45
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Espiritdescali@futurology.today 49 points 6 months ago

100,000 people marched through London at the weekend at the Restore Nature Now March, and there was virtually no news coverage of it. Yet 2 people spray corn starch on a monument and it's front page news globally.

It's a dilemma.

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

They made the news because they remind people who hate them of why they hate them. Not because anyone had a wakeup call. They increased the ambient hate.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago

It'll take something like a big march ending at an airport, and a few people vandalizing a private jet.

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 32 points 6 months ago

Otoh, the Washington Post and their "experts" didn't think any of those civil rights movement direct actions they're celebrating now were reasonable at the time either 🤡

[-] toaster@slrpnk.net 23 points 6 months ago

There is no one universally right way to do activism. We need a diversity of tactics.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

There is no one universally right way to do activism.

There are, however, many ways that are demonstrably wrong.

If you're acting in a way that gives rise to credible speculation that you're secretly funded by Big Oil, maybe it's worth considering the possibility that you're a counterproductive cosplaying fool.

We need a diversity of tactics.

Running unarmed at a machine-gun nest is a tactic. But a diversity of tactics is only a good thing when those tactics actually work.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago

There’s news articles claiming MLK was secretly funded by the USSR to bring disorder to the US, and it was considered credible at that time by the majority of the white population. The point isn’t people’s reactions, when the civil rights act passed the majority of America thought MLK was a terrible person harming America. The point is to create enough disruption that the people with the power to do so are forced to take action or risk outright collapse of the social order.

[-] dillekant@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

Remember there is an actual intelligent force you are against, so they are working on making your effective tactics ineffective. In that case, how do you know if a tactic "works"?

A: you try a bunch of stuff AKA a diversity of tactics.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago

The boycott makes a innocent sufferer of the bus company. Had the company defiled city and state laws its franchise would have been canceled. The quarrel of the Negroes is with the law. It is wrong to hold the company hostage.

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 8, 1955

The white man's economic artillery is far superior, better emplaced, and commanded by more experienced gunners.

Second, the white man holds all the offices of government machinery. There will be white rule for as far as the eye can see.

Are these not the facts of life?

Let us be specific, concrete. What is the cost is the bus boycott to the Negro community? Does any Negro leader doubt that the resistance to the registration of Negro voting has been increased? Is economic punishment of the bus company - an innocent hostage to the laws and customs of Alabama - worth the price of a block to the orderly registration of Negro voters?

-The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery Alabama, Dec 13, 1955

What I'm trying to say here is, fuck off Washington Post with your "why don't you protest the way I want, quietly in the corner" bullshit.

[-] Five@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Link: Paywalled. Experts? Dubious.

A page from the civil rights era:

Chicago Tribune 1966

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

They could also read The Monkey Wrench Gang and start taking direct action against the real perpetrators and their assets rather than random soft targets.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

I'll note that the protagonists in that book only targeted things, and not people.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

"Just stop Oil" are paid for by the oil industry to make all kinds of environmentalists look bad. Change my mind.

[-] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

You're still talking about them. Q.E.D.

this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5493 readers
684 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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