Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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

IMtoppercentage97 t1_ivs9ihr wrote

And if it backfires on them it backfires on everyone cause we're all gonna suffer.

So, show them the proper way to do it if you think they're messing up.

7

IBAZERKERI t1_ivs9tqs wrote

well i think the graffiti'ng government buildings was sweet. blocking traffic and attempting to destroy art not so much.

6

Shadowbanned24601 t1_ivsnw85 wrote

What until you hear what the suffragette protests had to do to earn political change

23

Most-Resident t1_ivufy1e wrote

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

IMtoppercentage97 t1_ivsch82 wrote

What art did they attempt to destroy? Both paintings were protected by glass and unharmed.

9

IBAZERKERI t1_ivscwqn wrote

close enough

−9

IMtoppercentage97 t1_ivsczbk wrote

Not really.

They knew the paintings would be fine. There wasn't an "attempt" to destroy them.

7

IBAZERKERI t1_ivsd2ib wrote

did they? are you sure? im not

3

IMtoppercentage97 t1_ivsdg5d wrote

You're questioning someone's ability to observe that there's glass over a painting when they stated that's one of the reasons they picked those paintings?

10

IBAZERKERI t1_ivsdimt wrote

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

xiconic t1_ivsxymy wrote

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

radicalelation t1_ivujd2v wrote

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