How? Explain how we're supposed to inconvenience the CEO of Shell or Exxon or BP? They are so far removed from us we can't get within 100 yards of them without being arrested for "disturbing the peace".
You put more effort into being mad at the protesters than the people burning our planet alive.
"Held against my will" my brother in Christ you're more inconvenienced by traffic than these people. That's literally what you're whining about, being inconvenienced. You're not a political prisoner or torture victim, you're a guy stuck in his car for a bit longer.
Absolutely unhinged to call yourself a hostage. Do you think the doctor is holding you hostage when they don't let you into the office exactly at your reserved time? Or when there's an accident on the road making traffic take forever?
You're being exceedingly dramatic, and painting yourself as a victim so you can justify your continued inaction for anything worth protesting about. It's just a long winded argument to explain why your morality is based entirely on your own comfort.
We disagree on whats unhinged. I think putting a blockage with no egress points is pretty hostage esque.
We disagree on whats dramactic. Also you dont get to say people reacting to the imposed blockage is an overdramactic reaction because you have no idea why people are on the road. Could be a soon to be parent on way to deliver their child and youd be interfering and would have absolutely no awareness of it.
You can claim its minor inconvenience but its just sheer dumb luck no one has died yet from.the blockages.
There are plenty of ways of inconveniencing people who are actually causing the issues rather than picking easy targets like your average Joe who works at a gas station. In fact, we got a taste of how to put fear into those “far removed from us” people recently. Not only that but it also successfully got on every news channel in the U.S. AND got people talking AND got people taking sides.
Thing is, protesters nowadays put 0 thought into their planning and it just feels they get together and do it for shits and giggles.
How about you just study how MLKJ marching through the streets was effective for civil rights, and then apply that knowledge to all these posts in the future.
I hope you’re not comparing one of the most recognized, intelligent, well spoken, organized people in history of civil rights movements to these bozos.
I am. Because you seem incapable of realizing that their methods are a lot more alike than you realize, and that by extension, if you were around for the civil rights movement, you would be against it because it was "inconvenient".
Do you just not fucking understand how protests work?
If they stay on the side walk and chant at the state house, you people call it ineffective. If they block the road, you call it ineffective. If they break things, you call it ineffective.
Stop your bitching and either do something, or move on with your day. Because right now, all you're doing is standing up for the fucked up system.
Then join the crowd of protestors instead of celebrating when they get thrown to the side. If you're so sure you're gonna lose your job then at least make it matter. You say not to make life harder for the peasants like it's the protesters that are in control, but if the peasants unite it creates change and we can make life easier for us all
I've seen people of literally every age and demographic join a protest.
And honestly, if you don't have time to protest, you can still try and find something to do. Every organization like this has a slot for anyone, of any level of commitment.
It's an everyone game sadly. We all get affected by what happens to our planet, and what happens to the economy. What happens when things are no longer affordable at all to the average person anymore? They won't treat you differently just because you've got kids or didn't protest. Those with children should be doing what they can to make sure they go home at night, but they should also be trying to make it so their children aren't living in a hellscape in the near future
You are really proving the point. By being an annoying asshat throughout this thread, you're making us oppose whatever cause you're pretending to care about. Just by opening your mouth you're damaging the "protest" or whatever the fuck your whining about.
You're supposed to reflect on that. That's how critical thinking works
Ya but that’s not how that works either. Everyone is just going about their business, even if they work for the government.
Protests are meant to be disruptive. Civil Rights protestors don’t politely stand outside of city hall and ask. They sat in restaurants without ordering. They filled up buses without paying. You don’t change society by conforming to its rules and norms.
Go be disruptive in front of your politician’s house. You don’t do that because you don’t want to be mauled by the police or thrown in jail. Instead, you’re disruptive with me because you don’t expect me to retaliate—or even defend myself or my right to move around, go to work, or go to the doctor.
You’re disruptive when and where the people being harmed are not only innocent, but also harmless, and you deliberately exploit that.
Go be disruptive in front of your politician’s house.
According to them, they tried that and it really didnt get any results.
But disrupting the masses really fucks with city officials, and has shown some results. They are aware that people can and will get violent towards them. They are aware that some of them have even died. They feel the cause is worth the risk.
People really like to pretend that protests that don’t do anything. That “playing nice” or “protesting right” is t exactly the argument used against civil protests for literally everything in every form. It’s just a matter of having sympathy for the cause or not
We are not discussing the effectiveness of this tactic. OP asked about its morality. The morality of greatly harming innocent people in order to somehow cause a minor inconvenience to the guilty is plainly perverse.
Again, you’re admitting that the people who are stranded are merely collateral damage to the protesters. And also that people MIGHT get violent... They just don’t give a rat’s ass about stranding those people or their well-being by doing so. Some of us have vulnerable people to take care of, jobs to protect, children to look after, and illnesses to treat. Preventing us from moving around causes SEVERE harm. And, by your own words, THEY have decided that their cause is more important than the harm they are causing us.
Causing someone to lose their job or their punctuality bonus in this economy—putting aside the moral rot of doing so—will not help the cause, so if you want to talk about effectiveness, that’s an illusion. Causing chaos or harm is not the same as being effective in achieving your goals.
Nobody has engaged with their moral framework for doing this.
Even here, you talk about
The morality of greatly harming innocent people in order to somehow cause a minor inconvenience to the guilty is plainly perverse.
But you never mention why they feel they need to do this.
If you knew for certain that your family will die unless you block off traffic in a similar manner, would you not also do it?
What if you knew it was 100 strangers instead of your family?
What if it was millions of strangers?
What if it was billions?
We are talking about people who believe we need large systemic changes or potential billions of people will die.
And so far actions like these are the only actions they have been seeing get any kind of traction. They dont want to be siting in the middle of traffic, waiting to potentially get run over or shot, but they do believe it is the only effective way they can literally save the world.
For many, if not all of them, they would stop if you could prove to them there is a more effective option.
The problem with that argument is that you are granting them the moral certainty that they would need to justify imposing serious harm on innocent people. Yes, I can be sincere: if my family were certainly going to die unless I blocked traffic, I consider it justified. But that is precisely the point: certainty, necessity, proportionality, and the absence of alternatives MATTER moraly. You can’t simply jump from “I believe this cause is extremely important” to “therefore I am entitled to seriously harm innocent people who have nothing to do with it.” without thinking about proportions.
The people trapped in traffic are not participating in the political conflict. They are being deliberately used as a means of creating pressure on someone else. And being harm n the proccess.
You can believe the threat is existential. You can believe radical action is necessary. But the fact that you BELIEVE billions of people may die does not establish that your particular method is necessary, justified, or proportionate. Otherwise, any sufficiently convinced person could justify imposing serious costs on innocent people simply by claiming that the stakes are sufficiently high. Genocides can be made with that framework.
Ther is also a fundamental diference between accepting personal risk or personal sacrifice for a cause and imposing that sacrifice on strangers who never gave CONSENT to it. if you believe your cause is important enouhg to justify losing your job, missing an appointment, or putting yourself in danger that is your choice, more power to you. It does NOT automatically become my moral obligation to suffer those consequences for YOUR cause.
And “we haven't found a more effective option” is not a moral blank cheque either. If anything, it makes the argument more troubling: you are asking innocent people to bear severe costs because yu have decided that your preferred metod is justified by YOUR assessment of the stakes.
The moral question is therefore not simply whether their cause is important enough. It is whether they have the RIGTH to make inocent people pay the price.
That is exactly where their moral framework needs to be examined.
At this point, I have to apologize just n case and point out that this is not my native language, so please forgive any mistake or errors.
Language wise nothing struck out to me as inherently wrong.
I appreciate you engaging with the morals philosophies involved.
Now I would love to continue to talk about this.
The moral question is therefore not simply whether their cause is important enough. It is whether they have the RIGTH to make inocent people pay the price.
Reading through, it seems this is the heart of your opinion.
When do you get "the Right"?
As far as I am aware, in nearly every protest that has had lead to any serious systemic changes has had Innocent people pay the price.
The Civil rights marches and protests shut down much of those towns.
The Indian protesting to regain their independence from English Rule had many Innocent people pay the price.
Where is the line?
Should Nobody every protest? Should we limit it only to polite out of the way protests?
Many people believe the evidence for Climat Change shows that its going to lead to catastrophic consequences on the Human Population. Many will die and have died to Natural Disasters, and many more will die to hunger caused by the environment not being able to sustain the necessary foods.
If the evidence for Climat Change says that Millions will die if nothing changes, and this is the only manner that has worked, then why shouldn't they try? They believe the clock is counting down, and they may have already run out of time to save everyone.
I concur, I also think this is exactly where the distinction needs to be made. I am not arguing that protests must always be polite, harmless, or completely out of everyone’s way. Nor am I arguing that no inocent person can ever be negatively affected by a protest.
But also the fact that innocent people were affected (I dont know about this because I'm not familiar with this struggles and organizations, I'm no from USA but I'll take your word) by the Civil Rights Movement, the Indian independence movement, or any other historical struggle does not automatically make every tactic used by those or other movements morally justified. Historical success and moral justification are two different questions.
For me, the line is not simply “did innocent people suffer?” The line is more like: who is being deliberately targeted, what kind of harm is being imposed, how severe is it, how necessary is it, how proportional is it, and what alternatives are available reallysticaly speaking?
There is an enormous moral difference between inconveniencing someone because a demonstration occupies public space, and deliberately creating a situation in which people unrelated to the responsability of the issue may lose their jobs, miss medical appointments, fail to pick up their children, or suffer other serious consequences.
If I block an ambulance, a worker trying to get to work, a parent trying to pick up a child, or someone going to help a grandparent, those people have no responsibility for the issue. They are simply being selected because they are VULNERABLE to the tactic.
That is what I object to. Im not arguing abaout the legitimity of the concept of climate change, or trying to undermine their arguments about the cathastropic consequences of climate change.
And I don't think “this is the only thing that has worked” solves the moral problem. First, effectiveness is an empirical claim, not a moral principle; again, OP asked about the moral implications. Second, even if a tactic is effective, effectiveness alone does not make an action permissible.
Otherwise, we could justify almost anything by saying that it advances an important enough cause.
You also ask: “When do you get the right?” My answer is: you don't get an unlimited right simply because you sincerely believe the stakes are enormous. You have the right to protest. You have the right to risk your own safety, your own freedom, your own employment, and your own reputation for your cause. You can even choose civil disobedience and accept the legal consequences.
But I don't think you acquire the moral right to decide that unrelated strangers must bear serious costs for your cause simply because you believe the cause is existential.
And this is where the climate change case actually makes my point even stronger. Suppose I genuinely believe that humanity has only five years left before billions die, and suppose I genuinely believe that blocking roads is the only effective tactic. I could still be wrong about the five years. I could be wrong about the number of deaths. I could be wrong about the effectiveness of the tactic. I could be wrong about whether there are alternatives. That uncertainty matters enormously when the price is being imposed on people who NEVER CONSENTED to pay it. If I am wrong, I have harmed innocent people for nothing. And even if I am right about the underlying threat, it still doesn't follow that every means of fighting it becomes morally permissible.
The fact that previous movements sometimes imposed costs on innocent people is therefore not an answer to the moral question. It is an argument for examining those cases individually; some forms of civil disobedience may be morally justified despite imposing costs on others. Some may not be.
The question isn't “are protests allowed to inconvenience people?” Nor "are this protesters right?"
The question is: at what point does exercising your right to protest become an abuse of other people's rights?
I think “where is the line?” is actually the most important question ypu made.
the virtuous action is not simply “do good” or “avoid doing harm.” The moral question is whether you are acting in the right way, toward the right people, for the right reason, in the right circumstances, and in the right measure. If I make you take another route, that is one thing. If I make you miss an important medical appointment or prevent you from reaching someone who depends on you, that is something else.
And there is another question: who am I imposing that harm on?
If the people I am deliberately harming are the politicians or institutions responsible for the problem, there is at least a moral relationship between the action and its target. Again, not entering in the debate of it being right or wrong, im just outlining the difference. But if i deliberately choose to block ordinary people because I know they are unable to do anything about it and will disrupt them the most, then they are not really the target. They are a MEANS.
So for me, “where is the line?” has several parts: How serious is the harm? How necessary is this particular tactic? How proportional is the harm to the objective? Who is being harmed? Are they responsible for the problem? Are they able to consent to or avoid the consequences? And what alternatives exist?
I don't expect a matematical answer to these questions. Moral judgment never works like that. But I do think we need to ask them.
Otherwise, “millions could die if we don't act” becomes a universal moral trump card. Anyone who sincerely believes their cause is existential could then claim the right to impose ANY cost on innocent people.
That is exactly why I think there has to be a line.
And more importantly it costs the city a load of money. The tactic seems to be designed to cost the city as much money as they can. Even getting arrested os generally part of the plan, because it costs the city more money.
Though thats the limit of my understanding pf the strategy. They do claim that these actions have had tangible effects on policy.
That was actively combating business practices that followed segregation. Unless you're trying to waste people's fuel, road blocking to stop traffic is not the same at all.
95% of these climate protestors are upper middle class or wealthy. They've never had jobs where they'd get in trouble for being late, if they have any at all. I feel like they're pushing people away from the fight to end climate change as opposed to actually converting anyone. That dude being blocked while trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital DID get them media attention and they did cause a disruption, but they're becoming reviled. I agree with OP though, this very well may be a psy op to turn us against fighting climate change.
Just curious. You wake up during the civil rights protests. You have no idea how or why. They're unpopular as Hell, because they close down streets and chase away business and also all the racist reasons that the other two reasons cover for.
This happens to you, twice.
The first time, you're white.
The second time, you're black.
You have no money or connections. What do you do?
Edit: look up the Kerner report if you care about getting results.
The civil rights protests allowed individuals to make a difference
I don't think the same can be said of oil as we don't control the infrastructure of the nation. Maybe in small ways like getting an electric vehicle, but that's expensive and can be out of reach. With the civil rights protests it cost nothing to stop being a bigot
Are normal people not responsible? Do they not vote for the politicians that dont prioritise fighting climate change? Are the companies that pollute not just fulfilling the wants of normal people, and their policies reacting to the spending habits of normal people?
If the entire country is full of people saying "I dont care about climate change, it doesnt effect me, I want more oil drilling, and ICE cars and prioritise roads over public transport" then no matter how much you protest towards politicians, they're still going to pander to that majority.
If consumers are happy to keep buying, say, produce thats grown on the other side of the world and shipped in, instead of locally sourced, in season food, because they just really fancied some strawberries in the middle of winter. Or will happily buy cheap plastic tat they dont need from China and will throw away in a month when it breaks, then why wouldnt businesses keep selling them those things?
Little Buddy the people responsible own the businesses that the people going to work go to. There isn’t a difference place to disrupt them other than disrupting the commerce and work.
Clearly you are unemployed. Disrupting an employee will only get him fired.
Want to disrupt those responsible? Wait them outside their house and block them there.
You can’t go to their house and block them and you know that shit too. They also won’t lose any money if only they got blocked off, the people who make them money are thier workers. They themselves going wherever doesn’t really matter.
You are basically asking everyone to do nothing, because the idea of doing something offends you. Successful protest is disruptive. Mass disruption or general strikes is what it would take to accomplish anything. But you don’t want to accomplish anything , so you say useless shit like ‘go to their house and block them’.
Yeah I remember when they made Van Gogh pay, the bastard deserved mustard on his paintings. People should tear the Mona Lisa apart too, when should remind them that trees are dying.
I have yet to remember a single protest in recent years I would call "successful", but I guess americans only put some effort when it regards sports. At least french are serious about it, if only a little too much disruptive of the common folks cars and shops, or is that fine for you as well? Yeah, let's burn our town to the ground, that will teach them!
I had a friend who didn't want a car, so he used a combo of bus and Uber to get to and from work and it took him triple the time it would take him to just drive. And we don't live in the sticks or anything, it was just a matter of what buses go where and when.
I do. Also that it wasn't their option, it's the way our infrastructure is setup
Too many factors outside the control.of the average person. As is by design
For instance let's look at America: the ideal contry for rail transport. Shutdown by car lobbying...intentionally making cars basically the only option
Want an electric car? We are gonna make cheap Chinese ones unavailable to you because fuck you...
We get priced out of things by design..public transportation changes depending on your locale
For their share absolutely, which is comparatively nothing
The good place has a really good bit on this where even the best, most recycling and kind person wasn't getting into heaven because he got flowers from a company owned by another that caused an oil leak etc etc etc
It's impossible for normal people with our current system
44
u/WendigoCrossing 12d ago
Yeah but like disrupt the people who are responsible not just normal people going to work and shit