No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they’re lashing out incoherently.
They’re actively working against environmentalism. I really think they’re bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don’t care about the environment.
There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.
Well, if you want a suggestion: “Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal” by Rodrigo Nunes
You haven’t earned my trust enough to suggest a book. I consider these strategies to be worse than ineffectual. I consider them counterproductive. And you haven’t described how they could be productive.
I’m just tired of repeating the same stuff all over the web
I guess sharing your knowledge is just too much work. The environment just isn’t worth explaining things to people who are clearly making good faith conversation with you.
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.
No, it gets people talking about people who glue themselves to paintings. And that’s as far as the conversation goes because it has no connection whatsoever to environmental issues. It’s pure uncut narcissism.
Throwing around the name of a mental disability as an insult is a slur. You don’t call people narcisstists because you don’t attack people for supposed mental disability.
No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they’re lashing out incoherently.
They’re actively working against environmentalism. I really think they’re bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don’t care about the environment.
There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.
Read some books about how to do politics strategically and you’ll see why they do this
Your anger works in their favor
When you vaguely tell somebody to read more it’s because you have no actual argument.
There is no connection to environmental issues. They are doing this to look cool to their friends.
Well, if you want a suggestion: “Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal” by Rodrigo Nunes
I’m just tired of repeating the same stuff all over the web, I also wrote an article in Italian about it 😄
If you can’t summarize your point, don’t even bring it up.
I can, I don’t want to do it cause inevitably it would open up to questions that in a non summary would be already answered.
If you want to know more about complex topics don’t expect to learn them by reading hot takes on the internet.
If your entire thesis can be summarized by “hot take” then that tells me everything I need to know.
You haven’t earned my trust enough to suggest a book. I consider these strategies to be worse than ineffectual. I consider them counterproductive. And you haven’t described how they could be productive.
I guess sharing your knowledge is just too much work. The environment just isn’t worth explaining things to people who are clearly making good faith conversation with you.
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.
They are doing it because it gets people talking and thinking about climate collapse, and that leads to solutions.
No, it gets people talking about people who glue themselves to paintings. And that’s as far as the conversation goes because it has no connection whatsoever to environmental issues. It’s pure uncut narcissism.
Hey, no slurs.
I didn’t use a slur. Come back when you have something to contribute.
This has nothing to do with mental illness, don’t use that word like that
Come back when you have something substantial to contribute.
Doubt
Hey, don’t use slurs to make your point
Go away.
Don’t pretend somebody is using slurs when they aren’t.
Throwing around the name of a mental disability as an insult is a slur. You don’t call people narcisstists because you don’t attack people for supposed mental disability.
Good lord lol