this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
118 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15909 readers
29 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

These protests do work. And is suspected to be largely behind why a fair fraction of the population care about climate change. And working class people will be pressed into cleaning up the mess of direct action too, so I don't understand the argument there.

Fucking up rich people's pretty shit is a perfectly valid, if somewhat toothless, response. Yes, direct action is better, but is also more heavily violently cracked down on, the mass movement needed to make it viable isn't there.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think the heatwaves and floods and winters without snow are why a fair fraction of the population cares about climate change.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I know a couple people who outspoken about climate change for scientific or observable reasons.

But I know more who are outspoken because they're polarised against fuddy-duddy conservative anti-climate-protestor attitudes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Fair.

I wasn't really talking about the scientific measurement of heatwaves and floods and winters without snow, though. I was more speaking to the phenomenal experience of climate change. We're all living through and suffering the physical effects every day.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

These protests do work. And is suspected to be largely behind why a fair fraction of the population care about climate change.

This claim lacks evidence.

And working class people will be pressed into cleaning up the mess of direct action too, so I don’t understand the argument there.

It's one thing to create unnecessary burdens for working class people by doing some self-indulgent shit, but quite another to do so when you're actively fighting for the future of the entire working class. And no, rich kids who vandalize historical sites and works of art aren't doing that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The claim does lack evidence, I agree! I'm only speaking anecdotally - But that's a little more evidence than the claim that the protests don't work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No? There is not how evidence works. Anecdotally evidence don't count as proper evidence precisely because it is not falsifiable, i.e. inevaluable. And lack of proper evidence of something is evidence that this something doesn't exist. Therefore, when there is insufficient evidence that X is true, we assume that X is false, until we have evidence to the contrary.. There's even a Latin expression for that in legal disputes. "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit".

But let’s ignore how logic works for now. What if I told you that I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary? That every single person offline that I’ve talked to about the subject thinks these protests are ridiculous? That I saw a tweet mocking the protesters that got a few thousand likes? See how you get nowhere if you start considering anecdotal evidence?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I already know and agree with what you've said here. I would happily concede that both of our positions lack good evidence for a wide, systematic effect.

I can only share my experience which is proof that, at least in my tiny part of the world, these protests have worked. You're very welcome to have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I was just sharing my own and I'm unsure why I'm getting logic'd for it. I think perhaps you're inferring a much larger claim from my words than I was trying to make.