Klimaaktivisten und -aktivistinnen haben in Hamburg wieder die Luft aus den Reifen von mehreren geparkten Autos gelassen. Die Polizei bestätigte 33 Fälle in Nienstedten, die von Anwohnerinnen und Anwohnern am frühen Morgen bemerkt worden sind.
From the article:
*Large SUVs were particularly affected. According to the police, notes were attached to the cars indicating that they were harmful to the climate. The tyres were not punctured, but merely deflated. The cars were parked in the area between the S-Bahn line and Elbchaussee around Kanzleistraße.
*
Personally, I like this protest way more than glueing themselves to the streets, causing traffic jams where cars burn gasoline for hours and ambulances / firefighters / police gets stuck, putting innocent life in danger.
The article is in German. Warning: this link leads to google translate.
I feel this would go over differently in the land of “fuck around and find out”. You’d have bored old dudes with rifles setting up watches. And if when something did happen, public opinion is not going to be on the air-letters side.
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated. I think your speculation about the public supporting someone being murdered over their participation in peaceful protest is pretty depressing. I hope you don’t actually think that.
My insurance comes with road hazard that would cover this at no cost; and I’m a poor.
This is a good point - I’m not very knowledgeable with respect to insurance, especially internationally. Thank you for your insight
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated. I think your speculation about the public supporting someone being murdered over their participation in peaceful protest is pretty depressing. I hope you don’t actually think that.
Oh, absolutely. I’m not advocating for it, just commenting on the local climate. All it would take is fox news saying “AnTEEfah is coming to cut your tires so you can’t go to church and worship jesus! Why do they hate baby jesus?” and there would be people willing, if not itching, to kill over it. It is very depressing, all that rage could be put to much better use.
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated.
As far as they’re concerned, they’re innocent victims and you’re a criminal.
And they’re not wrong. Property damage is a crime, and working-class people aren’t the ones obstructing the development of electric vehicles, solar power, etc.
The argument of climate activists is that everyone is factually the victim of SUV drivers, because SUVs unnecessarily but lawfully contribute to deaths statistically.
The problem with this argument is that it claims without evidence that an adequate alternative means of transportation was already known and available to the owners of all SUVs at the time those SUVs were purchased. That assertion that makes a lot of questionable assumptions about the circumstances of millions of people, the vast majority of whom the claimant has never even met, let alone interviewed.
Well, they say that SUVs never made sense in cities. Actually, also in villages, as this is happening in Germany. I’d say 99 ℅ of those SUVs are not used as an SUV. Not that I’m supporting manipulation on other people’s property, but I understand that part of their argument.
As far as they’re concerned, they’re innocent victims and you’re a criminal.
“They” meaning the bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles and dense urban centers? “They” are a hypothetical group of people who don’t exist and don’t have concerns. Or are you also speaking hypothetically about how an imaginary group of individuals would respond to a potential form of protest?
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: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated. I think your speculation about the public supporting someone being murdered over their participation in peaceful protest is pretty depressing. I hope you don’t actually think that.
This is a good point - I’m not very knowledgeable with respect to insurance, especially internationally. Thank you for your insight
I think this is something we can all get behind
Oh, absolutely. I’m not advocating for it, just commenting on the local climate. All it would take is fox news saying “AnTEEfah is coming to cut your tires so you can’t go to church and worship jesus! Why do they hate baby jesus?” and there would be people willing, if not itching, to kill over it. It is very depressing, all that rage could be put to much better use.
As far as they’re concerned, they’re innocent victims and you’re a criminal.
And they’re not wrong. Property damage is a crime, and working-class people aren’t the ones obstructing the development of electric vehicles, solar power, etc.
The argument of climate activists is that everyone is factually the victim of SUV drivers, because SUVs unnecessarily but lawfully contribute to deaths statistically.
The problem with this argument is that it claims without evidence that an adequate alternative means of transportation was already known and available to the owners of all SUVs at the time those SUVs were purchased. That assertion that makes a lot of questionable assumptions about the circumstances of millions of people, the vast majority of whom the claimant has never even met, let alone interviewed.
Well, they say that SUVs never made sense in cities. Actually, also in villages, as this is happening in Germany. I’d say 99 ℅ of those SUVs are not used as an SUV. Not that I’m supporting manipulation on other people’s property, but I understand that part of their argument.
Maybe so, but I’d hate to be the one guy who actually needs it and finds it vandalized over something someone else did.
“They” meaning the bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles and dense urban centers? “They” are a hypothetical group of people who don’t exist and don’t have concerns. Or are you also speaking hypothetically about how an imaginary group of individuals would respond to a potential form of protest?