The environment just isn’t worth explaining things to people
Nah. It’s about a more effective use of the time to actually change the world. If you want answers, you got history and that book to read. There is no point in convincing you because, as I said, your anger works in favor of them.
And before someone adds the “but you are still answering” argument, well I’m answering when I have 2 minutes to write this stuff that is not as high effort as a clear explanation that would still open up to more and more and more questions :)
Of course it does. I’ve been thoughtful and engaged on every point. Solving the climate crisis is important, I’ve been breathing in our burning-down forests all summer. And it’s a difficult problem because the machinery of society is a very difficult thing to steer in new directions. I’m engaging critically with your bad ideas, and you choose to interpret that as bad faith because you care more about your ideas than you do about the climate crisis.
If you want answers, you got history and that book to read.
If this were true then you would already have explained the relevant points. And you still have the opportunity. Because I’m being good faith enough to ignore your bratty dismissals and to try again to get an actual response from you other than “There is no point in convincing you”
as we know, not enough people are agitated and so all the past “educate” made by scientists has been pretty much useless
we need to raise the tension then
to raise the tension in a system where power lies in the hands of those that don’t want the tension, you need to force it
to force it without power, you have very little range of options
these actions are discussed a lot also out of the conscious-about-climate-people bubble
so it’s basically stealing time and cognitive energy from the shit media to this shit actions
the models of the past that worked better are the one for the workers rights and the one for the black people civil rights
in both cases, there was a whole ecology of actions: violent protests, disobedience, non violent marches, super far left parties, more moderate parties and so on.
they are a functional part of our ecology that is forcing the media to ring some bells
Here in Italy, they recently received a meeting with the climate minister, for example. No association could have that.
An impactful and radical change requires a whole ecology of movements with different strategies and tactics. Unless you have power in the system you are trying to change, obv.
What I’m seeing is a minister met with Greta Thurnberg. She’s a celebrity who gives talks on actual environmental issues. This is effective because it’s explicitly about the environment.
I’m not aware of situations where people inconveniencing each other (but NOT inconveniencing power) led to meaningful change. Civil rights activists inconvenienced power, not each other.
Are you sure that black panthers or red brigades inconvenienced only those in power? Btw I was not talking about Greta Thunberg but Ultima Generazione, the Italian chapter of Just Stop Oil. Yes, the ones that put cleanable paint over stuff or block the roads
Didn’t seem like it ^^
Nah. It’s about a more effective use of the time to actually change the world. If you want answers, you got history and that book to read. There is no point in convincing you because, as I said, your anger works in favor of them.
And before someone adds the “but you are still answering” argument, well I’m answering when I have 2 minutes to write this stuff that is not as high effort as a clear explanation that would still open up to more and more and more questions :)
Of course it does. I’ve been thoughtful and engaged on every point. Solving the climate crisis is important, I’ve been breathing in our burning-down forests all summer. And it’s a difficult problem because the machinery of society is a very difficult thing to steer in new directions. I’m engaging critically with your bad ideas, and you choose to interpret that as bad faith because you care more about your ideas than you do about the climate crisis.
If this were true then you would already have explained the relevant points. And you still have the opportunity. Because I’m being good faith enough to ignore your bratty dismissals and to try again to get an actual response from you other than “There is no point in convincing you”
I’ll try to sum it up in a pointed list.
Here in Italy, they recently received a meeting with the climate minister, for example. No association could have that.
An impactful and radical change requires a whole ecology of movements with different strategies and tactics. Unless you have power in the system you are trying to change, obv.
This is an actual response, thanks.
What I’m seeing is a minister met with Greta Thurnberg. She’s a celebrity who gives talks on actual environmental issues. This is effective because it’s explicitly about the environment.
I’m not aware of situations where people inconveniencing each other (but NOT inconveniencing power) led to meaningful change. Civil rights activists inconvenienced power, not each other.
Are you sure that black panthers or red brigades inconvenienced only those in power? Btw I was not talking about Greta Thunberg but Ultima Generazione, the Italian chapter of Just Stop Oil. Yes, the ones that put cleanable paint over stuff or block the roads
Blocking roads is related to the climate crisis. This makes perfect sense.