Environmental activists have caused disruptions outside Montreal Trudeau International Airport for three consecutive days protesting Canadian fossil fuel policy.
What an absolutely tone deaf and patronizing statement. The world is ending but god forbid we inconvenience anyone while trying to do something about it.
Read it again. You are NOT morally superior. The three people he was writing about are now spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison because they mistakenly believe that they are absolutely morally superior and that that absolute moral superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone they see as inferior. This is the same mistake that every extremist makes.
I think it’s safe to say that if they gave up their freedom for the cause of trying to save us and our descendants from climate catastrophe then they are absolutely morally superior to both of us. The mistake you make is thinking that the law has a single thing to do with moral superiority, it only deals in financial superiority.
That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.
I really don’t mind if the mildly inconvenienced thousands of people. If in a functioning democracy our powers are threefold - the vote, the media and protest, and peaceful protest by its very nature is a protest that can be ignored, then no change can be affected by non disruptive protest. In my opinion this isn’t disruptive enough. If we treated this climate crisis with the urgency it deserves then we would take a page out of the European book and block highways with concrete bollards.
Make no mistake, our children will burn and we’re worried about missing a flight.
Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.
I’m part of the rest of society and I agree with their methods. I haven’t been propagandized into thinking protests shouldn’t be disruptive (ignorable). They’ve got you thinking minor inconvenience = utter contempt (which for some reason you chose to write two comments in a row), and that for some reason deserves prison time.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.
Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.
Poisonning the air is morally wrong, idiot. And thus preventing them to do so is morally right. If you think what the governement does define morality I guess kidnapping native girls is morally ok?
“Die in a hole you filthy peasant. Your life is expendable and you won’t be missed when the police gun you down in the climate riots 20 years from now.”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
What an absolutely tone deaf and patronizing statement. The world is ending but god forbid we inconvenience anyone while trying to do something about it.
Read it again. You are NOT morally superior. The three people he was writing about are now spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison because they mistakenly believe that they are absolutely morally superior and that that absolute moral superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone they see as inferior. This is the same mistake that every extremist makes.
I think it’s safe to say that if they gave up their freedom for the cause of trying to save us and our descendants from climate catastrophe then they are absolutely morally superior to both of us. The mistake you make is thinking that the law has a single thing to do with moral superiority, it only deals in financial superiority.
That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.
I really don’t mind if the mildly inconvenienced thousands of people. If in a functioning democracy our powers are threefold - the vote, the media and protest, and peaceful protest by its very nature is a protest that can be ignored, then no change can be affected by non disruptive protest. In my opinion this isn’t disruptive enough. If we treated this climate crisis with the urgency it deserves then we would take a page out of the European book and block highways with concrete bollards.
Make no mistake, our children will burn and we’re worried about missing a flight.
Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.
I’m part of the rest of society and I agree with their methods. I haven’t been propagandized into thinking protests shouldn’t be disruptive (ignorable). They’ve got you thinking minor inconvenience = utter contempt (which for some reason you chose to write two comments in a row), and that for some reason deserves prison time.
Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.
In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.
Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.
You did nothing. The situation is still dire and what solution do you offer? Straw houses? lmao that’s pathetic.
You’ve been an activist for 40 years you say? What tf have you been doing? If you guys had blown shit up in the 80 we wouldnt be in that shit now.
They threated thousands of POLLUTERS (thus not people) with utter contempt, which is warranted given the situation.
If you’re still flying for breakfast you deserve to get stuck lmao
Polluters are not people.
Mandella spent 20 years in prison and he was still morally superior, idiot.
Poisonning the air is morally wrong, idiot. And thus preventing them to do so is morally right. If you think what the governement does define morality I guess kidnapping native girls is morally ok?
No, no you misunderstand. Let me translate:
“Die in a hole you filthy peasant. Your life is expendable and you won’t be missed when the police gun you down in the climate riots 20 years from now.”