I just read a little bit and I am interested: Is this actually useful for activists? The last groups that used a "science based" approach I know of were/are not that successful
For visibility, one common trick is to involve the news media. A small group of protesters converge and just stand around and chit chat. Someone calls the press. The press shows up with their cameras and the protesters snap into action.. chanting, shouting, flying flags. They make a show for the camera. The press wants to sensationalize, so they are onboard with this. The camera chooses a distance and angle that tries to make the protest look larger than it is, taking care to ensure that the frame cuts off some people so you don’t get the impression that you’re viewing the whole crowd. They film for a couple minutes or so, interview someone, and leave. As soon as they leave, the protesters go back to hanging out, or they disburse. Because it’s all about reaching the press; not about reaching a few bypassers.
Some protests are actually by hired people. Students are sometimes compensated to show up and act, for the camera. I assume they would agree with the cause but just need a little extra motivation to give up some of their time.
Politicians are likely wise to these tactics of making a protest look bigger than it is but I think it’s a good way to start, to reach the public who might later bring the crowd needed (which apparently is 3.5% of the population according to the article).
The last bullet is interesting for sure. From the article:
‘1960s civil-rights activists “did things like pick cities to protest where they knew the police would be maximally repressive”, he says.’
So it’s a game of being non-violent yourself (so you don’t encourage people to vote for the shitty party of law and order), but at the same time you need the police to act their worst, presumably to get more press. I wonder if it would be sensible to do non-destructive tasks that only appear destructive, to provoke cops. Like give protesters a spray can of something that the rain will remove (not paint, obviously).
I am thinking of XR and connected groups that really focused on those principles when organizing.
It would be really interesting to me if there is a difference between movements that "organically" (via trial and error or through their own analysis) come to that strategy and movements that use this and similar research and try to build their movements from the ground up based on this strategy.
Instead join a group that doesn't exist just to make people who care about the environment look bad - just because they claim to care about the same things as you doesn't mean they're the good guys.
For what it's worth, I completely agree that threatening historical artifacts to get people's attention is counterproductive. I looked over Just Stop Oil and I don't agree with all of their tactics. Promoting some other type of action sounds better, to me.
But on the other hand at least they are doing something. If 10% of the world cared as much as they do, we'd have a much better chance of taking effective action against the apocalypse that's coming. As it stands right now, billions will die. We probably can't avoid that anymore, but we can reduce the number of billions, and the quality of the wreckage we'll get to inhabit in 100 years.
You can:
Join with Just Stop Oil, and participate in the good stuff and object to the bad stuff and not participate in it.
Or, join some other group whose actions are aligned better with what you think is a good way to accomplish the goal.
Or, pick someone who is actively harming the climate on a global scale every single day, on purpose, and direct your constructive internet criticism at them.
Or, out of all the universe of actions you could take in reference to the coming global hellstorm, pick a 10% segment that's doing something not quite right, out of the 0.1% segment that even cares at all, and point all your "here's what you should do better" feedback directly at them.
To me, I think doing one of the first three makes more sense than the fourth one. Again, I won't say you're wrong, but less involvement in doing anything is not the solution to it.
We're going to destroy the Moai Statues of Rapa Nui, the 500 year old Ming Dynasty Zhenhai bridge, and the Bagerhat mosques of Bangladesh, simply by failing to change the society that is heating up the planet and causing the water to rise.
If you cared about preserving historical artifacts, you wouldn't troll climate change resistance movements.
Your grandchildren are going to live on a planet that's an unrecognizable hellscape compared to the paradise you and I were born into. If they survive. I don't think these people are planning to destroy any artifacts during soup night. They are trying to organize to do what they can to stop it, or reduce the damage. You should too.
Not quite, it was the defence's arguments that they were ordered to not consider
During the trial, Judge Sellers ruled that none of the defence’s three arguments would be allowed for the jury to consider. Despite this, the 12 member jury made a factual determination and found all three defendants not guilty.
If you're thinking about a particular encampment that's near you, consider reaching out to ask, because this'll be highly situational. If they are, as you say, well supplied, then getting something they already have plenty of might make their supplies management harder (which ofc, you know, or you wouldn't be asking this question).
Depending on how open your nearest encampment is and your comfort levels in dropping by, going in person to ask is one way. Dropping a message on social media may also be possible: a few of the encampments that I know of would be contactable via social media - even if most of the organising is done on more secure mediums such as signal, there's usually some level of Instagram or similar going on.
They will probably ask you to achieve certain treatment standards, which is not so easy in small composting facilities.
But it's worth a try. Keep us updated how it goes.
Alternatively you could think about setting up a larger biogas plant. This usually has different standards that are easier to reach, but the investment costs are higher and the feed-in tariffs for electricity produced are often not great.
Yes, that and a lack of people who could work a local plant, apparently (but then again a lot of youngsters move away for work, go figure). The huge (not that huge really) company running both trash and water is quite interesting. They run at a loss since they exist and get good amounts of EU money, the directors are the town halls of the entire region, the company is listed on the stock market? Doesn't look like the transparent entity I'd like to entrust my water and trash to ... but then also, I admit I have zero clues about weird economic entities or composting on a commercial scale, just getting into it. Microplastics were mentioned - apparently it's challenging to keep them out of the finished product. Then again, agricultural biowaste seems to be regulated differently? More research work to do.
Living in a tiny town has great advantages, it's not difficult to just walk into the town-hall and ask all sorts of stuff. They are very un-bureaucratic here, and really seem to be trying to make things work. Then again, you find strange constructs like this private water and trash company where a suspicious lot of local power accumulates. Asking a lot of stupid questions and digging for financial reports is always entertaining and elucidating for sure.
Interesting choice to not have an awareness team and also not using moderation or any other ways to structure discussions. I am so used to that, that I cant imagine how it would go without that.
I don't see it as a positive thing. But there's no better teacher of why things are done the 'right' way than doing things the 'wrong' way. Hope it works out for them anyway.
This actually happened to me: I arrived at my destination and discovered my load was loose, ready to fall. There have also been times that I dropped something. And times that my backpack was mistakenly unzipped and I could have lost something worth keeping.
So if I operate with your assumption (that honking drivers are always assholes), then I lose the opportunity to pick up something I dropped or correct insecure cargo. Why should I give that up?
Since a horn is an ambiguous signal, in this circumstance of a car following a cyclist it should come to be universally understood to mean a cyclist dropped their phone or wallet, as this is the legit scenario.
In Person Activism
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.