And if they protested people commuting into a city, a huge source of global emissions, they’d be criticized for that too. People always manage to label protests as the wrong time/place. What they really mean is “protest is fine as long as no one, especially me, is asked to actually pay attention to it.”
And if they protested people commuting into a city, a huge source of global emissions, they’d be criticized for that too.
May, just maybe, those aren’t the only two choices. Maybe they could also protest in front of offices of politicians and actually reach the people who can change anything.
Greenpeace recently protested on top of British PM Rishi Sunak’s private mansion while he was away. And they still got swamped with “YoU cAnT pRoTeSt LiKe tHaT” and people coming up with the most contrived reasons to say they are hypocritical.
It literally does not matter how these people protests, people will always say they are doing it the wrong way, because chuds dont actually mean it when they say that. They simply dont want them to protest at all, so they can pretend its not happening.
And maybe, just maybe, the protesters should have a goal of not only getting their message out but winning people over to their side. Maybe a goal of gaining support.
I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention
I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention
It’s literally the only strategy that has ever worked before, other than outright violence.
After all, who gives a shit about “positive attention” for its own sake? What matters is actually effecting change, and that does not require people to like you.
The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.
100%. The moment you point out that this isn’t the way to go you’re instantly seen as the bad one, that you don’t want to be inconvenienced. It’s so dumb.
I have this big thing I love to go into where I list dozens of better ways of getting media attention and starting dialog, one of the ideas is a big group of well organised people going to clean train stations and educate people on why trains are more climate friendly than cars and why that’s important…
Talked up a lot of people involved in and supporting direct action and they all say one of two things ‘i don’t have time for this’ or ‘yeah sounds great but I’m going to stick with things that haven’t been working for decades thanks’
I really have come to belive that for most people in these things the environment is just an excuse for attention seeking, or the support of these groups acts as a way of telling themselves ‘we try so hard but nothing changes’ because they don’t actually want change, they just want a way of separating themselves from the guilt of consumerism.
It’s like the chorus of people saying that it’s corporations that use all the plastic, like the list of top ten plastic uses isn’t just a list of companies that make products everyone uses - coke is in the list for example, they don’t have a massive pile of plastic bottles to swim in like Scrooge McDuck nor do they have some magic power that forces people to buy their drinks. Working together we could change the world, but no one wants to change they just want a moment of self importance and an excuse for being part of it.
And if they protested people commuting into a city, a huge source of global emissions, they’d be criticized for that too. People always manage to label protests as the wrong time/place. What they really mean is “protest is fine as long as no one, especially me, is asked to actually pay attention to it.”
May, just maybe, those aren’t the only two choices. Maybe they could also protest in front of offices of politicians and actually reach the people who can change anything.
Greenpeace recently protested on top of British PM Rishi Sunak’s private mansion while he was away. And they still got swamped with “YoU cAnT pRoTeSt LiKe tHaT” and people coming up with the most contrived reasons to say they are hypocritical.
It literally does not matter how these people protests, people will always say they are doing it the wrong way, because chuds dont actually mean it when they say that. They simply dont want them to protest at all, so they can pretend its not happening.
That’s the problem.
???
And maybe, just maybe, the protesters should have a goal of not only getting their message out but winning people over to their side. Maybe a goal of gaining support.
I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention
It’s literally the only strategy that has ever worked before, other than outright violence.
After all, who gives a shit about “positive attention” for its own sake? What matters is actually effecting change, and that does not require people to like you.
When has this stragety ever worked?
Lunch counter sit ins in the 1960s are the first thing that came to mind.
Yeah…
Racism is almost non existent now, because of this /s
The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.
It never worked, don’t delude yourself.
Weird flex to brag about not knowing history
What if you want to make a movement lose support? Could you then do this as a tactic to hurt a cause?
100%. The moment you point out that this isn’t the way to go you’re instantly seen as the bad one, that you don’t want to be inconvenienced. It’s so dumb.
People have done that but the publicity isn’t nearly as large as a globally televised event.
That’s a fair point yeah, I guess the publicity does help
Any publicity is good publicity, huh? Here’s a data point that says “nope”
I have this big thing I love to go into where I list dozens of better ways of getting media attention and starting dialog, one of the ideas is a big group of well organised people going to clean train stations and educate people on why trains are more climate friendly than cars and why that’s important…
Talked up a lot of people involved in and supporting direct action and they all say one of two things ‘i don’t have time for this’ or ‘yeah sounds great but I’m going to stick with things that haven’t been working for decades thanks’
I really have come to belive that for most people in these things the environment is just an excuse for attention seeking, or the support of these groups acts as a way of telling themselves ‘we try so hard but nothing changes’ because they don’t actually want change, they just want a way of separating themselves from the guilt of consumerism.
It’s like the chorus of people saying that it’s corporations that use all the plastic, like the list of top ten plastic uses isn’t just a list of companies that make products everyone uses - coke is in the list for example, they don’t have a massive pile of plastic bottles to swim in like Scrooge McDuck nor do they have some magic power that forces people to buy their drinks. Working together we could change the world, but no one wants to change they just want a moment of self importance and an excuse for being part of it.
deleted by creator