this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
148 points (95.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6631 readers
253 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, the money that could have gone to an actual charity is now going to be spent on your legal defense?
Charity is not getting us out of the climate crisis
Neither is someone acting like a fool.
The stunt was ridiculous. In the time he spent holding up planes, those jets had to keep burning fuel to keep the Ac going. He put more poison in the air.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Who is he? What jets?
Maybe take a look at the article?
And if they hadn't done it, those jets would've landed on time and other jets would've taken off and absolutely nothing would have changed about the total net carbon gain. Protests work, they get people talking.
Not all protests are equal.
All this one did was get people to hate the guy who slowed down the airport.
Also they literally didn't do it so maybe read the article
Kind of proving my point here.
One guy did nothing and still managed to get arrested. Makes the whole movement look silly.
Completely the opposite of the situation in the cartoon; a well organized protest that actually reaches the leader.
Thanks for helping me show how dumb the plan was.
Okay I'll bite. What is your solution?
Apathy didn't work
Peaceful protesting didn't work
Scientific inquiry didn't work
Political petitioning didn't work
How many must die to climate change before you're personally willing to accept the idea of a harmless but disruptive protest?
bootlickers don't want people to come up with other solutions, they just want to point out the ones they know will work are inconvenient. Also, their fee fees got hurt when people point out they're bootlickers.
Turn it around.
What makes you think that disruptive protest would work?
Stupid debate tactic.
The people I've personally turned to my cause, and the evidence that it works broadly are what makes me think what I'm doing works.
I'll get ahead of your next argument (are you really convincing anyone by being disruptive?): Yes. When I disrupt traffic, I'm not trying to convince the people whose everyday life I'm disrupting by adding 10 seconds to their daily commute. Rather, I am expecting them to be completely and utterly intolerant of me and my cause such that they stir themselves up and look unreasonable. If a bystander sees this dynamic play out, me being calm and my opposition having a baby tantrum in public, who do you think they're gonna side with when the conversation goes wide or even makes the news?
Now you. What is your solution?
Although there is little empirical support for negative radical flank effects, a number of correlational studies support the positive radical flank effect hypothesis (11, 13). But other empirical tests find no evidence that radical flanks increase or decrease support for moderate factions within the movement (14). Thus, the radical flanks literature has yielded inconsistent findings.
From your paper.
So the author and I agree that this is theoretical at best.
This debate tactic of ignoring most of what I said, nitpicking a portion of it, and making me defend it, when it was you who was asked a question, isn't going to work on me.
Why don't you show me hard empirical evidence that it works?
Please answer the question.
It's a silly question that assumes that harmless but disruptive is in any way useful.
So, no I won't answer it because you haven't proven it's a valid question. You might as well ask me my opinions of flying carpets vs. transporters.
The question was
What is your solution?
Vote for the best possible candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.
Back in the day, Frederick Douglas had a chance to support an abolition candidate with no chance, or Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln wasn't running on abolition, but Douglas felt he was the best they could get.
Also, thanks for admitting the other question was nonsensical.
Actually invconveniencing people is secondary if you're still able to get press coverage
You get the press coverage. It's "Idiot Wastes People's Time."
If they bother to read the whole story, they think, "he wasted people's time for that?"