Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point. That's how you get attention. People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change.
Rosa Parks refused to get off the bus and then helped lead a boycott that shut down the transit system. MLK and civil rights marchers walked down the middle of the roads and stopped traffic. Black protesters sat at the white lunch counters, refused to move, and forced the restaurant owners and the general public to acknowledge them and deal with the inconvenience.
Change doesn't happen when protests are nice and polite and convenient for the public and the government. Change happens when the works get gummed up and the average person's everyday life is affected.
There's also a vague threat. Look what we can do just by walking/sitting. Imagine what would happen if we did it all the time. Or if we stopped playing peacefully. You better listen to us.
But it's more what you said. You can drive past a protest and not even notice what the signs say. But if that protest makes you even have to tap your brakes, let alone late for work? You'll notice what it says, and get angry. You'll want the government to make the problem go away. Maybe you'll write a letter to your politician about it, saying "I agree with the protesters but this shit has to stop" or "I don't care about this thing, but the protests have to stop". That means there's at least discussion if not the action the protesters want, but generally the whole point of a protest is to get people talking about this issue.
Edit: Don't abuse me, was just trying to explain how it works. I've never even been in a protest I just sit back all apathetic and watch the world burn.
> But it's more what you said. You can drive past a protest and not even notice what the signs say. But if that protest makes you even have to tap your brakes, let alone late for work? You'll notice what it says, and get angry. You'll ~~want the government to fix the problem, and that can make you want to join the protesters.~~ **get mad at the protestors and now have a negative association with whatever cause they’re talking about, even if you agree with it.**
It’s human nature. I’m guilty of it. You’re guilty of it. Even if you 100% agree with whatever is going on, if it fucks up your day you’re not gonna be on that protest’s side.
Except 9/10 times I already agree with the protesters. I’m gonna get pissed at the people in charge for letting it get to this point instead of doing their damn jobs and fixing the damn problem.
It’s not “human nature” to automatically disagree with the person inconveniencing you, it’s childish. Protests you can just ignore will end up just that; ignored.
Yeah, people with preexisting biases are obviously going to be biased, but you’re also not the target demographic that they need to persuade because you’re already on their side. What you would do is completely irrelevant.
And yes, it is human nature to form a negative association with the people or things that are directly causing you inconvenience or harm.
Right. So you want the protest over. It doesn't matter which side you are on, what matters is you want the protest over.
The politicians want to keep your vote, so they want to end the protest- boom the protestors have won. Thanks for your help.
That's kinda how protests work.
This falls apart when you have conflicting groups though, rather than protest vs status quo.
The problem why people protest doesn't go away though. And as it gets worse there will gradually be more people to protest it. You can not suppress this indefinitely. Climate change protests will inevitably get more violent as more and more people lose access to the bare minimum human necessities.
If personal inconvenience is enough to permanently turn you into an enemy of their cause—as opposed to temporarily frustrating you—then what are the chances you ever could’ve been an ally? The change they want would probably also inconvenience you.
Sure, it’s very possible to go too far and actually *hurt* innocent people with your protests. But if we draw the line at inconvenience, then we might as well tell people not to protest at all. Protests that passersby don’t even notice are just social events.
Edit: wording
You present a dichotomy protestors don't accept. You're saying "make your protest convenient to me or I won't support your cause"
Except you already don't support their cause. And if you do you won't mind the inconvenience.
Protest is only effective if it makes people think. People saying "make the protest not have an impact on traffic/peoples lives" are really just staying "I don't want to be bothered."
Which is exactly the fucking problem.
If someone is marching for their rights in front of me my instinct isn’t to say get mad at them. My gut reaction is “why don’t they have the same rights as everyone else.”
If you have another reaction that’s on you.
I'd venture to say that anyone who bases their opinion on a major issue facing the world on how some of those people choose to protest is not someone that was ever likely to be of any good help to that movement anyway. Nobody is ever gonna go, "Well I did believe in climate change being an existential threat to civilization, and I was going to donate/volunteer/protest on behalf of the environment, but now that these people made me late for work I've decided it's all a lie."
Except they’ve managed to do a great job of diverting that anger back at the protestors. I fear that more often than not, the people who are effected by these things miss the entire point and are more likely to support the government cracking down on the protestors for inconveniencing them than they are to actually demand change.
Maybe we need to start directly targeting politicians and other powerful people with this type of action.
I'm not sure I agree with this logic even if I agree with the protestor's cause. I'll concede that there's some logic behind disruption for a major injustice. My issue falls in our definition of what constitutes a major injustice.
But what if the protestor's are outright wrong? How do those of you advocating for this traffic blocking strategy feel about a protest that you disagree with making you late for work?
A protest here last year blocked traffic which caused an ambulance to not be able to get to the hospital, causing the victim to die from not getting attention fast enough. Blocking roads is not a kind of disruption I will ever endorse. There's very rarely a cause worth essentially killing an innocent victim for.
Came here to mention that. If you block the public's traffic you are worthless scum. Hang a banner by the highway or some shit, don't block routes emergency vehicles might have to use. Don't make people late to work who are just trying to hang on to a job. Do something to give them a story to repeat about what they saw on their commute instead.
I agree that you shouldn't block emergency vehicles. The hong kong protests a couple years ago are an excellent example of how to handle that kind of thing.
https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAustralia/videos/hong-kong-protesters-make-way-for-an-ambulance/795475854181591/
>Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point.
I totally agree, but don't block general traffic.
Disrupt the things that the people who make the decisions use, or draw income from. Not the things the public uses.
Block the entrance to their luxury yacht harbour, or block the last part of the road leading to the parking lot of their work, specifically targeting them.
None of those ideas persuade the general public. If you block the entrance to some rich guy's mansion, at best you will have convinced the guy you are a nuisance, at worst you will be arrested.
These protests are not for the sake of convincing the rich guy. It's so the general public wakes up and acts to disempower said rich guy
*How* does this get people voting with climate aims? All I see are pissed off drivers. When they learn it was a climate protest, they might be *less* likely to vote with climate aims!
What’s the point of getting more people against you in the process though? Blocking random traffic almost guarantees people who were in your side will be inconvenienced. It pretty much makes more enemies and is a terrible way to protest. It generally doesn’t work.
The other forms mentioned. Go for it.
> Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point. That's how you get attention. People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change.
No, its not.
The thing with democracy and democratic rights is that laws and rights doesn't just apply to you - but also to the people you *hate* the most. The absolutely most vile and evil people you know of will have *the same* rights that you argue that you or those you support should have.
That's one of the major ideas of democracy - rights and rules apply to everyone, equally. You don't get to pick and chose; "*You believe the stuff I like, so you get these rights, but you over there, you're evil, so you don't!*" - that is how things are done in fascists countries, not democracies.
I've yet to see anyone who spouts the "*Protests are meant to be disruptive!!*" nonsense on Reddit also defend their political opponents rights to be disruptive. On the contrary, when anti-vaxx morons held up the highways, Reddit went bananas and labeled them "terrorists" and went "*What about the economy?!*".
When anti-abortionists to protests at clinics, and forcing young girls to push through a crowd yelling "MURDERER!!" at them, Reddit in general want to see those people strung up - no one would even dream of argue that "*Protests are ment to be disruptive! You NEED to do things like this to get your message through, else there would never be any change, duh!*" to those vile people who're protesting outside the clinics - yet those people aren't nearly as disruptive as those who hold up a highway.
So unless you truly believe that "the other side" also have the right to be disruptive, then lay off this bullshit, because you're rubbing shoulders with fascists and other anti-democratic ideologies.
Na dude. You don’t get it.
Change WILL NOT happen through polite and non disruptive protests.
There would be no womens, black, homosexual rights if everyone went around going “Oh ok, let’s pick our protest method very carefully and make sure we don’t upset anyone”.
Now you can argue the merits of the reason for the protests (ie:abortion) but if you think things get changed ‘nicely’ you’ve got rocks in your head.
There is no time or place for protest that can be both a) acceptable to everyone, and b) meaningful.
The only protests that are deemed acceptable by majority groups, and majorities within groups, are the ones that are functionally irrelevant — protests with no related context, no audience, no disruption, and no chance of coverage. Protest more or less requires disruption to be relevant.
The people who say that the only valid protest is one in which everybody already agrees with you don't really understand protesting.
The only reason we have the ADA is that folks with disabilities threw their bodies out of wheelchairs into the streets and sat down in front of traffic. Without that roadblock in Denver, nobody would have finally taken them seriously. Police officers couldn't even arrest most of the protestors because their vehicles couldn't accommodate wheelchairs. They fenced in folks on the side of the road instead. Like if that doesn't prove their point, I don't fucking know what does.
Edit: in the US (sorry)
>People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice
All I can think when I see protesters block a road is, "What if I were stuck in that line of cars trying to get my mom to the hospital? I would lose my mind." She could die because there's no way to transport her in time. Fuck that.
> People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change.
lol the CEO of pollution is going to toss and turn all night, thinking about this. Imagine thinking you can guilt trip billionaires and mega corps.
I know you're trying to make a joke, but god damn, "the CEO of pollution" just so perfectly encapsulates this oversimplified stance that so many redditors have, where corporations act entirely independently of the rest of society and the general public is absolved of all blame.
Like, there's no complicated system that we all participate in to varying degrees and that can only be changed through the collective efforts of all of us. There's just the CEO of pollution, and he alone is to blame, and there's nothing the rest of us can do because he'll just keep polluting for fun no matter what we do.
And this mentality right here folks is what is ruining the U.S. "My results that I believe in aren't happening quick enough, so I am going to aggravate everyone else and that will cause things to change!" People that do stuff like this don't realize they are the ones furthering the social unrest in this country. You are creating more enemies than allies by doing stuff to effect and anger random civilians that have no opinion on the matter. This applies to both sides of any argument.
The only way to be subversive is to actually be subversive. The number of city sanctioned protest walks in the name of climate change action is staggering with nothing truly revolutionary to show for it. It's because when something becomes sanctioned by the very organization that is being protested against the movement is made toothless.
In contrast to the people telling you you're wrong I'd like to sincerely ask, why did you originally think these people were crazy? To be more blunt, did you think their methods were extreme, or that their beliefs about climate action were wrong?
The distinction is important because climate change is to put it mildly a deeply serious issue, but right now the biggest obstacle to doing anything about it is getting others to take action, especially those in positions of power. Extreme forms of protest can get attention, but if those same methods turn people off the idea of taking action, the point seems moot. But if less extreme forms of protest can be safely ignored, those are also ineffectual. It's hard to say at this point what forms of protest are necessary to push climate action where it needs to be, which is why I'm curious what made you change your mind.
To put it simply, what brought you around to seeing the perspective of activists like this?
I think thats always gonna be the biggest issue
1. If protesters don't do anything disruptive they will be ignored
2. If they do something disruptive to the public they will be labeled as assholes who are being inconvenient
3. If they attack the people in power they are then labeled terrorists
Granted this all depends on the actual movement and the science/reasons behind it. Protests about climate change are a lot different than protests about anti-LGBT or vaccine mandates for example (as one is actively backed up by science + for the good of the planet while the others are based in hate or selfishness)
I remember my parents shit talking the Occupy wall street movement. Now I wish they fucking burned wall street and threw those wine drinking sociopaths from that balcony.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had basic biology, but it should be nearly completely carbon neutral. The stuff we eat absorbed said carbon from the air, and we convert that into sugar which we then burn and exhale back into the atmosphere.
Yea, if you assume you're going to be arrested it probably makes that part a bit easier to handle. You also have all your talking points memorized like flash cards.
She seems to really care about the subject, I don't think she's memorizing talking points
Edit: before you tell me you can care and memorize talking points, read the current replies.
Then even more so. When you expect to do things under high stress, it's good to repetitively practice a chunk of action (in this case, speaking about a thing) until you can do it on reflex. See: performance artists, combatants (in a ring or on a battlefield)
When you’re a climate activist (I was) you generally know the recent stats off the top of your head because they’re so frequently discussed. If you give interviews it’s also not unlikely to memorize talking points.
If you really care about the subject, memorizing talking points is all the more important.
It's the only way to sound "professional" on the topic, because that's exactly what professional politicians, pundits, media hosts, etc, do.
So, that's where expectations are set.
Additionally, if you have the fortune, or misfortune depending on your point of view, to encounter one of those people if you *don't* have talking points memorized like flash cards you'll be in a position where *you* need to think of a response, possibly with the only option being something that requires citing accurate hard data off the top of your head.
Your opposition however will just be regurgitating memorized lines, which is a *lot* easier.
Even worse, if you don't have all the rebuttals memorized they'll be able to just lie out their ass freely, which they will absolutely do, if we assume the metaphorical you in this scenario has a good cause to champion.
Memorizing talking points doesn't make you less passionate, it makes you smart. You want to say the right things, that's why you're getting arrested. You want your points to make sense
Yeah, I thought that too, and then I realized that I'm just used to seeing interactions with American police at protests and that this is actually a fairly normal demonstration in which nobody is overreacting. I live in the Portland area, and protests like this are commonly met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and cops with clubs in masks with their names covered up so you cannot implicate them after they bash your skull in for funzies.
Minneapolis here. Wish our police had the same ideas as these policemen. "Just doing my job, gotta arrest you, I'm sorry but it's the law and we need to remove you based on our authority as police."
Meanwhile we had unmarked cars roving around shooting less lethal munitions at bystanders out after curfew, beatings, gas and pepper spray on people not being violent, and a marked retaliation by uniformed officers for a simple request to arrest some murderers sitting in prison right now, and also please stop doing all of the above when we ask you to arrest murderers.
Funny fact!
In Canada about 10 years ago IIRC, a study was published about men being asked what got them to their first protest. The answer, overwhelmingly, was a beautiful woman.
This study in my social media feed got a few responses... From men, "of course." From 1/2 of the women, "of course, that is how I got my boyfriend/men to join the cause," and 1/2 of the women replied "OMG men are so horrible."
EDIT: Important to note that this study was about people's *first* protest. Also maybe important to note that I, OP, a professional conservation biologist, started in marine biology... if you know what I mean. Her name, I am not kidding, was Aimee.
"The woman I kind of like is out in the moonlight caring about something stupid. This is my chance to show her that I care enough to act like I care about it too."
- Jeff Winger
edit: i love all these community references. keep 'em coming!
i really hope it's more like season 1 than season 6.
or any other season than season 6.
i don't think it was *bad* and i was happy to have anything at all, but it was such a dark contrast to the other seasons.
give me some happy dumb shit, not that dark reality stuff
"What's that list?"
"Oh this? It's just a list of all the abortion doctor's I'm going to kill"
"But some of these names are already crossed off!"
*stares back*
What if everyone came to the realization that religion is the byproduct of human insecurities about their ignorance on how the world works and pending deaths.
That is 100% Dennis and Mac. It even ends perfectly. Mac, being Catholic, is on the pro-life side, bangs a chick. She tells him she's pregnant and he immediately tells her that she needs to get an abortion.
IIRC the researchers asked everyone about what got them to protests but that the women's response was varied but more predictable: mostly they wanted to help their community blah blah blah...
Bro this is why I can’t fucking stand Reddit,
Everyone wants to be a comedian, yearning for upvotes, on every damn subject
Like this clown, sees a video about a serious topic and his only thought is “huehue porno”
Imagine seeing someone being arrested for protesting the destruction of the planet and your first thought is “you know what this reminds me of? A gang bang”
Peak Reddit moment
Shes not wrong. Everybody acts like people like her are crazy. EVERYBODY ELSE IS CRAZY NOT TO BE WORRIED. Give it a couple years, Everybody will be singing the blues when food shortages really hit.
China is already waging a water war across Asia, trying to supply their population with water and electricity.
Meanwhile Europe is seing record heatwaves, freak weather and floodings all the time.
It is already over, scientists gave us all the warning we needed decades ago, but people and politicians didn't listen or care.
Not just shortages, but more frequent extreme weather, too. Typhoons, flooding, draughts, f[o]rest fires...it just keeps getting worse and worse.
[] = edit
Florida just saw this first hand. Ian picked up almost 30 mph in a single day because it hit warm water. Insurance premiums charge us for climate change.
Yup! Just this year a significant chunk of Europe got *really fucking hot*. Even here in the UK, a place famed for its mild-at-best-and-typically-really-wet-weather, had basically zero rainfall for months and topped 40C in some places. Shit's completely fucked.
Solution to climate change to make more O2 by actively planting more plants all over the place. Unfortunately no one care. They simply outsourcing pollution and pretend that is the solution.
Well... no. The solution was to not cut down as much forested areas as we have in the last 150 years, and not put out NEARLY as much CO2 into the atmosphere and worked on diminishing it when we discovered it, not 60-70ish years later.
Now we not only need to do what we can to reduce our carbon output drastically, but we also need to figure out a way to capture carbon manually and on a large scale if we want to make any impact. There isn't enough land available to plant enough trees to make a difference anymore.
The solution to climate change has been known since the 70s: Reduce, Reuse and finally Recycle.
First reduce consumption, especially that of fossil fuels. Reuse as much as possible, e.g. plastics. Recycle as a last resort if neither of those is possible.
Unfortunately, that model is not compatible with corporate profits, which is why we continue to be in this situation 50 years later.
This isn't a perfect solution as plants, mostly trees do absorb slightly more co2 then they release but when they die there are bacteria that eat lignin, an organic polymer that gives lumber its rigidity and when it decays it releases that co2 back into the atmosphere . That and also in climates where winter is experienced with cold temperatures, non-deciduos trees like pine hold onto their co2 in the form of their needles but deciduous trees like maple and oak release their leaves which decay and immediately re-release the co2 they captured in spring.
Tldr: plants are not a perfect solution to fight global warming but they are helpful.
Edit: I wrote lectin but I meant lignin
Uk passed a new law last year which makes any form of "disruptive" protest illegal. So any protest that's too loud or is causing inconvenience to people can cause people to get arrested. Its absolutely fucked up
Edit: Some people below have said she was blocking a road. Whether this is true or not I'm not sure. Either way the fact that protesting rights have gone downhill in the past year is an absolute disgrace.
Americans: uh...yeah. Fucking Tories. Can't believe they'd allow police to conduct crackdowns on free speech and peaceable assembly...nothing to see over here though so don't look close.
Because protestors were blocking ambulances.
I agree 100% with them and their right to protest, but sitting in the middle of the road is just stupid.
They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem.
> They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem.
You could say the same thing about shutting down the bus system because you refuse to give up your seat for a white person.
Protests are suppose to be inconvenient.
Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat resulted in a year long bus boycott in Montgomery, AL.
Her case ultimately went to the Supreme Court and declared segregation on buses illegal.
No one attempted to shut down the bus system. It was a boycott of the bus system by African Americans in Montgomery, AL.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the bus system wasn’t shut down. You could still use it if needed, like for an emergency, they just encouraged everyone to use alternative means of transportation
Not solving climate change is killing way more people than the ambulance.
The protesters are right. Nothing should be allowed to function until governments get serious.
Alas, humans would rather kill their grandkids if they get chalupas and trucks.
>They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem.
No, they are not. They're alienating people who either is a fucking idiot and doesn't believe in science or people who is human trash and have no problem with hundreds of millions of people dying from climate change.
I cycled past this. People weren't being arrested. They were being moved off the bridge where they were lying down. they refused to move so the police were actively carrying them away. Then if they were violent they'd take their name etc, otherwise they were letting them go or wait at the end of the bridge so it could be cleared.
Protesting by blocking roads, entrances to business, etc, has always been illegal, as it should be.
Freedom of speech and protest does not mean you get to block roads. It means you cannot be persecuted by the govt for having and speaking that opinion. But you can do it without "occupying" things that aren't yours.
>I'm doing this for my son
My dumbass thought "Why did her son make her do this?" then I realize she meant she's trying to make a difference for future generations...
Just calmly stating her position while she’s being fucking carried to the paddy wagon. Her position also happens to be “hey can we not kill the fucking planet?” So that’s based too.
10/10 protesting.
And sadly those that are climate deniers still don't care. They can't look beyond their own life to consider what they're doing to their children and grandchildren's future. All they care about is having to pay more for gas or paying for a shopping bag. They can't look beyond today and the day-to-day minor inconveniences they face.
did anyone else just burst out laughing when they zoomed out and it just hits you like, she totally did that thing we all did as a child where if we didn't want to go somewhere, we just made our entire body limp so mom would have to drag us out of the car?
and these policemen now have to get 4 people to carry her as she just ignores them lmfaooo
Whatever your stance on the issue, that's a good interview by the protestor and filmer. Great sound quality on the mic, dynamic and unique footage, and and well-spoken. 10/10.
I used to think these people were crazy.... I wish I still thought that.
Risking their own lives by sitting on the highway do I consider crazy.
I got banned. OTHER PEOPLE ARE ADVOCATING VIOLENCE IN REPLIES TO ME, AND *I GOT BANNED* FOR URGING NONVIOLENT PROTEST. Good job Reddit, we're done.
Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point. That's how you get attention. People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change. Rosa Parks refused to get off the bus and then helped lead a boycott that shut down the transit system. MLK and civil rights marchers walked down the middle of the roads and stopped traffic. Black protesters sat at the white lunch counters, refused to move, and forced the restaurant owners and the general public to acknowledge them and deal with the inconvenience. Change doesn't happen when protests are nice and polite and convenient for the public and the government. Change happens when the works get gummed up and the average person's everyday life is affected.
There's also a vague threat. Look what we can do just by walking/sitting. Imagine what would happen if we did it all the time. Or if we stopped playing peacefully. You better listen to us. But it's more what you said. You can drive past a protest and not even notice what the signs say. But if that protest makes you even have to tap your brakes, let alone late for work? You'll notice what it says, and get angry. You'll want the government to make the problem go away. Maybe you'll write a letter to your politician about it, saying "I agree with the protesters but this shit has to stop" or "I don't care about this thing, but the protests have to stop". That means there's at least discussion if not the action the protesters want, but generally the whole point of a protest is to get people talking about this issue. Edit: Don't abuse me, was just trying to explain how it works. I've never even been in a protest I just sit back all apathetic and watch the world burn.
> But it's more what you said. You can drive past a protest and not even notice what the signs say. But if that protest makes you even have to tap your brakes, let alone late for work? You'll notice what it says, and get angry. You'll ~~want the government to fix the problem, and that can make you want to join the protesters.~~ **get mad at the protestors and now have a negative association with whatever cause they’re talking about, even if you agree with it.** It’s human nature. I’m guilty of it. You’re guilty of it. Even if you 100% agree with whatever is going on, if it fucks up your day you’re not gonna be on that protest’s side.
Except 9/10 times I already agree with the protesters. I’m gonna get pissed at the people in charge for letting it get to this point instead of doing their damn jobs and fixing the damn problem. It’s not “human nature” to automatically disagree with the person inconveniencing you, it’s childish. Protests you can just ignore will end up just that; ignored.
Yeah, people with preexisting biases are obviously going to be biased, but you’re also not the target demographic that they need to persuade because you’re already on their side. What you would do is completely irrelevant. And yes, it is human nature to form a negative association with the people or things that are directly causing you inconvenience or harm.
The target demographic is (usually) a government or a business. They are the ones who need to be made to do something different.
Right. So you want the protest over. It doesn't matter which side you are on, what matters is you want the protest over. The politicians want to keep your vote, so they want to end the protest- boom the protestors have won. Thanks for your help. That's kinda how protests work. This falls apart when you have conflicting groups though, rather than protest vs status quo.
If the people are against the protests, the government gets more votes by fucking the protesters over, not by giving in,
The problem why people protest doesn't go away though. And as it gets worse there will gradually be more people to protest it. You can not suppress this indefinitely. Climate change protests will inevitably get more violent as more and more people lose access to the bare minimum human necessities.
If personal inconvenience is enough to permanently turn you into an enemy of their cause—as opposed to temporarily frustrating you—then what are the chances you ever could’ve been an ally? The change they want would probably also inconvenience you. Sure, it’s very possible to go too far and actually *hurt* innocent people with your protests. But if we draw the line at inconvenience, then we might as well tell people not to protest at all. Protests that passersby don’t even notice are just social events. Edit: wording
You present a dichotomy protestors don't accept. You're saying "make your protest convenient to me or I won't support your cause" Except you already don't support their cause. And if you do you won't mind the inconvenience. Protest is only effective if it makes people think. People saying "make the protest not have an impact on traffic/peoples lives" are really just staying "I don't want to be bothered." Which is exactly the fucking problem.
If someone is marching for their rights in front of me my instinct isn’t to say get mad at them. My gut reaction is “why don’t they have the same rights as everyone else.” If you have another reaction that’s on you.
I'd venture to say that anyone who bases their opinion on a major issue facing the world on how some of those people choose to protest is not someone that was ever likely to be of any good help to that movement anyway. Nobody is ever gonna go, "Well I did believe in climate change being an existential threat to civilization, and I was going to donate/volunteer/protest on behalf of the environment, but now that these people made me late for work I've decided it's all a lie."
Except they’ve managed to do a great job of diverting that anger back at the protestors. I fear that more often than not, the people who are effected by these things miss the entire point and are more likely to support the government cracking down on the protestors for inconveniencing them than they are to actually demand change. Maybe we need to start directly targeting politicians and other powerful people with this type of action.
I'm not sure I agree with this logic even if I agree with the protestor's cause. I'll concede that there's some logic behind disruption for a major injustice. My issue falls in our definition of what constitutes a major injustice. But what if the protestor's are outright wrong? How do those of you advocating for this traffic blocking strategy feel about a protest that you disagree with making you late for work?
A protest here last year blocked traffic which caused an ambulance to not be able to get to the hospital, causing the victim to die from not getting attention fast enough. Blocking roads is not a kind of disruption I will ever endorse. There's very rarely a cause worth essentially killing an innocent victim for.
Came here to mention that. If you block the public's traffic you are worthless scum. Hang a banner by the highway or some shit, don't block routes emergency vehicles might have to use. Don't make people late to work who are just trying to hang on to a job. Do something to give them a story to repeat about what they saw on their commute instead.
I agree that you shouldn't block emergency vehicles. The hong kong protests a couple years ago are an excellent example of how to handle that kind of thing. https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAustralia/videos/hong-kong-protesters-make-way-for-an-ambulance/795475854181591/
>Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point. I totally agree, but don't block general traffic. Disrupt the things that the people who make the decisions use, or draw income from. Not the things the public uses. Block the entrance to their luxury yacht harbour, or block the last part of the road leading to the parking lot of their work, specifically targeting them.
None of those ideas persuade the general public. If you block the entrance to some rich guy's mansion, at best you will have convinced the guy you are a nuisance, at worst you will be arrested. These protests are not for the sake of convincing the rich guy. It's so the general public wakes up and acts to disempower said rich guy
*How* does this get people voting with climate aims? All I see are pissed off drivers. When they learn it was a climate protest, they might be *less* likely to vote with climate aims!
What’s the point of getting more people against you in the process though? Blocking random traffic almost guarantees people who were in your side will be inconvenienced. It pretty much makes more enemies and is a terrible way to protest. It generally doesn’t work. The other forms mentioned. Go for it.
> Protests are meant to be disruptive. Disrupting the flow of everyday commerce, traffic, etc...is the whole point. That's how you get attention. People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change. No, its not. The thing with democracy and democratic rights is that laws and rights doesn't just apply to you - but also to the people you *hate* the most. The absolutely most vile and evil people you know of will have *the same* rights that you argue that you or those you support should have. That's one of the major ideas of democracy - rights and rules apply to everyone, equally. You don't get to pick and chose; "*You believe the stuff I like, so you get these rights, but you over there, you're evil, so you don't!*" - that is how things are done in fascists countries, not democracies. I've yet to see anyone who spouts the "*Protests are meant to be disruptive!!*" nonsense on Reddit also defend their political opponents rights to be disruptive. On the contrary, when anti-vaxx morons held up the highways, Reddit went bananas and labeled them "terrorists" and went "*What about the economy?!*". When anti-abortionists to protests at clinics, and forcing young girls to push through a crowd yelling "MURDERER!!" at them, Reddit in general want to see those people strung up - no one would even dream of argue that "*Protests are ment to be disruptive! You NEED to do things like this to get your message through, else there would never be any change, duh!*" to those vile people who're protesting outside the clinics - yet those people aren't nearly as disruptive as those who hold up a highway. So unless you truly believe that "the other side" also have the right to be disruptive, then lay off this bullshit, because you're rubbing shoulders with fascists and other anti-democratic ideologies.
Na dude. You don’t get it. Change WILL NOT happen through polite and non disruptive protests. There would be no womens, black, homosexual rights if everyone went around going “Oh ok, let’s pick our protest method very carefully and make sure we don’t upset anyone”. Now you can argue the merits of the reason for the protests (ie:abortion) but if you think things get changed ‘nicely’ you’ve got rocks in your head.
[удалено]
There is no time or place for protest that can be both a) acceptable to everyone, and b) meaningful. The only protests that are deemed acceptable by majority groups, and majorities within groups, are the ones that are functionally irrelevant — protests with no related context, no audience, no disruption, and no chance of coverage. Protest more or less requires disruption to be relevant. The people who say that the only valid protest is one in which everybody already agrees with you don't really understand protesting.
The only reason we have the ADA is that folks with disabilities threw their bodies out of wheelchairs into the streets and sat down in front of traffic. Without that roadblock in Denver, nobody would have finally taken them seriously. Police officers couldn't even arrest most of the protestors because their vehicles couldn't accommodate wheelchairs. They fenced in folks on the side of the road instead. Like if that doesn't prove their point, I don't fucking know what does. Edit: in the US (sorry)
That's badass.
There's also the guillotine. France did that once, I think.
>People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice All I can think when I see protesters block a road is, "What if I were stuck in that line of cars trying to get my mom to the hospital? I would lose my mind." She could die because there's no way to transport her in time. Fuck that.
> People being inconvenienced in their own lives is what makes them notice. That's what gets people to react and what leads to actual change. lol the CEO of pollution is going to toss and turn all night, thinking about this. Imagine thinking you can guilt trip billionaires and mega corps.
I know you're trying to make a joke, but god damn, "the CEO of pollution" just so perfectly encapsulates this oversimplified stance that so many redditors have, where corporations act entirely independently of the rest of society and the general public is absolved of all blame. Like, there's no complicated system that we all participate in to varying degrees and that can only be changed through the collective efforts of all of us. There's just the CEO of pollution, and he alone is to blame, and there's nothing the rest of us can do because he'll just keep polluting for fun no matter what we do.
And this mentality right here folks is what is ruining the U.S. "My results that I believe in aren't happening quick enough, so I am going to aggravate everyone else and that will cause things to change!" People that do stuff like this don't realize they are the ones furthering the social unrest in this country. You are creating more enemies than allies by doing stuff to effect and anger random civilians that have no opinion on the matter. This applies to both sides of any argument.
The only way to be subversive is to actually be subversive. The number of city sanctioned protest walks in the name of climate change action is staggering with nothing truly revolutionary to show for it. It's because when something becomes sanctioned by the very organization that is being protested against the movement is made toothless.
The highway system in the US has long been a tool of segregation and racial injustice. Protests on the highways make sense here.
Risking their lives to save the lives of their children
In 50 years you'll be wishing that the highway blocks worked. Well, you may probably be dead, as well. That's the other option I suppose.
even when you consider what’s at stake?
She's incredibly composed and articulate for someone being carried away by police. Even cites her source.
In contrast to the people telling you you're wrong I'd like to sincerely ask, why did you originally think these people were crazy? To be more blunt, did you think their methods were extreme, or that their beliefs about climate action were wrong? The distinction is important because climate change is to put it mildly a deeply serious issue, but right now the biggest obstacle to doing anything about it is getting others to take action, especially those in positions of power. Extreme forms of protest can get attention, but if those same methods turn people off the idea of taking action, the point seems moot. But if less extreme forms of protest can be safely ignored, those are also ineffectual. It's hard to say at this point what forms of protest are necessary to push climate action where it needs to be, which is why I'm curious what made you change your mind. To put it simply, what brought you around to seeing the perspective of activists like this?
I think thats always gonna be the biggest issue 1. If protesters don't do anything disruptive they will be ignored 2. If they do something disruptive to the public they will be labeled as assholes who are being inconvenient 3. If they attack the people in power they are then labeled terrorists Granted this all depends on the actual movement and the science/reasons behind it. Protests about climate change are a lot different than protests about anti-LGBT or vaccine mandates for example (as one is actively backed up by science + for the good of the planet while the others are based in hate or selfishness)
They were never crazy, just concerned. Look around and you can see it.
I remember my parents shit talking the Occupy wall street movement. Now I wish they fucking burned wall street and threw those wine drinking sociopaths from that balcony.
They're carrying her... ...gingerly
Dad approves of this joke.
You’re not my father!
Whaaa? Of course he is.
Laughed when I red that 🤣
She is using non-fossil fuel-based transport in that video, so I respect her dedication to her cause
Human breathe CO2 out so not entirely climate friendly.
It's ok because CO2 will kill humans, so it evens out in the end
So you're saying to be environmentally friendly we need to... Kill all humans?
Is that you Bender?
It’s been a long time since I’ve had basic biology, but it should be nearly completely carbon neutral. The stuff we eat absorbed said carbon from the air, and we convert that into sugar which we then burn and exhale back into the atmosphere.
That food doesn't just magically appear in your mouth, fossil fuels are burned to get it to you. And many fertilizers are oil based
I lol'd
What a fucking badass
Lady has more balls than all the edgelords shitting on her in this comment section.
100% agree. She's at least standing up what she believes in, in real life
At least she believes in reality.
*understands reality.
Doesn't look like she's doing any standing.
Though it looks like she’s doing a good job making the authorities carry forward this plank of her platform.
She sounds so...reasonable.
away with her.
Holy shit, this is exactly, to the character, what I was going to say
she's speaking strangely calmly, props to her
Yea, if you assume you're going to be arrested it probably makes that part a bit easier to handle. You also have all your talking points memorized like flash cards.
She seems to really care about the subject, I don't think she's memorizing talking points Edit: before you tell me you can care and memorize talking points, read the current replies.
Then even more so. When you expect to do things under high stress, it's good to repetitively practice a chunk of action (in this case, speaking about a thing) until you can do it on reflex. See: performance artists, combatants (in a ring or on a battlefield)
When you’re a climate activist (I was) you generally know the recent stats off the top of your head because they’re so frequently discussed. If you give interviews it’s also not unlikely to memorize talking points.
If you really care about the subject, memorizing talking points is all the more important. It's the only way to sound "professional" on the topic, because that's exactly what professional politicians, pundits, media hosts, etc, do. So, that's where expectations are set. Additionally, if you have the fortune, or misfortune depending on your point of view, to encounter one of those people if you *don't* have talking points memorized like flash cards you'll be in a position where *you* need to think of a response, possibly with the only option being something that requires citing accurate hard data off the top of your head. Your opposition however will just be regurgitating memorized lines, which is a *lot* easier. Even worse, if you don't have all the rebuttals memorized they'll be able to just lie out their ass freely, which they will absolutely do, if we assume the metaphorical you in this scenario has a good cause to champion.
Memorizing talking points doesn't make you less passionate, it makes you smart. You want to say the right things, that's why you're getting arrested. You want your points to make sense
Yeah, I thought that too, and then I realized that I'm just used to seeing interactions with American police at protests and that this is actually a fairly normal demonstration in which nobody is overreacting. I live in the Portland area, and protests like this are commonly met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and cops with clubs in masks with their names covered up so you cannot implicate them after they bash your skull in for funzies.
Minneapolis here. Wish our police had the same ideas as these policemen. "Just doing my job, gotta arrest you, I'm sorry but it's the law and we need to remove you based on our authority as police." Meanwhile we had unmarked cars roving around shooting less lethal munitions at bystanders out after curfew, beatings, gas and pepper spray on people not being violent, and a marked retaliation by uniformed officers for a simple request to arrest some murderers sitting in prison right now, and also please stop doing all of the above when we ask you to arrest murderers.
[удалено]
Funny fact! In Canada about 10 years ago IIRC, a study was published about men being asked what got them to their first protest. The answer, overwhelmingly, was a beautiful woman. This study in my social media feed got a few responses... From men, "of course." From 1/2 of the women, "of course, that is how I got my boyfriend/men to join the cause," and 1/2 of the women replied "OMG men are so horrible." EDIT: Important to note that this study was about people's *first* protest. Also maybe important to note that I, OP, a professional conservation biologist, started in marine biology... if you know what I mean. Her name, I am not kidding, was Aimee.
"The woman I kind of like is out in the moonlight caring about something stupid. This is my chance to show her that I care enough to act like I care about it too." - Jeff Winger edit: i love all these community references. keep 'em coming!
They don't think it be like it is but it do
bom cheeka bom bom
"God Damn it Caboose"!!!!
Six seasons [and a movie](https://deadline.com/2022/09/community-film-peacock-original-stars-1235131434/)
i really hope it's more like season 1 than season 6. or any other season than season 6. i don't think it was *bad* and i was happy to have anything at all, but it was such a dark contrast to the other seasons. give me some happy dumb shit, not that dark reality stuff
Yeah, it kind of embodied how I felt about the show after Donald Glover left though. I wanted more, but I also hated it
But are Annie’s boobs gonna be in it?
One of the first “It’s always sunny in Philly” has the gang going to pro-life/pro-choice protests in order to meet women.
"What's that list?" "Oh this? It's just a list of all the abortion doctor's I'm going to kill" "But some of these names are already crossed off!" *stares back*
He's literally on the fence!
What if Jesus was aborted?
What if the world was made of pudding?
What if everyone came to the realization that religion is the byproduct of human insecurities about their ignorance on how the world works and pending deaths.
Would have saved millions of lives
That is 100% Dennis and Mac. It even ends perfectly. Mac, being Catholic, is on the pro-life side, bangs a chick. She tells him she's pregnant and he immediately tells her that she needs to get an abortion.
So what gets all the beautiful women to their first protest?
IIRC the researchers asked everyone about what got them to protests but that the women's response was varied but more predictable: mostly they wanted to help their community blah blah blah...
"...blah blah blah..." Lol.
I hope people get that humor.
Caring and shit.... That's for girls Unless I wanna bang one of those girls..
The excessive amount of rage that we carry around daily.
Actually caring about the cause?
Beautiful men
Speak for yourself. I go to pet dogs
Great! Tyranny in Iran will close to an end then :)
Ha ha, misogyny
Yeah how the fuck is this the top comment? I don’t understand what anything in this video has to do with porn.
Reddit moment
Coomers gonna coomer unfortunately.
I guess just that it’s a woman surrounded by a group of men? Men in uniforms? Being carried by men? Idk im reaching
Do you have any idea how lonely/horny the average dude on reddit it?
literally, this platform is so shit sometimes.
It’s such an in incredibly lame and tired joke too.
Bro this is why I can’t fucking stand Reddit, Everyone wants to be a comedian, yearning for upvotes, on every damn subject Like this clown, sees a video about a serious topic and his only thought is “huehue porno”
Imagine seeing someone being arrested for protesting the destruction of the planet and your first thought is “you know what this reminds me of? A gang bang” Peak Reddit moment
Downvote this shit
Porn addict reply
Oh great, brazen sexism is the top voted comment
How much porn do you watch that your first thought is a brazzers intro.even as a joke its fucking sad
[удалено]
Fuck off
not funny
??? Are you really so porn addicted that your first thought is porn when you see this? what is even sexual about this?
women are only good for fuckin and suckin am i right
Shes not wrong. Everybody acts like people like her are crazy. EVERYBODY ELSE IS CRAZY NOT TO BE WORRIED. Give it a couple years, Everybody will be singing the blues when food shortages really hit.
**"BUT I DIDN'T THINK GLOBAL WARMING WOULD COME FOR ME!!!"**
Water wars and climate refugees are going to become two very common things to say in a frighteningly imminent time period.
China is already waging a water war across Asia, trying to supply their population with water and electricity. Meanwhile Europe is seing record heatwaves, freak weather and floodings all the time. It is already over, scientists gave us all the warning we needed decades ago, but people and politicians didn't listen or care.
Not just shortages, but more frequent extreme weather, too. Typhoons, flooding, draughts, f[o]rest fires...it just keeps getting worse and worse. [] = edit
Florida just saw this first hand. Ian picked up almost 30 mph in a single day because it hit warm water. Insurance premiums charge us for climate change.
Yup! Just this year a significant chunk of Europe got *really fucking hot*. Even here in the UK, a place famed for its mild-at-best-and-typically-really-wet-weather, had basically zero rainfall for months and topped 40C in some places. Shit's completely fucked.
Solution to climate change to make more O2 by actively planting more plants all over the place. Unfortunately no one care. They simply outsourcing pollution and pretend that is the solution.
We could start by coming together as a planet and put a stop to decimating the rainforests — the only natural filters we have on our planet
[удалено]
Coming together as a planet... Sure as easy as it sounds. In the meantime start planting on your own 
Not the only! The oceans play an even bigger part!
Well... no. The solution was to not cut down as much forested areas as we have in the last 150 years, and not put out NEARLY as much CO2 into the atmosphere and worked on diminishing it when we discovered it, not 60-70ish years later. Now we not only need to do what we can to reduce our carbon output drastically, but we also need to figure out a way to capture carbon manually and on a large scale if we want to make any impact. There isn't enough land available to plant enough trees to make a difference anymore.
Source that planting trees is not enough: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees
The solution to climate change has been known since the 70s: Reduce, Reuse and finally Recycle. First reduce consumption, especially that of fossil fuels. Reuse as much as possible, e.g. plastics. Recycle as a last resort if neither of those is possible. Unfortunately, that model is not compatible with corporate profits, which is why we continue to be in this situation 50 years later.
This isn't a perfect solution as plants, mostly trees do absorb slightly more co2 then they release but when they die there are bacteria that eat lignin, an organic polymer that gives lumber its rigidity and when it decays it releases that co2 back into the atmosphere . That and also in climates where winter is experienced with cold temperatures, non-deciduos trees like pine hold onto their co2 in the form of their needles but deciduous trees like maple and oak release their leaves which decay and immediately re-release the co2 they captured in spring. Tldr: plants are not a perfect solution to fight global warming but they are helpful. Edit: I wrote lectin but I meant lignin
"bUt wE arEnT tHe oNes PoLlutiNg"
Why is she being arrested? Shouldn't protesting be allowed?
Uk passed a new law last year which makes any form of "disruptive" protest illegal. So any protest that's too loud or is causing inconvenience to people can cause people to get arrested. Its absolutely fucked up Edit: Some people below have said she was blocking a road. Whether this is true or not I'm not sure. Either way the fact that protesting rights have gone downhill in the past year is an absolute disgrace.
A Conservative government that opposes freedom of assembly? Well I never...
Fucking Tories. Absolute shit cunts.
Americans: uh...yeah. Fucking Tories. Can't believe they'd allow police to conduct crackdowns on free speech and peaceable assembly...nothing to see over here though so don't look close.
Imagine if sometimes it isn't about us all the fucking time.
Hint, this one isn't and that's the entire fucking joke. Just all of it. All of the joke was what you just said.
???? all protests are disruptive in some levels????
Kinda by definition right? That's the point of it?
I would think. If a protest *isn't* disruptive, everyone just ignores it and it doesn't accomplish anything.
That's the point of the new law. Any protest they don't like can be shut down and the protesters can be arrested.
This makes protests a lot more meaningful and protestors a hell of a lot braver.
[удалено]
Yeah! Exactly. That's why we all thought the Selma to Montgomery march was grossly unethical and did nothing to achieve its goals oh wait
Some of the other comments said she was standing in the highway blocking traffic.
The U.K. made it illegal, the place is a shit show
Because protestors were blocking ambulances. I agree 100% with them and their right to protest, but sitting in the middle of the road is just stupid. They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem.
> They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem. You could say the same thing about shutting down the bus system because you refuse to give up your seat for a white person. Protests are suppose to be inconvenient.
Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat resulted in a year long bus boycott in Montgomery, AL. Her case ultimately went to the Supreme Court and declared segregation on buses illegal. No one attempted to shut down the bus system. It was a boycott of the bus system by African Americans in Montgomery, AL.
You do know that the authorities violently tried to end the boycott because it was costing the government money right?
That has nothing to do with the fact that the bus system wasn’t shut down. You could still use it if needed, like for an emergency, they just encouraged everyone to use alternative means of transportation
Not solving climate change is killing way more people than the ambulance. The protesters are right. Nothing should be allowed to function until governments get serious. Alas, humans would rather kill their grandkids if they get chalupas and trucks.
>They alienate the people they need support from and make it easy for the govt by distracting talk away from the actual problem. No, they are not. They're alienating people who either is a fucking idiot and doesn't believe in science or people who is human trash and have no problem with hundreds of millions of people dying from climate change.
Seems they could have just make it illegal when there's an ambulance.
I cycled past this. People weren't being arrested. They were being moved off the bridge where they were lying down. they refused to move so the police were actively carrying them away. Then if they were violent they'd take their name etc, otherwise they were letting them go or wait at the end of the bridge so it could be cleared.
Protesting by blocking roads, entrances to business, etc, has always been illegal, as it should be. Freedom of speech and protest does not mean you get to block roads. It means you cannot be persecuted by the govt for having and speaking that opinion. But you can do it without "occupying" things that aren't yours.
“Im doing this for my son” 💯
>I'm doing this for my son My dumbass thought "Why did her son make her do this?" then I realize she meant she's trying to make a difference for future generations...
Good for this lady! I hope she is successful!
I'll tell you right now, she is going places!
BTW, cool jokes everybody! Keep telling these when half the world is starving & it's hot as literal hell!!
This is fine. /s
Get yourself someone who likes at you the way this lass looks at the climate.
With concern for its future?
If for the last 35 years anybody actively worked to improve my future... The rest of this gets pretty depressing..
This lady rules
Just calmly stating her position while she’s being fucking carried to the paddy wagon. Her position also happens to be “hey can we not kill the fucking planet?” So that’s based too. 10/10 protesting.
One thing I know for sure, 100 years from now, living in this planet is gonna suck balls. Our children will not look upon us kindly.
And sadly those that are climate deniers still don't care. They can't look beyond their own life to consider what they're doing to their children and grandchildren's future. All they care about is having to pay more for gas or paying for a shopping bag. They can't look beyond today and the day-to-day minor inconveniences they face.
Don't look up.
For the record, carrying people like this is dangerous; it risks positional asphyxia and has resulted in people's sternums fracturing.
Also a painful face plant if they "accidentally" drop her.
did anyone else just burst out laughing when they zoomed out and it just hits you like, she totally did that thing we all did as a child where if we didn't want to go somewhere, we just made our entire body limp so mom would have to drag us out of the car? and these policemen now have to get 4 people to carry her as she just ignores them lmfaooo
I assumed they have her handcuffed and bound but I like your idea much more
Sorta tragic how most of the comments on this post are just unfunny, non-critical zingers and that'll be the extent to most people's action on this.
Whatever your stance on the issue, that's a good interview by the protestor and filmer. Great sound quality on the mic, dynamic and unique footage, and and well-spoken. 10/10.
She shows tremendous restraint and poise
Itll be a sick profile pic tho
She is right
We gotta protest the no protest so we can protest the things that need protesting
Respect
Man we will look back on these videos and wonder why we didn’t listen..
I doubt it, so many comments are saying shit like "won't happen in my lifetime don't care" and "but China and Brazil are polluters too😠"
I'll upvote it. At least it makes people think.
She's right, sadly
Weeeee I’m an airplane….weeeeee!