299
submitted 3 months ago by toaster@slrpnk.net to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

x-post from !climate@slrpnk.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 155 points 3 months ago

Those who make peaceful protests impossible make violent rebellion inevitable.

[-] graymess@lemmy.world 70 points 3 months ago

Right? If it's years in prison either way, they're about to find out what real eco terrorism looks like when protestors are ready to go all in.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

I'm constantly surprised that the endless unmonitored miles of oil pipelines don't ever bombed.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 16 points 3 months ago
[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

“In an opinion article in The New York Times, columnist Ezra Klein wrote that "[a] truer title would be 'Why to Blow Up a Pipeline'", characterizing Malm's answer as "[because] nothing else has worked". Stating that Malm was "less convincing" about "whether blowing up pipelines would work here, and now", Klein argued that there would likely be political consequences to sabotage, including imprisonment of climate activists as well as political repression.[13]”

Whelp, Erza Klein can eat the whole of my ass.

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Seems like a reasonable position to me. He's saying that the argument amounts to "may as well try" and that it doesn't get into specifics of what the actual material consequences of the action would be, which is a fair critique. He doesn't say that the argument is wrong, just that it's not fully explored.

And he is right that retaliation by the state is the only truly foreseeable consequence, and that is a big deal. It's the main reason to avoid picking fights with the state unless you're in a position to win those fights. What "winning" looks like is up for debate and depends on your goals, but you have to consider the response.

It sounds like this is a question that can only be answered with empirical testing.

[-] IIII@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That actively works against the cause because it would do so much harm to the local ecosystems

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

That is a short term problem for trying to fight a long term catastrophe.

I would prefer to not cause a mess, and further harm natural spaces, but as you can see. Not only are passive demonstrations not effective, they have severe jail time. So at this point, i see it as the most logical step

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago

And as these sentences get handed down and there are more political prisoners and martyrs, more people will start to think that way.

Current eco activists tend to be very conscientious and considered about what they're doing. As it gets more popular, you'll get people joining who are considerably less measured in their actions, and the likelihood of drastic actions increases.

[-] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well a lot of them run through more or less suburban areas. So doing it there would have lower environmental impact while greatly raising awareness of how many pipelines run through populated places.

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That would almost certainly only hurt poor neighbourhoods, and that's easy for the media to sweep under the rug. They've perfected the art of dehumanising the poor.

I think the reality is that we don't know the consequences. I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but the effects are impossible to predict.

That's probably why environmentalist movements that tend to be full of only the most conscientious people have shied away from it. They would want to know what they were getting into first.

If things get bad enough that ecoterrorism becomes popular and a wider array of people take up the cause, we'll probably find out the answer to these questions.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.de 1 points 3 months ago

I guess that's what they're aiming for, to turn the general public against protests (even more).

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 3 months ago

Absolutely. From the end of the article:

Separately on Thursday, three airports were granted high court injunctions against fossil fuel and environmental activists protesting at their sites. Leeds Bradford airport, London Luton airport and Newcastle international airport were given injunctions banning protesters from trespassing or causing a nuisance.

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
299 points (97.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9580 readers
883 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS