• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Or you could say these protestors are regularly getting in headlines, showing that there’s an escalating culture of absolute rejection of social mores so long as major, vital changes don’t happen. Creating serious problems for bureaucrats and elected officials that forces a response that often makes those officials and bureaucrats look like assholes.

    The protests are factually inconveniencing and causing problems for people that have the influence to get policy changed, at least so long as democracy is functional. You aren’t going to be able to protest an oil magnate. They are not accessible for protest.

    Your thesis is that people will vote against climate protestors just because they were late getting to work one day. If that’s correct, we may as well get out the Flavor-Aid because this world’s beyond saving. Everyone needs to be reminded and thinking about this crisis. Every day. It needs to be front and center. Time is running out. We have the solutions needed to avoid catastrophe, but too many are simply not aware and thinking about how terrible the danger is and need daily reminding.

    We seem to be forgetting that protests once involved burning down neighborhoods and executing rulers. Which really is what we should be doing, given the enormity of the problem. This is a more civil compromise. Don’t buy into the media powers that want to turn you against anyone expressing discontent.

    If the Earth Day protests happened today, the media narrative around them would be “Look at all these fuckers, on the streets, stopping me from getting to the gas station to buy a Slim Jim!” It’s fucked. The attitude is fucked.

    • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re not specifically targeting their protests to inconvenience the influencers, politicians or industries supporting the licensing of Big Oil. The majority targets making a large spectacle, with a significant amounts of criminal damage - something to become news-worthy.

      Not once have I seen them promote alternative policy changes for oil & gas use. They’re also not promoting projects dealing with climate change.

      They’re certainly getting exposure, but they’re not winning the public vote. I agree with their cause, but I despise their methods.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah, more ways you aren’t allowed to protest to add to the list.

        1. You aren’t allowed to protest unless the protest only affects the Officially Designated List (ODL) of “influencers”, politicians, or industries. Other people affected by protests is unacceptable.
        2. Democratic action cannot be a goal of protest. Protest must only be targeted to inconvenience bad guys (see ODL) and nothing else.
        3. Protests must not cause spectacle. The must be subdued, quiet, and easily ignored.
        4. Protestors must always be of a positive nature; only protests that have specific solutions and plans of actions are allowed. Protesting against things is unacceptable, you must only protest FOR things.
        5. Protest that involves property crime must be entirely shut down, permanently, with the entire organization tarred and feathered. ESPECIALLY if the property crime was throwing soup at a museum painting that was fully-sealed behind glass and totally protected. Protecting fine art matters more than keeping our civilization running.

        Let me know if you’ve got more Unacceptable Protest Options (UPOs). I’ll maintain the list for you.