I’m sorry, but how are daily commuters not a huge part of the cause? I recognize they’re part of a larger system, and may have limited means to fix anything, but they’re still participating in behavior that is destroying the only home we have.
There are two alternatives: activists either do nothing consequential, people like you ignore them and nothing changes, or…
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop.
Mario Savio
You’re literally defending the moderate in the meme.
I just don’t see the point. What is “consequential” about shutting down a road? What are you trying to achieve exactly? Are you doing it just because it’s beneficial in and of itself? Shutting down one road out of the millions on Earth for like an hour does practically nothing and you should spend your time more wisely. Are you trying to win hearts and minds? People will do far more than just ignore your cause, they will actively despise it. Or is it just out of spite for commuters? Even though many of them, as you said, have limited means to change anything. Not everyone can afford to just quit their job to get one closer.
It would also kind of go against their own point if public transit was also stopped. Sometimes you can’t just live near absolutely everything. Some people have disabilities and cannot physically ride a bike to get where they need to go. That would maybe also encourage people to take a car or a carpool, where they’re more likely to be able to do a u turn.
They are bringing awareness to the cause. Yes they are annoying the fuck of “innocent bystanders” but if they went on to a street and handed out flyers they would do fuck all, because people would just ignore them.
Plus this is not a “us” vs “them”. It’s not like they want to save “their” planet. There’s only one earth last I checked. So people might be angry about it, many will just laugh and say it’s stupid, others will join the cause and/or demand change.
People think they are so smart to ridicule them for throwing food at some paintings but they just want to feel better about themselves about not doing anything. So they criticize them to hide that discomfort. “If what they are doing is stupid, then I won’t feel bad for not doing it.”
I ask you? What do you suggest they do instead? And then go a check because for sure they did it and either it didn’t do shit or they are still doing it.
There are countless of ways to to that. I could bring awareness by killing puppies, burning down orphanages, or any number of comically heinous things. The more outlandish the better. So why stop at blocking traffic? Just do the most hateful, awful thing imaginable because “bringing awareness to the cause” is all that matters right? Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. Not all forms of protest are just automagically valid and effective just from virtue of being protests.
Great examples. Because blocking roads and mildly inconveniencing people that can demand change is almost the same as killing animals and children. Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s between those two things and very close to one of them.
But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?
Why the snark? I literally used the term “comically heinous” myself to describe the examples. I am aware they are extreme, it was to demonstrate my point…
So we disagree on where that line should be drawn. And it comes down to the fact that you think blocking traffic is “mildly inconveniencing”. I would say: how the fuck do you know? You don’t know what’s going on in the lives of those people.
Maybe someone got a call from the hospital that their father is dying and they should come in to see them one last time.
Maybe a food insecure parent is working hard to support their children and if they are late one more time they could get axed and put their children in danger.
Maybe someone chopped their finger off and are rushing to the hospital to get it reattached.
Or any number of scenarios. If YOU were in any of these situations, what would you think of the people blocking the road? Somehow I don’t think you would be so understanding when it happens to you personally.
But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?
I think my position is clear. I’m OK with any form of protest that actually advances the cause behind the protest and I am not OK with any form of protest that is counter-productive against the cause of the protest. I started out my comments by saying what standing in a road accomplishes, and so far all you’ve really said is “uh, well nothing else has worked so why not?”. That really isn’t good enough.
And exactly what kind of protest is that?
Again you still haven’t answered my question and more and more it seems that there is no such protest so we will all live miserable lives in the future but hey, at least people weren’t bothered those few times.
Also you can block roads and let emergency vehicles through. Accidents happen, roads get blocked for a variety of reasons on a daily basis. If people used cars less they would be less congestioned, do you also use that argument there?
Finally, people do die of climate change. Everyday and it’s not a small amount. Consider that on the other side of the equation whenever you make one.
Either way I’m calling this convo. Have a nice day and weekend. Hope it’s not too hot wherever you are.
Because the people you are “inconveniencing” don’t make the decisions. They are mostly people just doing what they have to to survive. Find a way to inconvenience the decision-makers, and it will have everyone’s support.
lol I posted first! You responded to me. I was the one posing the question: What is the benefit of blocking the road? Any discussion outside of that scope is moving the goalpost and I won’t entertain it. So far I’ve seen you propose a grand total of zero benefits so I’m just going to assume there are none.
Have these protests done anything? For example that due to the lack of public transport people are obliged to use a car, or many workplaces especially office work are put around cities not inside because of tax reasons? In my case I had to use a car for my previous work, for it was 45 minutes instead of 4,5 hours with trains and buses.
These people do nothing, but scream STOP USING OIL, STUPID! and call it a day.
Nobody is oblivious to this problem, but many have few choices.
The method behind the road blocks is: Block road to hold normal people hostage -> normal people get angry and demand change -> government changes it’s policy towards your demands. Yeah everyone knows climate change to be a problem but if nothing is being done despite that you have to apply pressure somewhere, so because Fridays for future moved the needle maybe minimally, by doing normal marches, you start to be the tiniest bit annoying by blocking streets without prior warning.
The very few people getting stuck in traffic from these protest are really just innocent bystanders but, they also need to change, and both the real targets, so politicians and rich people, have enough influence to easily shield themselves from the effect of protests, apart from maybe the private yet stoppages which the same groups also organised.
And at least here in Germany the media coverage about climate change is now much more frequent than before LG started blocking the streets. And the coverage is only interspersed by talking about the protests themselves not singularly about the protests. So there is at least some noticeable change.
These people don’t do nothing, they are fighting for my right to live 60 more years in relative peace and prosperity, protests and civil disobedience is far from doing nothing. The political message that gets told whenever any of them is interviewed is certainly much more nuanced than the slogan as well. And the reason they are on the street to begin with is because they themselves also have few choices, if the people going out to the street had power apart from their time and body they would be and are using it towards that same goal, but obviously their power via other ways is insufficient.
All in all if you think you act efficiently and fairly towards climate change reversal/reduction, but write a comment defending your 45min car commute, you might be missing something.The lack of public transport in your city for example isn’t solved by just continuing to use it without reflection about why it is that way, and honest investment into fixing it.
I’m sorry but your explanation of the method just doesn’t understand human beings. The drivers will get angry and demand change. The change they demand won’t be about the climate. They aren’t sitting in their cars going “hmm, maybe these people have a point”. What they demand will be stopping protests that disrupt traffic.
I’m sorry but you don’t seem to understand human beings either.
Just because drivers get angry and demand a crackdown doesn’t mean a crackdown actually is feasible from the governments point of view. The drivers for which this is the reaction fundamentally don’t matter to the protestors. What matters to the protestors is political change, the number of drivers they directly impact is small, the number of people being told climate change is an existential threat is disproportionately large. Which furthers their political goals on the whole, even if everyone hates them.
This entire argument is the same argument against every “civil” and not so civil protest, public disobedience or other dissent. BLM 202x FFF 2019, Antifa since 193x, LGBTQ movement, women’s rights, they all get this same argument against them: Why won’t you just be civil, why won’t you play by the rules, why don’t you try to gain sympathy from your political enemies.
As if that’d work, as if that’d be sufficient to keep your own freedom, live and livelyhood, inside of a system that tries to take it from you. How could you ever trust in the process when you’ve seen it fail time and time again, specifically for the issue that is of concern in your group.
This is the other human you failed to account for, the protestor that isn’t going to stop, because they deeply believe their way of life is threatened in a way where a more direct confrontation is necessary. And they rightly understand that it’s a confrontation with the entire system, not with some commuters on arbitrary streets.
I’m sorry, but how are daily commuters not a huge part of the cause?
But daily commuters aren’t really the problem in itself, it’s the combustion engine cars. Blocking road also blocks people in EVs or even the ones taking the bus.
It’s less bad than burning gasoline by far, but your argument is only an environmental one on the surface. I just wish people like you would come out and say you’re against individual autonomy already.
Wtf are you talking about? Cobalt is a rare earth blood mineral, so continuing on with our car-centric society will make battery demand unsustainable and kill 1000s of workers. I want human-scale architecture with highly accessible public transit, so people have more choices to travel. Car-centric architecture spreads things out by necessity, which creates unnecessary waste and destruction of wildlife.
Efforts are already underway to remove it from future battery production, and so far they’ve been fairly successful.
You just don’t want people to be able to move on any terms besides those of whoever owns mass transit. Please stop trying to pretend that’s not the case.
There is room for cars to exist. I think most vehicles don’t need to be as large as they are currently, but there’s still a place for them. I just also want highspeed passenger rail, busses, lrt, bikes, and walking to be considered. I also want the government to offer these as a service, I don’t want any corporate involvement with public transit.
I think for certain types of mass transit, specifically buses, corporate control would be fine as long as there’s enough regulation to ensure a reasonable minimum standard of safety. Even corporate trains might work if someone can wrest control of the actual rails themselves away from the freight companies.
I agree, though. There’s room for both mass transit and individual transportation in the world.
“individual autonomy” except riding a bike or walking requires no (government controlled) licence no (corporate provided, and government-mandated in many places) insurance and no (government demanded) road tax.
Have you ever tried to move a cello on a bike? It fucking sucks, and I’m absolutely not going to take my most prized instrument for a bike ride in the rain.
Sounds like a bad case of being a bike-humper. Seek help, and while you’re at it, get a fucking clue.
Have you ever tried to move a cello on a bike? It fucking sucks, and I’m absolutely not going to take my most prized instrument for a bike ride in the rain.
either way, a comically large musical instrument (which let’s be real, those of us with a vision for a post-car future would probably still sign off on as “sure I guess an occasional van is fine for this”) doesn’t address the nonsense take that private car ownership, and widespread car-centric public space, is a core part of, or even compatible with, “individual autonomy”. you’ve been lied to, and you’re now doing free PR work for an industry that’s poisoning our lungs, killing our friends and family (especially older and younger people), and torching the planet.
I’m sorry, but how are daily commuters not a huge part of the cause? I recognize they’re part of a larger system, and may have limited means to fix anything, but they’re still participating in behavior that is destroying the only home we have.
There are two alternatives: activists either do nothing consequential, people like you ignore them and nothing changes, or…
You’re literally defending the moderate in the meme.
I just don’t see the point. What is “consequential” about shutting down a road? What are you trying to achieve exactly? Are you doing it just because it’s beneficial in and of itself? Shutting down one road out of the millions on Earth for like an hour does practically nothing and you should spend your time more wisely. Are you trying to win hearts and minds? People will do far more than just ignore your cause, they will actively despise it. Or is it just out of spite for commuters? Even though many of them, as you said, have limited means to change anything. Not everyone can afford to just quit their job to get one closer.
It would also kind of go against their own point if public transit was also stopped. Sometimes you can’t just live near absolutely everything. Some people have disabilities and cannot physically ride a bike to get where they need to go. That would maybe also encourage people to take a car or a carpool, where they’re more likely to be able to do a u turn.
They are bringing awareness to the cause. Yes they are annoying the fuck of “innocent bystanders” but if they went on to a street and handed out flyers they would do fuck all, because people would just ignore them.
Plus this is not a “us” vs “them”. It’s not like they want to save “their” planet. There’s only one earth last I checked. So people might be angry about it, many will just laugh and say it’s stupid, others will join the cause and/or demand change.
People think they are so smart to ridicule them for throwing food at some paintings but they just want to feel better about themselves about not doing anything. So they criticize them to hide that discomfort. “If what they are doing is stupid, then I won’t feel bad for not doing it.”
I ask you? What do you suggest they do instead? And then go a check because for sure they did it and either it didn’t do shit or they are still doing it.
There are countless of ways to to that. I could bring awareness by killing puppies, burning down orphanages, or any number of comically heinous things. The more outlandish the better. So why stop at blocking traffic? Just do the most hateful, awful thing imaginable because “bringing awareness to the cause” is all that matters right? Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. Not all forms of protest are just automagically valid and effective just from virtue of being protests.
Great examples. Because blocking roads and mildly inconveniencing people that can demand change is almost the same as killing animals and children. Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it’s between those two things and very close to one of them.
But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?
Read the top comment in this post again.
Blocking roads can literally kill people, by stopping emergency vehicles etc from getting to where they need to go
So does climate change…
Also car accidents block roads as well. Should we forbid people from using their cars?
So does burning orphanages, so apparently they are kind of equal then with your logic?
Plus, orphanages can catch fire from issues with electrical wiring, therefore we should forbid orphanages from using electricity, right?
Why the snark? I literally used the term “comically heinous” myself to describe the examples. I am aware they are extreme, it was to demonstrate my point…
So we disagree on where that line should be drawn. And it comes down to the fact that you think blocking traffic is “mildly inconveniencing”. I would say: how the fuck do you know? You don’t know what’s going on in the lives of those people.
Or any number of scenarios. If YOU were in any of these situations, what would you think of the people blocking the road? Somehow I don’t think you would be so understanding when it happens to you personally.
I think my position is clear. I’m OK with any form of protest that actually advances the cause behind the protest and I am not OK with any form of protest that is counter-productive against the cause of the protest. I started out my comments by saying what standing in a road accomplishes, and so far all you’ve really said is “uh, well nothing else has worked so why not?”. That really isn’t good enough.
And exactly what kind of protest is that? Again you still haven’t answered my question and more and more it seems that there is no such protest so we will all live miserable lives in the future but hey, at least people weren’t bothered those few times.
Also you can block roads and let emergency vehicles through. Accidents happen, roads get blocked for a variety of reasons on a daily basis. If people used cars less they would be less congestioned, do you also use that argument there?
Finally, people do die of climate change. Everyday and it’s not a small amount. Consider that on the other side of the equation whenever you make one.
Either way I’m calling this convo. Have a nice day and weekend. Hope it’s not too hot wherever you are.
Because the people you are “inconveniencing” don’t make the decisions. They are mostly people just doing what they have to to survive. Find a way to inconvenience the decision-makers, and it will have everyone’s support.
They vote. That’s not nothing and better than hoping that the people destroying the planet will suddenly become good people and stop doing that.
But again, all this complaining and no one is suggesting alternatives… very telling.
lol I posted first! You responded to me. I was the one posing the question: What is the benefit of blocking the road? Any discussion outside of that scope is moving the goalpost and I won’t entertain it. So far I’ve seen you propose a grand total of zero benefits so I’m just going to assume there are none.
My first comment literally responds to the purpose/benefit of blocking a road. But for that you’d need to know how to read.
But I agree, let’s end it here
Have these protests done anything? For example that due to the lack of public transport people are obliged to use a car, or many workplaces especially office work are put around cities not inside because of tax reasons? In my case I had to use a car for my previous work, for it was 45 minutes instead of 4,5 hours with trains and buses.
These people do nothing, but scream STOP USING OIL, STUPID! and call it a day.
Nobody is oblivious to this problem, but many have few choices.
The method behind the road blocks is: Block road to hold normal people hostage -> normal people get angry and demand change -> government changes it’s policy towards your demands. Yeah everyone knows climate change to be a problem but if nothing is being done despite that you have to apply pressure somewhere, so because Fridays for future moved the needle maybe minimally, by doing normal marches, you start to be the tiniest bit annoying by blocking streets without prior warning.
The very few people getting stuck in traffic from these protest are really just innocent bystanders but, they also need to change, and both the real targets, so politicians and rich people, have enough influence to easily shield themselves from the effect of protests, apart from maybe the private yet stoppages which the same groups also organised.
And at least here in Germany the media coverage about climate change is now much more frequent than before LG started blocking the streets. And the coverage is only interspersed by talking about the protests themselves not singularly about the protests. So there is at least some noticeable change.
These people don’t do nothing, they are fighting for my right to live 60 more years in relative peace and prosperity, protests and civil disobedience is far from doing nothing. The political message that gets told whenever any of them is interviewed is certainly much more nuanced than the slogan as well. And the reason they are on the street to begin with is because they themselves also have few choices, if the people going out to the street had power apart from their time and body they would be and are using it towards that same goal, but obviously their power via other ways is insufficient.
All in all if you think you act efficiently and fairly towards climate change reversal/reduction, but write a comment defending your 45min car commute, you might be missing something.The lack of public transport in your city for example isn’t solved by just continuing to use it without reflection about why it is that way, and honest investment into fixing it.
I’m sorry but your explanation of the method just doesn’t understand human beings. The drivers will get angry and demand change. The change they demand won’t be about the climate. They aren’t sitting in their cars going “hmm, maybe these people have a point”. What they demand will be stopping protests that disrupt traffic.
I’m sorry but you don’t seem to understand human beings either. Just because drivers get angry and demand a crackdown doesn’t mean a crackdown actually is feasible from the governments point of view. The drivers for which this is the reaction fundamentally don’t matter to the protestors. What matters to the protestors is political change, the number of drivers they directly impact is small, the number of people being told climate change is an existential threat is disproportionately large. Which furthers their political goals on the whole, even if everyone hates them.
This entire argument is the same argument against every “civil” and not so civil protest, public disobedience or other dissent. BLM 202x FFF 2019, Antifa since 193x, LGBTQ movement, women’s rights, they all get this same argument against them: Why won’t you just be civil, why won’t you play by the rules, why don’t you try to gain sympathy from your political enemies.
As if that’d work, as if that’d be sufficient to keep your own freedom, live and livelyhood, inside of a system that tries to take it from you. How could you ever trust in the process when you’ve seen it fail time and time again, specifically for the issue that is of concern in your group.
This is the other human you failed to account for, the protestor that isn’t going to stop, because they deeply believe their way of life is threatened in a way where a more direct confrontation is necessary. And they rightly understand that it’s a confrontation with the entire system, not with some commuters on arbitrary streets.
But daily commuters aren’t really the problem in itself, it’s the combustion engine cars. Blocking road also blocks people in EVs or even the ones taking the bus.
Keeping everything else the same but switching to EV is still really bad for the environment and bad for people.
It’s less bad than burning gasoline by far, but your argument is only an environmental one on the surface. I just wish people like you would come out and say you’re against individual autonomy already.
Wtf are you talking about? Cobalt is a rare earth blood mineral, so continuing on with our car-centric society will make battery demand unsustainable and kill 1000s of workers. I want human-scale architecture with highly accessible public transit, so people have more choices to travel. Car-centric architecture spreads things out by necessity, which creates unnecessary waste and destruction of wildlife.
Efforts are already underway to remove it from future battery production, and so far they’ve been fairly successful.
You just don’t want people to be able to move on any terms besides those of whoever owns mass transit. Please stop trying to pretend that’s not the case.
There is room for cars to exist. I think most vehicles don’t need to be as large as they are currently, but there’s still a place for them. I just also want highspeed passenger rail, busses, lrt, bikes, and walking to be considered. I also want the government to offer these as a service, I don’t want any corporate involvement with public transit.
I think for certain types of mass transit, specifically buses, corporate control would be fine as long as there’s enough regulation to ensure a reasonable minimum standard of safety. Even corporate trains might work if someone can wrest control of the actual rails themselves away from the freight companies.
I agree, though. There’s room for both mass transit and individual transportation in the world.
Clearly someone here thinks the US = the entire world.
On the opposite side of the world said “reasonable standard of safety” is literally the norm.
“individual autonomy” except riding a bike or walking requires no (government controlled) licence no (corporate provided, and government-mandated in many places) insurance and no (government demanded) road tax.
seems like a bad case of car-brain… seek help
Have you ever tried to move a cello on a bike? It fucking sucks, and I’m absolutely not going to take my most prized instrument for a bike ride in the rain.
Sounds like a bad case of being a bike-humper. Seek help, and while you’re at it, get a fucking clue.
honestly, i haven’t.
but i’ve moved heavier and more fragile shit in a bike trailer, and 2 minutes of internetting located this cellist who toured with not only her instrument, but entire-ass gig setup, by bike: https://can.org.nz/article/cyclist-musician-to-tour-with-cello-and-recycled-solar-powered-electric-assist-bicycle-trail
either way, a comically large musical instrument (which let’s be real, those of us with a vision for a post-car future would probably still sign off on as “sure I guess an occasional van is fine for this”) doesn’t address the nonsense take that private car ownership, and widespread car-centric public space, is a core part of, or even compatible with, “individual autonomy”. you’ve been lied to, and you’re now doing free PR work for an industry that’s poisoning our lungs, killing our friends and family (especially older and younger people), and torching the planet.
brb making some “bike-humper” stickers.
The point is to be seen.
It’s generally an issue in children when their developing brains are unable to discern the difference between positive and negative attention.
I guess that explains the right wing
I think the point is to actually cause change.
And I don’t know how you’ll accompish that, when your actions piss of the majority of people that are actually on your side.