American Politics

[McNuss]

Yes, in recent times, we saw that a lot from the right.
Covid deniers were usually a minority, especially in germany, but them being angry on street nonstop and taking over social media led to political action to appease the situation (same in other countries).
The same goes for opponents of refugees or right extremist. When they start marching, even if they are a stark minority and everybody hates them, usually the government relents. Because actions like these inevitably lead confusion and anger in society and politic does not like that.

No matter what you think of these two (or many more) movements that used radical action, they often got shit done. That can hardly be denied.
Destroying RWE property and freaking out certainly has an effect. Without that, I doubt the coal exit would come as quickly as it does.

???
Burning Refugee homes is not activism, it is outright terror.

I don't think anyone ever appeased covid deniers.

Don't get this comparison here at all. And where does the government usually relent in the face of right wing extremists? I am glad this is not the case.

But in general, demonstrating as a mass is a very effective form of democratic protest and totally something else from vandalism.

Oh, prevent how? And with which aim? You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you (falsely) claim the Greens are a neonconservative party, on the other, you say actual radical action is wrong. That only leaves doing nothing and ranting about everybody else as the one true activism.
The greens do what the greens are supposed to do, and part of it is governing, even if it is a coalition they do not like.
The activists do what the activists are supposed to do, in all different factions. FFF does, Ende Gelände does, Last generation/Just stop Oil does.

I am not, and anyone who does not see that the greens are a conservative right wing party at the moment has a magnet laying next to his political compass.

Everyone can join a party. If all these climate activists would actually join parties, they would also shape these parties. The NRW Greens are entirely dominated by the Realo-Wing, which here is pretty much identical to the CDU in terms of values. 200 hyperactive Fundi members and this would maybe look entirely different.

If party politics is not your thing, there are plenty of serious NGOs that you can join, who can grab a lot of attention without causing damage or harm. Via protests or via art, for example. If you are creative, you can also grab alot of attention for yourself with the latter.

End of the day, these vandals are nothing but ranting, just more visibly.

---

So they have to do what they do because that's what governing is like? So Franz von Papen, cool guy? Get rid of this thoughtline, it is dangerous.

In NRW, the Greens could have also coaligned with the SPD and FDP for 107 out of 98 needed seats. Would have been the same coalition as on federal level, and Wüst is a nobody, no one would have complained. They didn't want to, because wicked Mona Neubaur likes the CDU more. She also was wearing black, and only black throughout her election campaign and her website is also black. Check her vita and Franzi Giffey looks serious. At least preventing mad dog Reul was very possible. Like this it is the maximum amount of "fuck you" towards all the activists.

They also did this their last time with the Kraft government, first they promised (just like their coalition partner, SPD) to get rid of the seperated three part school system, then they actually cemented the Gymnasium in to stone by cooperating with the CDU. Everyone who has met Löhrmann that I know says that she is an unsympathetic, outright spiteful person.

But how did it get to that point, where are the Ströbeles?

Ahh and by the way:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/...onet-letzte-generation-1.5680714?reduced=true

I don't get it. Why Monet and not Christian Linder? If your aim is to be polarizing, at least pick up a fight and try to break someone's self esteem.
This is so pointless, what do they want to achieve, make people worried about paintings?

 

[shionoro]

???
Burning Refugee homes is not activism, it is outright terror.

I don't think anyone ever appeased covid deniers.

Don't get this comparison here at all. And where does the government usually relent in the face of right wing extremists? I am glad this is not the case.

But in general, demonstrating as a mass is a very effective form of democratic protest and totally something else from vandalism.

The government relents all the time in the face of right wing activists, and i do not mean the people burning refugee homes here. Do you really think Pegida has no effect on the mindsets of politicians?
Of course Covid Deniers were appeased, what do you think FDP and also other parties had in mind when they rallied against mask mandates? Would they have run on that without these people? No, surely not.
They do not need to be the majority, they need to be disruptive. Covid Deniers never were a majority, but they were disruptive enough to be the topic of many talkshows, to keep police busy and to be a constant reason of frustration. And that is why you do not have to show around your vaccine status today and do not have to wear masks at most places. Even tho most people were FOR that when it got cancelled.
Corona - Umfrage zur Abstandsregelung und Maskenpflicht 2022 | Statista

There is still a STRONG majority that would want mask mandates. But there are none, and the reason are the crazies who freaked out.

am not, and anyone who does not see that the greens are a conservative right wing party at the moment has a magnet laying next to his political compass.

Everyone can join a party. If all these climate activists would actually join parties, they would also shape these parties. The NRW Greens are entirely dominated by the Realo-Wing, which here is pretty much identical to the CDU in terms of values. 200 hyperactive Fundi members and this would maybe look entirely different.

If party politics is not your thing, there are plenty of serious NGOs that you can join, who can grab a lot of attention without causing damage or harm. Via protests or via art, for example. If you are creative, you can also grab alot of attention for yourself with the latter.

End of the day, these vandals are nothing but ranting, just more visibly.

They would not. Because if they take compromises, you will call them conservative. And if they don't, you will call them fundamentalists that do not get anything done. That is very obvious.
Nobody would benefit from the greens not being in government in NRW right now. Certainly not environmental politics, because then the coal exit by 2030 would not happen.
And if you really think that the greens do not help at all, then joining Ende Gelände or LG makes a lot of sense to create pressure even on the more conservative parties. At the end of the day, the people who blocked in Hambacher Forst won. The Forest wont be destroyed, and they achieved that by illegal action (and other kinds of activism, too).

LG creates an atmosphere of disruption in which more and more environmentally conscious people are radicalized to take part in such actions and that in turn creates more pressure like in Hambacher forst.

In NRW, the Greens could have also coaligned with the SPD and FDP for 107 out of 98 needed seats. Would have been the same coalition as on federal level, and Wüst is a nobody, no one would have complained. They didn't want to, because wicked Mona Neubaur likes the CDU more. She also was wearing black, and only black throughout her election campaign and her website is also black. Check her vita and Franzi Giffey looks serious. At least preventing mad dog Reul was very possible. Like this it is the maximum amount of "fuck you" towards all the activists.

They also did this their last time with the Kraft government, first they promised (just like their coalition partner, SPD) to get rid of the seperated three part school system, then they actually cemented the Gymnasium in to stone by cooperating with the CDU. Everyone who has met Löhrmann that I know says that she is an unsympathetic, outright spiteful person.

But how did it get to that point, where are the Ströbeles?

Ahh and by the way:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/...onet-letzte-generation-1.5680714?reduced=true

I don't get it. Why Monet and not Christian Linder? If your aim is to be polarizing, at least pick up a fight and try to break someone's self esteem.
This is so pointless, what do they want to achieve, make people worried about paintings?

SPD in NRW in just as coal friendly, if not more, than CDU. The NRW FDP is certainly more anti-poor than CDU is and similarly crazy in their environmental policies. Governing with 3 parties instead of 2 is harder. Especially if these two parties heavily lost the election and nobody wants to see them, so they are keen on pushing as much things through as they can, even at the expense of their partners.
Doing that kind of government in NRW, from an environmental standpoint, would be an abysmal decision. Governing with CDU makes it far more likely to be able to get things done. What your thinking would have achieved is less ministry positions for the greens and two partners opposing more abmitious climate policy instead of one.

 

[kkck]

Appeased covid deniers? You clearly live in a far off, idyllic alternate reality. Covid denier stance on this is that the still president trump is using half of the US army and is actually beating the globalists and pedophiles.

 

[shionoro]

Appeased covid deniers? You clearly live in a far off, idyllic alternate reality. Covid denier stance on this is that the still president trump is using half of the US army and is actually beating the globalists and pedophiles.

That is true in america, where covid deniers are more numerous and even those who dont do not necessarily support a mask mandate. But in Germany, 70-80% of the people, according to polls, are pro mask mandates. And even those who do not support them do not necessarily have a hardline stance against them. Still, there are no mask mandates anymore except for public travel and a whole chunk of the covid policy was toned down. That is a clear success of a crazy minority against a majority. There were parties willing to hear the voices of a radical minority to gain their votes and there were other people who didnt want to put up with crazy anti-mask and anti-vax people raising a ruckus anymore. They just msotly won on that front, even tho most people hate them and nobody saw their protests and unlawful behavior in a positive light.

Unlawful Climate activists have even better chances at success. There is a majority that supports their demands and cause (its not like their demands in itself are far off what lawful activists demand) and since they do not use violence (unlike covid deniers), they are more palatable for media coverage and talkshows.

 

[ninjabot]

Fax.

 

[xi0]

Fax.

Ehhh, I understand her point but there's still kind of a blind spot there with respect to Israel. Not that that's going to be relevant to most Americans

 

[ninjabot]

Ehhh, I understand her point but there's still kind of a blind spot there with respect to Israel. Not that that's going to be relevant to most Americans

Yeah, I'm sure that's what she meant. The argument is most likely a rejection of Christian Nationalism in America. It's like how I shit on Christianity all the time despite Islam being "technically" worse. It just doesn't affect me as an American so I don't put much effort into my rejection of it.

 

[xi0]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what she meant. The argument is most likely a rejection of Christian Nationalism in America. It's like how I shit on Christianity all the time despite Islam being "technically" worse. It just doesn't affect me as an American so I don't put much effort into my rejection of it.

There's a definite difference there, but Jews are still a pretty marked minority, so bringing up Israel is relevant here since who knows how it'd be if they were the majority like Christians.

 

[Raven]

You would be randomly gunned down in the streets, forced out from your homes and your kids would be used as human shields.

But hey, Islam is technically worse than Christianity thats why i shit on the latter all the time

 

[kkck]

Welp, turns out stupidity is contagious. Many comments suggest closing the museum and leaving them there for several days. 100% on board.

 

[shionoro]

Welp, turns out stupidity is contagious. Many comments suggest closing the museum and leaving them there for several days. 100% on board.

That's exactly why they have to keep going. With all of it, including this:

(1) Letzte Generation on Twitter: "We make this #Monet the stage and the public the audience. If it takes a painting – with #MashedPotatoes or #TomatoSoup thrown at it – to make society remember that the fossil fuel course is killing us all: Then we'll give you #MashedPotatoes on a painting! https://t.co/HBeZL69QTZ" / Twitter

or this:

(1) Just Stop Oil on Twitter: " BREAKING: FOSSIL FUEL LOBBYIST HQ SPRAYED WITH PAINT At 11am today, six Just Stop Oil supporters blocked the road and sprayed paint on 55 Tufton Street – headquarters of fossil fuel lobbyists that backed Liz Truss. #FreeLouis #FreeJosh #CivilResistance #A22Network https://t.co/K9c48gkVmO" / Twitter

or this

M25 Dartford Crossing closed as protesters climb bridge - BBC News

As long as the discussion about climate change keeps being silly without the general tone reflectinig the severity of the topic, protest also needs to be silly and disurptive. Its only going to get more severe from here because the number of people endorsing these kinds of tactics is rising. And it will keep rising more the more climate change affects the change.

 

[kkck]

That's exactly why they have to keep going. With all of it, including this:

(1) Letzte Generation on Twitter: "We make this #Monet the stage and the public the audience. If it takes a painting – with #MashedPotatoes or #TomatoSoup thrown at it – to make society remember that the fossil fuel course is killing us all: Then we'll give you #MashedPotatoes on a painting! https://t.co/HBeZL69QTZ" / Twitter

or this:

(1) Just Stop Oil on Twitter: " BREAKING: FOSSIL FUEL LOBBYIST HQ SPRAYED WITH PAINT At 11am today, six Just Stop Oil supporters blocked the road and sprayed paint on 55 Tufton Street – headquarters of fossil fuel lobbyists that backed Liz Truss. #FreeLouis #FreeJosh #CivilResistance #A22Network https://t.co/K9c48gkVmO" / Twitter

or this

M25 Dartford Crossing closed as protesters climb bridge - BBC News

As long as the discussion about climate change keeps being silly without the general tone reflectinig the severity of the topic, protest also needs to be silly and disurptive. Its only going to get more severe from here because the number of people endorsing these kinds of tactics is rising. And it will keep rising more the more climate change affects the change.

This will have exactly zero impact on the issue. We are already a few decades into this, no one is just finding out climate change is bad. The issue here is at the policy level. Outside of that, "just stop drilling" or whatever is a stupid slogan and a straight up impossible goal. This is just messing with public property for retweets and attention. And they should be treated as such.

 

[shionoro]

This will have exactly zero impact on the issue. We are already a few decades into this, no one is just finding out climate change is bad. The issue here is at the policy level. Outside of that, "just stop drilling" or whatever is a stupid slogan and a straight up impossible goal. This is just messing with public property for retweets and attention. And they should be treated as such

Exactly, we are at the stage of an addict who already admits there is a problem but uses that admittance as a deflection so he does not have to change. This is why this form of protest is so important: It is disruptive. It has a lot of potential to change the course of what we are doing.
Because what you call "policy level" is not enough yet and only pressure from the street (and from other instances, of course) is going to give politicians incentive to be more ambitious.

Right now, it is about disruption and attention because that is the biggest problem about climate change: people do not notice it constantly. That is why a constant alarm bell has to be attached to the topic, and that is what groups like JSO, last generation or extinction rebellion are doing.

I can really only applaud them, it is a smart way to protest that requires a lot of bravery.

 

[kkck]

Exactly, we are at the stage of an addict who already admits there is a problem but uses that admittance as a deflection so he does not have to change. This is why this form of protest is so important: It is disruptive. It has a lot of potential to change the course of what we are doing.
Because what you call "policy level" is not enough yet and only pressure from the street (and from other instances, of course) is going to give politicians incentive to be more ambitious.

Right now, it is about disruption and attention because that is the biggest problem about climate change: people do not notice it constantly. That is why a constant alarm bell has to be attached to the topic, and that is what groups like JSO, last generation or extinction rebellion are doing.

I can really only applaud them, it is a smart way to protest that requires a lot of bravery.

People feel climate change pretty much every day of their lives. The world already has more extreme weather conditions year round and you have actual scientists screaming at the top of their lungs how bad this is. Even in europe people will definitely feel the very likely extremely cold winter compounded by the lack of energy for heating thanks to the war. Along with the myriad of other problems. Literally nothing will come out of this other than needlessly risking public property.

 

[shionoro]

People feel climate change pretty much every day of their lives. The world already has more extreme weather conditions year round and you have actual scientists screaming at the top of their lungs how bad this is. Even in europe people will definitely feel the very likely extremely cold winter compounded by the lack of energy for heating thanks to the war. Along with the myriad of other problems. Literally nothing will come out of this other than needlessly risking public property.

But they do not emotionally feel it. Elseways, why is it not THE deciding issue in every election? There are quite lots of scientists (for example scientist rebellion) in support of actions like above, because of exactly that frustration. Most people are for more ambitious climate action, but they do not commit to demanding it. Protests like these are supposed to fire up that base and constantly put that issue into the foreground.

Doing a protest that everybody applauds is absolutely meaningless, because then they just keep scrolling, going "yeah, someone should do more for the climate". The reason people are angry about this protest is because it attacks their sense of security on a deeper level. It shouts "we are not doing enough and this issue is so urgent that the usual rules of society cannot apply anymore". And they are right about that, but it is something most people are not ready to accept yet. but they need to.

 

[McNuss]

But they do not emotionally feel it. Elseways, why is it not THE deciding issue in every election? There are quite lots of scientists (for example scientist rebellion) in support of actions like above, because of exactly that frustration. Most people are for more ambitious climate action, but they do not commit to demanding it. Protests like these are supposed to fire up that base and constantly put that issue into the foreground.

Most people (think they) cannot pay up for it and know that their lifes are too short to have them witness the doom of their species, they think the same will still be true for their children and grandchildren (and their other family, friends, etc, everyone that they know). These people also don't bother with polls or would pick the "good guy" stance in a poll but still complain about political actions (seemingly) to their expense.

There are also simply more urgent topics to most people.

Doing a protest that everybody applauds is absolutely meaningless, because then they just keep scrolling, going "yeah, someone should do more for the climate". The reason people are angry about this protest is because it attacks their sense of security on a deeper level. It shouts "we are not doing enough and this issue is so urgent that the usual rules of society cannot apply anymore". And they are right about that, but it is something most people are not ready to accept yet. but they need to.

Why do you think applause is the reward for protest? The idea of a demonstration, of democratic protest is to mobilize masses of people that are potential voters for a political party. The presence of these people then threatens the party, as it is proof of their current political course to be wrong.

For example, social protests organized by trade unions, wellfare organizations, the Left, and even the JuSos (=SPD youth) all backed up up by media shows like political cabaret, led to the Social Democrats (SPD) finally giving in pushing through a miminum wage through a conservative (CDU, Merkel) led coalition. It took them a decade to start readjusting their Agenda 2010 (=neoliberalism) policies, but end of the day they feared loosing too many voters. Their identity as a "people's party" was severely in question.

The same should happen with climate protest and the Greens but it doesn't. Because the people that go to mass demonstrations like Fridays for Future then vote for them regardless. And to be honest, there is no alternative, because the people that could provide one waste their time with throwing mashed potatoes on Monet paintings.

 

[shionoro]

Most people (think they) cannot pay up for it and know that their lifes are too short to have them witness the doom of their species, they think the same will still be true for their children and grandchildren (and their other family, friends, etc, everyone that they know). These people also don't bother with polls or would pick the "good guy" stance in a poll but still complain about political actions (seemingly) to their expense.

There are also simply more urgent topics to most people.

But that kinda proves my point. People are not taking it seriously enough. Even if they intellectually know what is going to happen, they do not act accordingly. If most parents who think climate change is real would actually emotionally understand that this will be an issue that is going to hurt there children, then they would have different views. Not just on voting, but also on protests.

But real talk: I see the same in people who dish out against JSO or similar movements. Anyone who bothers to write negative comments about them but does not put a lot more energy in complaining about how humanity is destroying itself and the planet (for example, if we are in germany, by embracing Ende Gelände, joining FFF or at least constantly embracing more regulations) obviously has not emotionally understood the weight of this.
Intellectual understanding and emotional understanding are two very different things, and our current problem is the latter.
That is what these new forms of protests are aiming towards: emotional understanding of the crisis by raising disruption and frustration to force a debate about it.

Why do you think applause is the reward for protest? The idea of a demonstration, of democratic protest is to mobilize masses of people that are potential voters for a political party. The presence of these people then threatens the party, as it is proof of their current political course to be wrong.

For example, social protests organized by trade unions, wellfare organizations, the Left, and even the JuSos (=SPD youth) all backed up up by media shows like political cabaret, led to the Social Democrats (SPD) finally giving in pushing through a miminum wage through a conservative (CDU, Merkel) led coalition. It took them a decade to start readjusting their Agenda 2010 (=neoliberalism) policies, but end of the day they feared loosing too many voters. Their identity as a "people's party" was severely in question.

The same should happen with climate protest and the Greens but it doesn't. Because the people that go to mass demonstrations like Fridays for Future then vote for them regardless. And to be honest, there is no alternative, because the people that could provide one waste their time with throwing mashed potatoes on Monet paintings.

Because that is the only thing you are going to get for a protest that does not bother anyone. How exactly is Olaf Scholz, to stay in Germany, threatened by a climate protest, even if they bring out numbers? Not at all. There is no election coming up for 2 years and the greens are in his government. They might overtake him, but then again, he can just promise the same thing the greens do and since they are in his government, they will have a hard time forming a profile. There is no real pressure here.
It is good what FFF does, dont get me wrong, it is very important. But it can never be pressure for actually urgent action or pressure against actions that are taken right now, because by now, most people just accepted that protest and think "oh well, some more windmills and we are in the clear". Basically, it works too slowly to be effective enough on its own.

If the society does not emotionally understand that we might be nearing an extinction event if things go very wrong or at least horrible death and destruction if things go well, then our options are limited.
What you describe with cabaret and so on can be part of a change (and is), but it cannot be enough. Because it would just be an "event". Political parties have easy times countering that by making some concessions that sound good enough. So all people are on street? Oh well, then we will concede 1 or 2 things, maybe install a speed limit and invest into solar, and we are going to announce that 3 months before election day so people think they won.

What JSO and LG does is being uncompromising and demanding very harsh action, to make clear that any halfbaked compromise is not going to cut it because it wont be enough. That does not make them friends, but that is exactly what they should do. The only chance is to get people to understand emotionally that everybody needs to demand that A LOT more needs to be done. There is no other way.

Making a fuzz because they throw soup at a painting is exactly an example of people not understanding how serious climate change is and rather prioritizing talking about the soup action. And without making that point over and over and over, people wont get that. Only if that point is repeatedly made in the media coverage while being disruptive and making people angry, only then then there is a chance for people to understand it.

 

[ninjabot]

 

[M3J]

This isn't surprising. Freedom of speech was never about freedom to say whatever, it was about being a shithead without facing consequences.

 

[shionoro]

How many of us are willing to do that?

That largely depends on how it is communicated. Just like asking specific questions can change the outcome of polls, so can supportive legislation. If you ask someone whether they are willing to stop eating meat for climate change JUST LIKE THAT, then he probably won't.
If you use clever way to introduce plant based diets, for example by making vegetarian food the default in schools, making these products cheaper via subsidies and putting effort into health campaigns that are linked with a plant based lifestyle, you'd get lots of people to do it.

Similarly, if you ask people whether they are willing to give up their money to fight climate change, the answer is no. If you use taxpayer money to fight climate change in ways people like (for example by creating bike/pedestrian friendly cities and taxing cars more while putting more money into public transport), then that is a different story.

Most people just go with the flow. They might complain a little, but at the end of the day, they will. If you communicate that there is a catastrophe coming and some legislation is necessary to prepare for it, most people are going to accept it if you do it in a proper and organized way. The problem is that governments tend to claim they are doing enough when they are not.

If you explain to people that they WILL lose substantial quality of life for every tenth of a degree the earth heats, a lot of legislation is more palatable. But that needs to be done.