If you support the cause you would understand no harm was done, and media attention was generated, as planned. If you want to have a excuse for your inaction you bitch on the internet about it.
No harm was done to the stonehenge. No harm was done to the cause to stop climatechange. These actions get people talking about climate change, that is the plan and it was a succes.
There are many different types of action that can be taken. Some people write letters, other consume less, etc. In the end they all work towards the same goal. But they require action. If you are not interested in changing the world and yourself for the better, no one can convince you. But if you want to create change, you will and you can. And then you will do so no matter what other people may think or do.
Negative reactions. I don’t know anyone who identifies with these movements and actions, on the contrary. As someone who’s trying to convince relatives to eat and act more sustainably, I feel it’s an uphill battle because they don’t want to side with these actions.
You’re not being an activist, just an asshole and not just to the people you want to be an asshole to
Most activist organizations tend to do things that perpetuate themselves instead of trying to deal with the problem they are claiming to solve. That includes terrorist organisations too.
Now that’s just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go “oh well but I didn’t like the method of those protesters, now I won’t do it”.
The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let’s be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.
It’s not BS it’s reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won’t do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it’s reality and a demographic of people you won’t be getting for your cause and for climate we can’t afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can’t afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. “People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge” is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The “any attention is good” way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn’t be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
If you support the cause you would understand no harm was done, and media attention was generated, as planned. If you want to have a excuse for your inaction you bitch on the internet about it.
There was definitly harm done … and I don’t mean to stonehenge.
No harm was done to the stonehenge. No harm was done to the cause to stop climatechange. These actions get people talking about climate change, that is the plan and it was a succes. There are many different types of action that can be taken. Some people write letters, other consume less, etc. In the end they all work towards the same goal. But they require action. If you are not interested in changing the world and yourself for the better, no one can convince you. But if you want to create change, you will and you can. And then you will do so no matter what other people may think or do.
Negative reactions. I don’t know anyone who identifies with these movements and actions, on the contrary. As someone who’s trying to convince relatives to eat and act more sustainably, I feel it’s an uphill battle because they don’t want to side with these actions.
You’re not being an activist, just an asshole and not just to the people you want to be an asshole to
Most activist organizations tend to do things that perpetuate themselves instead of trying to deal with the problem they are claiming to solve. That includes terrorist organisations too.
Now that’s just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go “oh well but I didn’t like the method of those protesters, now I won’t do it”.
The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let’s be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.
It’s not BS it’s reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won’t do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it’s reality and a demographic of people you won’t be getting for your cause and for climate we can’t afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can’t afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. “People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge” is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The “any attention is good” way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn’t be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Ok so what is the tactic here? They are vandalising a monument for what end if not attention? Talk me through the reasoning
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
Right?
“I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!”