If you're not disrupting anything, your protest will invariably be ignored.

The "I support the right to protest as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone" reeks of a "negative peace" ploy to stifle dissent while appearing to be reasonable in the eyes of other Enlightened Centrist hypocrites.

I’m annoyed by over critical analysis of nonviolent protest tactics, rather than substantive conversation about why they’re protesting in the first place.

For anyone annoyed by climate activists: wake the hell up. LISTEN to the message.

We are on course for an UNLIVABLE FUTURE. A BILLION climate refugees, mass crop failures, cities under water, temperatures too hot for human survival. Economic and societal collapse.

These disruptions damage nothing and inconvenience a small amount of people for 5-30 minutes. It's not a big deal. In a world of reactionary social media and news, these are the tactics that get attention. It is not the activist's fault for how the media reports it.

This is not "their cause". This is the fight for everything we know and love.

If you don't like what they're doing, start doing what you think works.

When is it appropriate for climate protests to turn into climate violence? When is it appropriate for a victim to fight back? Or must we allow billionaires and conservatives to kill us all?

They tried being acceptable, and nobody listens. Now they are being unacceptable, and still nobody listens.

I get the point of the question, but frankly, I think climate protestors can do whatever they want as long as Big Oil can do whatever it wants. It's way more annoying having my planet ruined.

Yes, all us Lambs must march quietly and obediently to the slaughter.

I'd say climate destroyers should be less destructive.

Of course they're whiny; they're literally begging for their lives. What would people prefer instead, Ted Turner to run around in tight spandex, throwing people out of windows and screaming "Captain Planeeeet!?"

And with "less annoying", of course they mean "powerless".

The problem I have with groups doing things like the throwing soup in a painting thing or other annoying activities is how can we be sure these people weren't paid to make the cause look bad? It wouldn't be the first or last time something like that happens where someone will be paid to make a cause look bad.

They should be less annoying to the common people. They should target people in power, glue themselves on the road to the house of parlement for example, not prevent common people from going to work or vandalize art work.

It makes them look like idiots who have no clue.

Not at all, we are getting desperate out here. Our margins for actions to lessen, stop and revert climate change are getting smaller by the minute. So we need to be very annoying.

I support most (maybe even all) climate protests, violent and nonviolent ones.

I still think that it might be good to shift or expand(edit) tactics, because at least to me most tactics do not feel to be actually achieving any substantial goals while putting folks at high risk of injury and repression. Like yeah there is discourse, polarization and mobilization, but those are not actually the things that will mitigate climate change, reducing carbon emissions etc. will. This is my perspective from Germany so of course elsewhere things might be different.

Are there any success stories from other countries (or Germany) that show that currently dominant climate protest tactics(non violence, blocking roads, public stunts, glue everywhere, social media all the time) leading to actual changes getting implemented from public institutions, legislation or the private sector or changes in the behaviors of large parts of the population?___