I hear the narrative that people shouldn’t protest in this way but I have taken to asking what is the alternative? If you are silent, your discontent will go unnoticed. The real problem is that we are having to do this at all. As far as I’m concerned, these people are genuine heroes, fighting against a lobby masquerading as a government. A damn shame
There is no version of protest that isn’t an inconvenience. People who are more mad at the protesters in the streets than they are at whatever they are protesting are exactly the people that need to hear the message the protesters are trying to spread.
The worst thing a protester can do is garble their message or make it incoherent. It needs to be short, actionable, and repeatable. It needs to be something that acts as a response to “get out of the road!”
A spokesperson for the campaign said: “Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a law drafted by the fossil fuel lobby, was introduced in April by Priti Patel, and covers ‘interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure’…"
The only thing this is telling activists is that pacifist protesting isn’t going to work, so the next step will be hostile/violent protesting. This is a bad predicament.
The test to see whether you agree with an argument like this, is imagining people protesting something you are vehemently in favour of. If you’d still agree with it then, then the logic holds.
I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you’re left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn’t creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It’s not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one’s position is not “it’s okay for me to do this but not for you”, but rather “it isn’t really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it”.
I guess the point of my argument isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.
One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don’t believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did… Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.
Protest at the refineries? You shut those down and you’re not inconveniencing the 60 people who are sitting in their cars in traffic… you end up causing a ripple to millions. This type of protesting is just silly and doesn’t actually do anything.
The argument is thus : you need a lot of people on board to effect change in a democracy. The protests are not winning popular support - in fact the opposite. The public are distressed, and actually turn against the cause.
I hear the narrative that people shouldn’t protest in this way but I have taken to asking what is the alternative? If you are silent, your discontent will go unnoticed. The real problem is that we are having to do this at all. As far as I’m concerned, these people are genuine heroes, fighting against a lobby masquerading as a government. A damn shame
There is no version of protest that isn’t an inconvenience. People who are more mad at the protesters in the streets than they are at whatever they are protesting are exactly the people that need to hear the message the protesters are trying to spread.
The worst thing a protester can do is garble their message or make it incoherent. It needs to be short, actionable, and repeatable. It needs to be something that acts as a response to “get out of the road!”
deleted by creator
A lobby masquerading as a government indeed.
The only thing this is telling activists is that pacifist protesting isn’t going to work, so the next step will be hostile/violent protesting. This is a bad predicament.
The test to see whether you agree with an argument like this, is imagining people protesting something you are vehemently in favour of. If you’d still agree with it then, then the logic holds.
I feel like the complication of this is that people generally only get worked up enough to protest something, or be vehemently in favor of something that others might be protesting, if they genuinely believe the thing in question to be a moral issue, and a fairly serious one at that. If you view causing others inconvenience as bad, but view the objective you are trying to achieve as sufficiently more important as to outweigh that if the inconvenience furthers that cause, then you’re left in a position where it is perfectly logical to condemn a law that stops you from protesting in a manner you believe will be effective, and support that same kind of law to stop people protesting the opposite position, because your objective in this case isn’t creating consistent and fair laws (even if you do actually believe in such fair laws, but just view this specific issue as even more important) but instead furthering whatever cause you were concerned about in the first place. It’s not truly hypocritical either, because in such a case one’s position is not “it’s okay for me to do this but not for you”, but rather “it isn’t really okay for either of us to do this, but (whatever cause one is supporting) is so pressing that I believe the ends justify the means in achieving it”.
I guess the point of my argument isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.
One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don’t believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did… Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.
Protest at the refineries? You shut those down and you’re not inconveniencing the 60 people who are sitting in their cars in traffic… you end up causing a ripple to millions. This type of protesting is just silly and doesn’t actually do anything.
Just Stop Oil started off with protests at the refineries. It had zero identifiable impact and almost no press coverage.
That’s why people started things like ‘slow march’ and ‘throw soup at the glass in front of artwork’
If they’re going to be impactful to these companies, they’re going to be more on the saboteur side of things.
The argument is thus : you need a lot of people on board to effect change in a democracy. The protests are not winning popular support - in fact the opposite. The public are distressed, and actually turn against the cause.
Edit : downvoting explainers . Great work .
Lemmy is full of 12 year olds