I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here. That’s obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldn’t? I’m saying both kinds of activism provide value.
(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damaged…)
Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.
The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.
I’m only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it’s increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who’s pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.
I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but that’s not because I’m being unclear about this.
Ich behaupte halt dass das nicht vernünftig ist den Steuerfreibetrag zu erhöhen und dabei zu behaupten das würde ja vor allem Geringverdienern nützen.
Du hast aber nun mal behauptet es bevorteilt vor allem Geringverdienende. Es gibt übrigens mehrere Millionen Menschen die Arbeiten und trotzdem aufstocken müssen. Denen bringt das gar nichts.
Because if you’re not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn’t have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you’re trying to hard to suggest it’s prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.
You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.
But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.
Ah, so now it’s enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you’re not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people’s faces so they can’t ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?
I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.
I am an ally. That’s what you don’t understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I’m an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I’ve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I’m telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive.
Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.
The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.
Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.
Ganz abgesehen davon dass es einige Leute gibt die eben unter dem Freibetrag verdienen denen das gar nicht hilft habe ich ja auch nicht gefragt warum das denen auch hilft. Meine Frage hat sich spezifisch auf das vor allem bezogen. Diese Steuererleichterung ist deutlich vorteilhafter für besser Verdienende und trägt zur weiteren Spreizung der Schere zwischen Arm und Reich bei.
Wenn man vor allem Geringverdienern helfen möchte kann man z.b. an der Umsatzsteuer für Gegenstände des täglichen Bedarfs drehen. Essen, Hygienemittel, Schulmaterial, sowas.
Die Steuersenkung der FDP war bisher ein höherer steuerfrei Betrag… Was vorallem den Geringverdienern hilft.
Geringverdienern wird der minimale Steuersatz erlassen, wenn sie denn überhaupt über dem Freibetrag liegen. Leute die den maximalen Steuersatz zahlen wird dafür dieser erlassen, prozentual also deutlich mehr. Wie genau hilft der Steuerfreibetrag vor allem Geringverdienern?
Oh definitely. I’m just saying both sides have their indiscriminant supporters and that one side is way overrepresented in my experience
The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.
Why do you not want these actions associated with the other group?
I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.
Furthermore, you don’t think painting a fucking rock is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change, but having one interest group perform varying kinds of direct activism and grassroots organizing is confusing to the people who want to discuss climate change?
I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.
It’s a hypothetical, not a strawman, which should have been obvious when the sentence began with “if”.
The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.
You’re advocating for bothering random people at a tourist attraction,
Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?
and you’re doing it in a way that a) distracts from talking about actual climate change,
That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.
b) leaves them virtually NO information about how to address climate change,
That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.
and c) is potentially affecting people who already do what they can to address climate change. See how this entire thread has been about painting rocks, instead of daily choices we make that contribute to or affect climate change???
This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.
No I didn’t miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works
And time. You know, because time spent with other organizations is what we’re talking about here? It takes time to fight a criminal charge. Besides, we’re now nitpicking about how much time they’ll spend in jail, rather than you proving with any evidence that they’re doing anything more constructive than performative stunts. Rather than show actual good they’re doing, you’ve just supposed that they might be doing it, and challenged that I can’t prove that they don’t. I hope you see how ridiculous this is.
You and me are arguing a non-provable hypothetical. Yes time they spend in jail is time they aren’t doing anything productive. That doesn’t mean they don’t do anything productive in their time they do not spend in jail. Also: The repressions they face as a consequence of their activism is part of the activism in my book.
Every second we spend on this stupid conversation is a second that proves the effect of the protest is to make the stunt the subject of the conversation, rather than the climate.
I’ll argue that without that stunt we’d be talking about something different entirely likely unrelated to the climate crisis. Which would be even less helpful.
If the protest accomplishes their goals, then why separate them? Why have a separate organization at all? What’s the point of that?
As I have explained already: it’s about communicating to the public. Doing things under a certain name helps the public associate the current actions with past actions under the same name. If you do two vastly different things it helps to separate those by name too, otherwise it can get confusing for people that are not interacting with your group often enough.
No, activism doesn’t need to please people, it needs to be targeted to inconvenience the right people.
If I show up at your home first thing in the morning and pour colored powder on the car you use to get to work, and I tell you “I’m helping spread the word about starvation in Africa”, you’re going to wash the powder off and then yell at me for being a fucking idiot and taking it out on you. You’re not going to stop what you’re doing and send a donation to feed children in Africa because I vandalized your car.
That’s quite the strawman you’ve put up here. I’m not advocating for bothering random people at their home and that’s not what JSO is doing. As far as I can tell they are targeting people of public interest, big events, and popular public places. Which is the “right” people because the climate crisis is about all of us. We all are contributing to it be it daily choices or our choices while casting our democratic votes.
If “a few days” is all you think we’re talking about, you need to read the news releases on their website more closely…
All I see are things that will cost them money. Spraying paint somewhere wouldn’t result in a lot of jailtime. If that’s the case in the UK well that’s weird.
They don’t. I just showed that they don’t, and that’s coming from someone who does constructive environmental engagement both at the grassroots and governmental level. My wife and I have dedicated our entire lives to environmental protection, and what these dipshits are doing is not constructive and makes the rest of us look like morons.
So no you didn’t show that. And while I want to thank you for your engagement, that doesn’t give you the right to tell everyone else how they are supposed to engage themselves. You are entitled to your opinion but that isn’t a definitive fact.
They’re using a front group because they know it will run afoul of public opinion and won’t be constructive??? Do you hear yourself right now? I’m telling you that you’re making a very convincing argument about why these tactics are such a waste of oxygen. They “stop us from talking about anything else” and “hurt the constructive efforts” because they’re unpopular"
It’s not a front. It’s just possible to engage in different forms of activism and if those differ in style it makes sense to separate them into multiple organisations.
They’re accomplishing nothing except pissing people off and attracting attention away from more constructive endeavors. Surely you see that you’re supporting my argument.
There is a common misconception that activism needs to please people to be valid or effective. I think we just differ in opinion on this. Which is fine but we don’t need to waste time on arguing about this as it seems we are both pretty convinced of our respective stance on this.
I won’t speculate on how much energy they are able to put into other efforts because I don’t have any actual experience with the judicial system. A few days behind bars are not enough to stop one from participating though.
The public messaging is that people painted Stonehenge. I’d say the clarity of their messaging is exactly the topic currently up for debate.
Now imagine this was a group that also engages in constructive participation. Suddenly the messaging of that group would be very messy, full of misunderstandings. Instead of this they do activism that will not be favourable in the public opinion under that specific organisation where it won’t hurt the constructive efforts.
It’s possible to be a part of multiple organisations. Just because someone is part of JSO that doesn’t mean they can’t also be active in other groups. Highly motivated people like these tend to do that. It also makes sense to not lump these efforts under one name so that the public messaging doesn’t get muddied.
I mean how do you know that this “instead of” is factual and isn’t in reality a “additionally to”?
Oh I see we are at the “this generation is lazy” level of discussion. Have a nice day.
Have i Not Just calculated that the storage for one day for berlin would be like a few soccer fields? How many days do you think is necessary to be prepared for completely no power input? 10? That’s 100ish soccer fields with 2020s battery technology. Stop spreading that bullshit.
But it also stops us from talking about anything else. Part of this is not allowing other things to take over. Yes it would be even better if the discussion focussed on a productive way forward. It would be worse if we were discussing something else.
Your tldr does not follow from any of the things you wrote above. Considering current energy densities it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me to build that storage. And I was honestly surprised how little space this would have taken back in 2020, not to mention that, again, this has been reduced by about 4x today. And it’s going to go down further. Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.
I do see your point that it is in the interest of fossil fuel to stop nuclear power from replacing them. But I don’t agree that we won’t be able to build an energy grid without fossile fuels. I believe we can have a grid without both of these technologies.
You seem to be influenced by the “well we won’t do anything until we are already burning” mentality which is coincidentally pushed heavily by the fossil industry. It’s meant to defer people from believing that change is possible and taking action so we all stay at home and bicker about how cool it would have been if we started change 20 years ago.
“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.
Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:
The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.