Completely civil.
Anakin8108 t1_j6ahltx wrote
Right wing extremists :everyone who isnt white straight and christian deserves to die
Left wing extremists: people destroying the planet should be stopped by any means necessary
Ultra Giga Brain 9000+ IQ centrists: “b0tH sIdeS bAd”
magic1623 t1_j6bg7ra wrote
On a linear scale the there are actually some pretty bad groups that fall on the left side of things. Anarchism and communism would both fall into the category of left wing extremists.
Anakin8108 t1_j6bhp72 wrote
Getting rid of hierarchies and communal control of the means of production sound pretty cool to me actually something about equality and fairness idk
Gamerboy11116 t1_j6daixy wrote
Bruh
Anakin8108 t1_j6g9q9l wrote
Bro
Gamerboy11116 t1_j6jcq9k wrote
Mate
[deleted] t1_j6m17cl wrote
[removed]
koreamax t1_j6bxuhg wrote
So does something possible
OrduninGalbraith t1_j6aq8dx wrote
Right wing extremism: going on killings spree because of "the gays".
Left wing extremism: a bunch of people laying down in the street to send a message.
Idiots: "both sides bad! :("
Scapenator1 t1_j6d6r1v wrote
Damn ur thick.
You compare idiots who lie on the highway to terrorists.
Time to look up the meaning of extremism again boi!
OrduninGalbraith t1_j6d8ao6 wrote
>No matter the topic, both right ánd left extremists should not be given a stage or an exception.
This you? Did you comment this on this post about people lying on the highway? Don't try to back track now, own your views you fucking loser.
Scapenator1 t1_j6de5my wrote
I don't support extremism. You clearly do. Good luck
koreamax t1_j6bxygx wrote
Are you gonna make a pie with all those cherries you picked?
Nervous_Original_450 t1_j6d41us wrote
>Are you gonna make a pie with all those cherries you picked?
You're the dolt who compared blocking a street to terrorism
OrduninGalbraith t1_j6ccrdq wrote
I was replying to a comment about both sides bad on a post about people blocking traffic by lying in the streets. There have been more mass shootings in the US in the last year than there have been days. Didn't need to go cherry picking at all.
APigNamedLucy t1_j6ab7r1 wrote
The civil unrest when the climate and food supply really take a dive will make this look like nothing. Nothing extreme about wanting a habitable planet.
You've been tricked into believing this is extremism.
[deleted] t1_j6atdvx wrote
[deleted]
IkLms t1_j6aiv2i wrote
>Earlier this week, seven people were arrested in their homes for calling on people to attended today’s demonstration.
Because that's not dystopian as fuck.