I think ultimately, it's about my values. The government isn't listening, things are probably going to get worse after the election, and we are all probably screwed. But at my core, I can't support attacking people, and certainly not attacking people who can't influence the change that is requested (these protesters are specifically calling for national passenger rail, and free public transport).

Maybe this is the only effective way. But it's a conflict of my values.

Also on Gazeley, they were one of the car dealerships on Cambridge tce that mounted legal action against a cycleway through there. This ‘just directly go to the government’ thing just isn’t how society works and isn’t where all the power lies.

Were they targetting for that reason, or is that a coincidence?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.

The book does go into that feeling that it seems wrong on a values basis for most people, how the prevailing view in protest movements over the past 40 years or so has been that absolute non-violent protest (specifically that which extends to include inanimate objects, i.e. property, it doesn't advocate violence against people) is the only acceptable way to bring about change.

It then makes a case for targeted, direct action against property that is locking us into the climate crisis, given the urgency, lack of action from governments, and effort by industry to block and delay any action. Its pretty much the 'target the people who have the power to change things' that gets brought up in opposition to this kind of action.

So I dunno, you find me out there doing any of this stuff, but it was an interesting read and makes you think about how the calls to completely passive protest as the only acceptable type is pushed by the status quo because it doesn't work

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.

You're acting awfully smug in your other comment for someone who can't say for sure they even knew about the court case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm acting awfully tired of you all over every thread just raging out with act party talking points. I have much more time for people who hold different views but are receptive to an actual discussion

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does someone holding a different viewpoint make you angry?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, we're trolling now are we

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Some people you can't help but wind up.