Probably important to note that the House of Commons is on recess (as the article does) so this is not exactly storming the Parliament bulding and breaking into a full house.
It warms my heart to see continued protests by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Direct Action Everywhere. Nonviolent, disruptive action is a powerful force with such rich history. On reddit when this group protested at the Louvre by gluing themselves to well known landscapes the comments were full of vitriol, which were difficult to determine as being genuine or representative of actual general feelings towards such protests.
I hope we all see these illegal disruptions as the important work they are.
If we allow indirect violence, so is doing nothing to stop a misaligned system burning down the planet and poisoning all of us willingly. Drawing the line is what the political debate is about
Someone with actual general feelings here. People’s lives are miserable enough at the minute without being disrupted further by climate protest groups. This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive but other XR protests and the Stop Oil folks blockading roads can fuck right off. Demanding that we stop using oil during an energy crisis is idiotic and blocking working class people from getting to work at a time when they’re struggling financially is not helping your cause. As important as it is that we make massive changes to benefit our climate and planet, I think the middle classes that are typically involved in these protests need to read the room and realise ordinary people have much more pressing concerns (like heating their homes and feeding themselves) and they could do with a break from hearing that “the earth is burning”. It’s part of the reason a lot of the working class abandoned the Labour Party - the left is focussed on things that the middle/upper middle class care about instead of representing the working class.
In the case of the protest in the article, how do you see their demands as being representative of only the upper class? Same with the protests at the Louvre?
> This protest in particular isn’t very disruptive
As I said it depends on the style of protest. This is not disruptive. Blockading roads during rush hour (a frequent tactic in the past year) is and is something I have more of an issue with. In the art gallery cases (of which there have been several) I would be annoyed if the art was damaged in any way. Damaging something that’s been taken care of for so long to make your point is selfish. In the case of climate protestors invading the track during the British Grand Prix I also have an issue. If the race hadn’t already been stopped due to an accident there was a very good chance protestors or drivers or spectators would have been killed.
Regarding the demands generally being of only the upper class, looking at British liberal politics in general, there is a focus on climate, immigration, gender etc and little focus on economic policies. When so many people are struggling financially the focus needs to be on economics first and everything else needs to take a backseat for a while.
It sounds like you’re saying that as long as their aren’t negative consequences, then the protests are fine. Is that accurate or an oversimplification? I think by definition there need to be consequences, as that is what forces people to notice and to talk. A common retort to this is that it will actually harm the movement more than help it, since the press that is generated tends to skew negative, but the research on the blowback effect is inconclusive.
Also, do you think that the climate crisis is not an economic issue?
It’s an oversimplification. Protests that cause disruption are not a problem, but you need to keep in mind who you are disrupting. For example: some action to block/prevent private jets from taking off and disrupting wealthy users = great. Blocking the road to airport causing families that have spent years saving for their family trip to miss their flight = bad.
I also disagree that “by definition there needs to be consequences”. Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre.
Regarding the climate crisis being an economic issue - that doesn’t matter to the people struggling to heat their homes, or feed their children. Those concerns are much more immediate than how we can build a new green economy over the next decades, or how we may be impacting their grandchildren who don’t even exist yet.
So are you only in favor of protests if they don't disrupt the general public? How do you feel about the sit-ins in the US during the Civil Rights movement? Or mass protests against the Vietnam war? These things were very disruptive to everyone, even the non-wealthy. Did you feel like the response to George Floyd's death in the US was wrong, too? The riots, enormous protests, etc.?
> Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre.
But these _do_ cause disruption. Surely the family on the way to the airport could still miss their flight if a protest forms in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, right?
Also, it doesn't _seem_ like there are very strong class divides when it comes to concerns over the climate crisis [1]. I'm curious what you're basing your belief off of that working class folks don't care enough about the climate crisis to support protests in favor of change?
This is also ignoring the fact that whether or not lower income people care about the climate crisis, the protestors still make good points. Climate crisis is an issue whether or not people are principally concerned with heating their homes and feeding their children, so it doesn't invalidate the protestors points, right? If people are more concerned about food safety, that doesn't mean the protestors advocating for changes to our response to climate crisis are mislead, or not caring about issues of food safety/affordable energy, or anything. You seem to be thinking that we should only protest against maybe one thing at a time, regardless of the future consequences, and that thing should be decided by what the working class is concerned about. That doesn't make much sense to me.
The Louvre is a public institution and the art preserved and on display in such institutions is a public good. It's nonsensical to glue oneself to / destroy a public good - especially one that has cultural value (and other types of value) - when trying to make a point about the impact unchecked private property has on the world.
If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause.
Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.
Also, as I said elsewhere, the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. If glue on the frame of a painting is too much destruction, will you only consider protests which have negligible effect appropriate?
What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective? They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children. It’s not clear they even have any concrete policies positions on e.g. nuclear power generation, or zoning.
They’re just agitators and I wish they’d go away because they aren’t exactly helping, and become just a giant distraction.
> What evidence is there that these extinction rebellion protests have been effective?
Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. The idea is to get from pre-contemplation to contemplation [1], which is a very important process for advocacy of any issue. The goal isn't to sway you to their side. The goal is to get you to think about this thing more. With that being said, they have definitely succeeded. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the evidence that there is some sort of "blowback" effect, where these things ultimately harm the movement more than help it, isn't really verified in any way. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but the rich history of similar disruptive protests make me feel that they are ultimately helpful.
> They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children.
How does this differ from similar protests in the past? E.g. Rosa Parks, sit-ins, etc. Those protests similarly enraged and annoyed people, but they are now iconic demonstrations.
I just looked at their website and one of their stated goals is “Governments must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”
This is not a serious organization, it’s useless fantasy. There is no scenario where net emissions are zero by 2025 outside of intentionally plunging the entire globe into unimaginable poverty. This isn’t going to happen because there is no scenario where people sign up for that, and if anyone tried there would be war. Their game is a distraction that takes away from people who are serious about real approaches to get to net zero on a realistic timeline.
Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
Wait, I feel like the goal posts are being moved - I was never arguing for their specific demands, we were talking about the methods of protest they use. Does that mean you've come around on your viewpoint?
> Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
How so? I drew the comparison because you were saying that protests which are viewed as whiny, annoying demonstrations are ineffective (I'm paraphrasing here), but I was making the point that many important and effective protests of the past were viewed the same way before. I'm not saying their cause is as noble, just that the methodology is comparable. If you think that they are not comparable, even though the reaction to each is generally the same, I'd be curious as to what you think makes them so unrelated.
I’m not moving anything. I’m expanding my argument. Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity.
As for Rosa Parks, do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you? You can’t possibly not see the difference here, right? Their cause is not noble, it’s nuts. “Shut everything down by 2025!” is not a reasonable or realistic objective, and gluing yourself to stuff or pouring concrete in golf courses to annoy people just makes you look unserious, which they are. Inasmuch as they become the face of the movement to address climate change - and that seems to be at least an indirect outcome if not an objective - climate advocates will get associated with the stupidity. That hurts the overall movement away from fossil fuels.
> Not only are their tactics ineffective but their goals are an exercise in absurdity.
Wait, how do you know the tactics are ineffective?
> do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't big differences... I'm saying that the specific complaint you had about XR, like them coming across as self-absorbed whiny children, is something that easily could have been said about important protests of the past. So the comparison is still relevant. You complained about these protests disrupting normal people (like the family on the way to the airport in your example), but that same type of disruption was common in these revered protests from the past. So I'll try one last time: if protests from the past caused similar levels of disruption, but we can agree that those who engaged in them were not "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children", then what makes protesters today using similarly disruptive methods "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children"?
I can't tell if you're trying to argue dishonestly. I'm not arguing that XR's goals are good, or sane. I'm not saying there are no differences between Civil Rights protests and climate crisis protests. I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
You started this entire thread by lauding XR and comparing them to powerful movements of the past, implying that showy and click-baity protests are the same thing as African Americans marching against specific laws that harmed them. You have offered no evidence that what they do specifically is actually effective at anything, and are hiding behind a forced and contrived comparison to the civil rights movement in the US. You have not offered anything beyond things like:
> the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore.
> Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things.
And so on. How this works in reality is: if XR threatens to glue their faces to the pavement to block traffic if governments don’t shut down their economies, you end up with some people with their face glued to the pavement and nothing else.
> I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
You are not trying to understand anything. You have a romantic view of XR and liken then to civil rights protests because it excuses the absurdity of what they do. I’ve pointed out the unseriousness of this organization and I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate further on why comparisons to the civil rights movement are inappropriate. It’s not me who is arguing dishonestly.
XR blocking public roads full of angry people trying to get to job/school is always just a step away from public lynching and really are not helping their cause.
24 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 60.7 ms ] threadI hope we all see these illegal disruptions as the important work they are.
As I said it depends on the style of protest. This is not disruptive. Blockading roads during rush hour (a frequent tactic in the past year) is and is something I have more of an issue with. In the art gallery cases (of which there have been several) I would be annoyed if the art was damaged in any way. Damaging something that’s been taken care of for so long to make your point is selfish. In the case of climate protestors invading the track during the British Grand Prix I also have an issue. If the race hadn’t already been stopped due to an accident there was a very good chance protestors or drivers or spectators would have been killed.
Regarding the demands generally being of only the upper class, looking at British liberal politics in general, there is a focus on climate, immigration, gender etc and little focus on economic policies. When so many people are struggling financially the focus needs to be on economics first and everything else needs to take a backseat for a while.
Also, do you think that the climate crisis is not an economic issue?
I also disagree that “by definition there needs to be consequences”. Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre.
Regarding the climate crisis being an economic issue - that doesn’t matter to the people struggling to heat their homes, or feed their children. Those concerns are much more immediate than how we can build a new green economy over the next decades, or how we may be impacting their grandchildren who don’t even exist yet.
> Marches, showing the strength of feeling via the number of participants, have been successfully many times and cause little disruption other than closing some streets in the city centre.
But these _do_ cause disruption. Surely the family on the way to the airport could still miss their flight if a protest forms in response to Roe v. Wade being overturned, right?
Also, it doesn't _seem_ like there are very strong class divides when it comes to concerns over the climate crisis [1]. I'm curious what you're basing your belief off of that working class folks don't care enough about the climate crisis to support protests in favor of change?
This is also ignoring the fact that whether or not lower income people care about the climate crisis, the protestors still make good points. Climate crisis is an issue whether or not people are principally concerned with heating their homes and feeding their children, so it doesn't invalidate the protestors points, right? If people are more concerned about food safety, that doesn't mean the protestors advocating for changes to our response to climate crisis are mislead, or not caring about issues of food safety/affordable energy, or anything. You seem to be thinking that we should only protest against maybe one thing at a time, regardless of the future consequences, and that thing should be decided by what the working class is concerned about. That doesn't make much sense to me.
1. https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2021/research/cl...
If people aren't sympathetic to such protests, it's because cultural heritage helps shape a community's shared sense of identity. Gluing yourself to art is akin to compromising the integrity of that shared identity. If anything, that's the exact last thing you want to do if you hope to rally people around your cause.
Sure, maybe you're trying to signal the urgency to push a public action regarding climate change. But there are other, more poignant ways to do that.
What would you recommend?
Also, as I said elsewhere, the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore. If glue on the frame of a painting is too much destruction, will you only consider protests which have negligible effect appropriate?
They’re just agitators and I wish they’d go away because they aren’t exactly helping, and become just a giant distraction.
Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things. The idea is to get from pre-contemplation to contemplation [1], which is a very important process for advocacy of any issue. The goal isn't to sway you to their side. The goal is to get you to think about this thing more. With that being said, they have definitely succeeded. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, the evidence that there is some sort of "blowback" effect, where these things ultimately harm the movement more than help it, isn't really verified in any way. Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't, but the rich history of similar disruptive protests make me feel that they are ultimately helpful.
> They are not going to convince anyone who isn’t already in agreement with them about climate policy, and to people on the fence they look like insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children.
How does this differ from similar protests in the past? E.g. Rosa Parks, sit-ins, etc. Those protests similarly enraged and annoyed people, but they are now iconic demonstrations.
1. https://medicine.llu.edu/academics/resources/stages-change-m...
This is not a serious organization, it’s useless fantasy. There is no scenario where net emissions are zero by 2025 outside of intentionally plunging the entire globe into unimaginable poverty. This isn’t going to happen because there is no scenario where people sign up for that, and if anyone tried there would be war. Their game is a distraction that takes away from people who are serious about real approaches to get to net zero on a realistic timeline.
Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
> Comparing these people - who again state their goal as turning off human civilization - to Rosa Parks is a bit much.
How so? I drew the comparison because you were saying that protests which are viewed as whiny, annoying demonstrations are ineffective (I'm paraphrasing here), but I was making the point that many important and effective protests of the past were viewed the same way before. I'm not saying their cause is as noble, just that the methodology is comparable. If you think that they are not comparable, even though the reaction to each is generally the same, I'd be curious as to what you think makes them so unrelated.
As for Rosa Parks, do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you? You can’t possibly not see the difference here, right? Their cause is not noble, it’s nuts. “Shut everything down by 2025!” is not a reasonable or realistic objective, and gluing yourself to stuff or pouring concrete in golf courses to annoy people just makes you look unserious, which they are. Inasmuch as they become the face of the movement to address climate change - and that seems to be at least an indirect outcome if not an objective - climate advocates will get associated with the stupidity. That hurts the overall movement away from fossil fuels.
Wait, how do you know the tactics are ineffective?
> do you really not see the difference between gluing yourself to priceless art in the Louvre and deliberately flouting a specific law meant to oppress you?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't big differences... I'm saying that the specific complaint you had about XR, like them coming across as self-absorbed whiny children, is something that easily could have been said about important protests of the past. So the comparison is still relevant. You complained about these protests disrupting normal people (like the family on the way to the airport in your example), but that same type of disruption was common in these revered protests from the past. So I'll try one last time: if protests from the past caused similar levels of disruption, but we can agree that those who engaged in them were not "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children", then what makes protesters today using similarly disruptive methods "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children"?
I can't tell if you're trying to argue dishonestly. I'm not arguing that XR's goals are good, or sane. I'm not saying there are no differences between Civil Rights protests and climate crisis protests. I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
> the reason that protests like these are effective is because there are consequences; they are designed to be impossible to ignore.
> Well, it's being discussed, no? That is generally the point of these types of things.
And so on. How this works in reality is: if XR threatens to glue their faces to the pavement to block traffic if governments don’t shut down their economies, you end up with some people with their face glued to the pavement and nothing else.
> I'm trying to understand why you see these people as "insane, spoiled, self-absorbed children" instead of people simply engaging in protests using methods with precedent.
You are not trying to understand anything. You have a romantic view of XR and liken then to civil rights protests because it excuses the absurdity of what they do. I’ve pointed out the unseriousness of this organization and I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate further on why comparisons to the civil rights movement are inappropriate. It’s not me who is arguing dishonestly.