Politics Thread 5

[Moggy]

I just felt the need to respond to Preezy's post, as it's a bogus argument that is always used against most kind of protest. The idea that all actions you take should be informed purely by how much it will make people like you, ultimately leads to maintaining the status quo and achieving nothing.

I wouldn't say it was a bogus argument (more radical and bodacious IMO), it's pretty logical to assume that if you want to gain public support you have to get that public onside, something rarely achieved by actively disrupting peoples' lives and jobs. Especially during the half-term holidays when adults around the country are stressed out of their mind at the thought of keeping their kids entertained for 2 weeks without having to worry about some dreadlocked twat gluing himself to a train

I think you are wrong. Some of the biggest changes that were ever made to society came about through direct action and even outright violence.

The women’s suffrage movement used violence and disruption in order to make their case.

The Civil Rights movement in America involved disrupting people’s lives.

Whereas the calm and orderly Iraq War and Brexit protests achieved strawberry float all.

The Civil Rights movement and women's suffrage still managed to bring people with them. It's about getting the balance right between bringing people with you and causing mass disruption. These protestors have now taken the curious move of glueing themselves to Jeremy Corbyn's fence. I'd say they aren't the smartest bunch in strategically targeting their protest! They are going to win nobody over and probably set their cause back.

You think that glueing themselves to Corbyn’s fence is so annoying that people will start actively polluting more?

That people are so annoyed by a bridge in London being blocked that they’ll suddenly decide we should release more emissions?

[Preezy]

You think that glueing themselves to Corbyn’s fence is so annoying that people will start actively polluting more?

I threw my old fridge-freezer in the canal when I saw what they'd done to poor Jezza's fence.

Fences are for sitting on, not being glued to.

[That]

The joke is on you, the fridge-freezer will cool the water, thus helping to reverse global warming

[Moggy]

You think that glueing themselves to Corbyn’s fence is so annoying that people will start actively polluting more?

I threw my old fridge-freezer in the canal when I saw what they'd done to poor Jezza's fence.

Fences are for sitting on, not being glued to.

Just wait until you see what they did in his vegetable patch.

[OrangeRKN]

So we've learnt that environmental activists are sometimes lacking honed media skills. Which immediately invalidates all their arguments, methods and principles.

It's a fallacy, of course. It's also practically how it will probably pan out. Messaging is everything.

Changing attitudes to plastic waste are one of the biggest wins for environmentalists at the moment (which is sad in itself but hey it's something) and that all happened because David Attenborough has a nice voice.

Just like how people think Nigel Farage is right about Europe because he drinks pints down the pub.

The protesters don't seem to be winning popular support, the kind that can drive political change through winning votes. Which probably doesn't matter anyway right now because Brexit is dominating that sphere.

Their other approach then should be direct action causing negative market effects that "encourage" corporations to change their approach, either directly or through lobbying government. Unfortunately TFL are not the business that they need to force change in, and the impact on business through people not getting to work is indirect.

But hey at least they're doing something and raising the profile of the issue as a whole so its at least in the public consciousness. If they do nothing we're already screwed so really there is nothing to lose.

I just wish they'd do it quite a bit better.

[Preezy]

So we've learnt that environmental activists are sometimes lacking honed media skills. Which immediately invalidates all their arguments, methods and principles.

I think it's more that when the person on the tellybox who is preaching about less emissions is found out as being an extremely privileged individual who takes lots of foreign holidays, it probably does undermine their credibility somewhat.

The protesters don't seem to be winning popular support, the kind that can drive political change through winning votes.

That's the thing, I don't know why anyone would be against what they're trying to achieve. I think everyone would like less pollution and emissions, it's not like they're trying to ban our PS4s and Xboxes (are they? Someone double check that). I don't think anyone would seriously stand up and say "no, I want MORE emissions and MORE pollution, please". It should be an easy win, just like the campaign against plastic straws that has seen actual tangible results. But no, they're going about it in such a poorly managed and misguided way, it's a wasted opportunity.

[That]

Well to make real progress on climate change quickly we would need to force corporations to produce fewer pollutants and use less fossil fuel, which right-wingers don't like because it would shake up a lot of industries and involve tight regulations. The average person taking a holiday, or even a privileged person taking several holidays, doesn't cause very much damage compared to that done by corporations.

[KK]

I think it's more that when the person on the tellybox who is preaching about less emissions is found out as being an extremely privileged individual who takes lots of foreign holidays, it probably does undermine their credibility somewhat.

That's what these hypcritical arsewipes do. They go on TV and tell other people to only use air travel in emergencies & protest against the expansion of Heathrow, while they're off gallivanting on a load of expensive holidays abroad themselves. That makes people so angry, and rightfully so.

[coldspice]

Just a reminder that reversing Climate Change isn't 'their' cause, it's everyone's cause. The branding of 'saving the planet' etc is as big a mis-step as having referred to climate change as 'global warming' for so many years imo. The planet doesn't need saving, the planet will be fine. The hardest hit victims of the climate disaster we seem to be heading for are human beings and other animals; we're the ones who will be strawberry floated.

The typical distraction techniques of the likes of the Daily Mail and Sky; pointing out that -shock horror- some of the protesters are middle class or that -shock horror- they have dreadlocks are working overtime right now and they're working. Of course, techniques need to be refined, this is a relatively new movement, but we definitely need more of these types of protest. Inaction, centrism and pandering has lead to the current state we are in, including the likes of Brexit, Trump and the climate damage done up to this point. It's time people were shaken out of their comfort zones and this issue was pushed to the fore.

[OrangeRKN]

The average person taking a holiday, or even a privileged person taking several holidays, doesn't cause very much damage compared to that done by corporations.

Not flying and switching to a plant-based diet are like the two things an average person can do of any significant impact environmentally.

[Tineash]

I think it's more that when the person on the tellybox who is preaching about less emissions is found out as being an extremely privileged individual who takes lots of foreign holidays, it probably does undermine their credibility somewhat.

That's what these hypcritical arsewipes do. They go on TV and tell other people to only use air travel in emergencies & protest against the expansion of Heathrow, while they're off gallivanting on a load of expensive holidays abroad themselves. That makes people so angry, and rightfully so.

This is the dullest knee-jerk whinging following the same tired 20yr old script.

[That]

The average person taking a holiday, or even a privileged person taking several holidays, doesn't cause very much damage compared to that done by corporations.

Not flying and switching to a plant-based diet are like the two things an average person can do of any significant impact environmentally.

Sure, that is true, but the impact is still quite small when compared with the pollution put out across industrial processes within the private sector. To make progress on climate change within the timescale we have - which is ASAP, as we are crossing a point of no return right now - we need radical eco-socialist measures to address the problem at its source.

I think you've probably misinterpreted my comment (not sure why you sliced it up?), I don't think "fly less" or "eat less meat" is bad advice, it's just that it's a fraction of what needs to happen, individuals changing their lifestyles won't get us over the line. In fact it won't even be close, so I'm concerned that the discourse is being shaped (by liberals) to be more about "our choices" and less about "let's get the government to throw its weight around and really fix this".

Yes we do need to change our lifestyles, but even more urgently we need to change how corporations do business.

[KK]

This is the dullest knee-jerk whinging following the same tired 20yr old script.

What part of that isn't factual though? Robin Boardman-Pattison did protest the expansion of Heathrow, he has gone on multiple holidays in the last few years, and he did go on television today and tell Adam Boulton that we should only be using air travel in emergencies, despite doing the reverse opposite himself.

[Herdanos]

I think it's more that when the person on the tellybox who is preaching about less emissions is found out as being an extremely privileged individual who takes lots of foreign holidays, it probably does undermine their credibility somewhat.

That's what these hypcritical arsewipes do. They go on TV and tell other people to only use air travel in emergencies & protest against the expansion of Heathrow, while they're off gallivanting on a load of expensive holidays abroad themselves. That makes people so angry, and rightfully so.

This is the dullest knee-jerk whinging following the same tired 20yr old script.

Agreed.

"Tim here says he's against emissions... but you travelled over 1km to be here today didn't you YOU MASSIVE HYPOCRITE"

Arguing we should change the system doesn't allow for those arguing to not exist within the system as it currently is until change is achieved. It isn't possible to live within the model we'd like to see enacted in the world until it's enacted.

"Plane travel is bad"
"But you've been on holiday abroad!"

"The top rate of tax should be increased"
"And yet you pay your taxes at the current rate!"

"Economic inequalities should be reduced"
"Didn't you ACCEPT that pay rise though!"

If it's millionaire Gary Barlow wringing his hands asking for charitable donations while secretly avoiding the payment of taxes that could negate the necessity of charitable involvement, then yeah, get angry, by all means.

If someone wants to improve the world, don't accuse them of being a hypocrite simply for actively existing within the world as it is now.

[Herdanos]

This is the dullest knee-jerk whinging following the same tired 20yr old script.

What part of that isn't factual though? Robin Boardman-Pattison did protest the expansion of Heathrow, he has gone on multiple holidays in the last few years, and he did go on television today and tell Adam Boulton that we should only be using air travel in emergencies, despite doing the reverse opposite himself.

Bolded the vital bit for you.
What he himself does is a drop in the ocean compared to what we as a species could do if this were enforced globally.

Perhaps a better example would be:
"We need to improve air quality."
"Oh really? And yet here you are, breathing the air you arrogantly deem inferior. HYPOCRITE"

The arguments you're positing here are akin to that.

[That]

[KK]

Why should some privileged individual go on TV and tell me or anyone else that I should be taking less holidays abroad while it's okay for him to do the exact opposite? Why is it okay for him to go on his expensive holidays but then ruin someone else's by protesting at Heathrow airport?

[Moggy]

How does everyone know how many holidays this bloke has?

[Preezy]

How does everyone know how many holidays this bloke has?

Top-class investigative journalism, obviously.

[Preezy]

(They probably looked at his instagram)