It’s not BS it’s reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won’t do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it’s reality and a demographic of people you won’t be getting for your cause and for climate we can’t afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can’t afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. “People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge” is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The “any attention is good” way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn’t be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
There it is. You want attention no matter if it’s positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?
Normal protests, even if “angrier” would be better than this. Earn peoples’ trust and respect
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you’re still contradicting yourself.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch
It’s not BS it’s reality. Especially for older generations, but not only, the way other people perceive them and their beliefs is important. If by supporting vegetarianism, climate advocacy, et. al they will be perceived as supporting these types of actions they won’t do it. Is it stupid? Absolutely, but it’s reality and a demographic of people you won’t be getting for your cause and for climate we can’t afford to lose credibility and supporters.
With this lack of nuance and understanding is how the left loses voters to the far right, and how activists lose supporters they can’t afford to lose
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. “People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge” is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
We are trying to make people change the way they live and act, of course most of them will find any excuse to not do it. The “any attention is good” way of doing things is a far right tactic and shouldn’t be used. It gives them the perfect excuse to not align with the beliefs and just maintain their ways.
That’s not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren’t important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn’t matter if they’re angry now. This isn’t about them.
Ok so what is the tactic here? They are vandalising a monument for what end if not attention? Talk me through the reasoning
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn’t a single form of protest that wouldn’t be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
deleted by creator
There it is. You want attention no matter if it’s positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?
Normal protests, even if “angrier” would be better than this. Earn peoples’ trust and respect
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn’t spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you’re still contradicting yourself.
You should read my last paragraph slower then.
Right?
“I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!”