The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
I’m really not. Being aware of how your oppressor views the world is not the opposite of fighting oppression. It’s a necessary prerequisite. If I go to a protest in black bloc and leave my phone behind, I’m not accepting the 🐷 framing that leftist protesters are violent and therefore deserving of being tracked down and harassed via mass surveillance. I’m doing my best to protect myself from their predictable reaction to me challenging their power.
If you really wanna dig in on this, are you saying that industrial sabotage is not terrorism because it’s destruction of property rather than doing harm to people? Or are you saying that by calling sabotage terrorism I’m conflating ecological freedom fighting with Nazi mass shooters or something? Because I’m not the one doing that conflation. The US government is.
Terrorism is useless without a party attached to it (but separate enough for plausible deniability) that can come out and explain to the public why these acts are being done. Terrorism for its own sake will only lead to further repression.
There's a difference between terrorism to make a political point and sabotage to disable critical infrastructure, which I think is what most people really mean when they say "eco terrorism". Make it too difficult and expensive to operate as-is.
Yeah that's fair, but I do think it's possible that even sabotage could end up running counter to what we're trying to do without a vanguard party to explain the actions. Say you destroy a pipeline, yes that shuts the pipeline down for x amount of time, but when gas prices go up and there's no public explanation as to the motives, I feel that would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the capitalist class while setting back the cause for the masses.
Considering you would really need a mass movement to cripple infrastructure long-term, I think it's more helpful to continue building in ways that may still be dubiously legal but have more chance to really build a mass movement i.e. the many indigenous groups fighting to protect their land from pipelines.
Removed by mod
more and more people are saying this folks
:astronaut-1:
Destruction of corporate property isn't terrorism though.
I have a material interest in anticipating what the US government will interpret as such
You shouldn't accept and use their framing any more than you do the framing of forced birth activists.
Rejecting the judges definition of violence as they throw me into the despair pit
I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold fringed flag
I'm not driving I'm travelling!
I’m not accepting and using their framing by anticipating what will and won’t get me kidnapped and caged by pigs
You are though. Nobody is saying sabotaging industry isn't highly illegal, only that you shouldn't further the conflation of that with terrorism.
I’m really not. Being aware of how your oppressor views the world is not the opposite of fighting oppression. It’s a necessary prerequisite. If I go to a protest in black bloc and leave my phone behind, I’m not accepting the 🐷 framing that leftist protesters are violent and therefore deserving of being tracked down and harassed via mass surveillance. I’m doing my best to protect myself from their predictable reaction to me challenging their power.
If you really wanna dig in on this, are you saying that industrial sabotage is not terrorism because it’s destruction of property rather than doing harm to people? Or are you saying that by calling sabotage terrorism I’m conflating ecological freedom fighting with Nazi mass shooters or something? Because I’m not the one doing that conflation. The US government is.
:shrug-outta-hecks: As long as you understand it'll be labeled terrorism on every tv in the country
And we should be pushing back on that
Sounds like a job for a nationally organized communist party
Both of these things are true
Terrorism is useless without a party attached to it (but separate enough for plausible deniability) that can come out and explain to the public why these acts are being done. Terrorism for its own sake will only lead to further repression.
There's a difference between terrorism to make a political point and sabotage to disable critical infrastructure, which I think is what most people really mean when they say "eco terrorism". Make it too difficult and expensive to operate as-is.
Yeah that's fair, but I do think it's possible that even sabotage could end up running counter to what we're trying to do without a vanguard party to explain the actions. Say you destroy a pipeline, yes that shuts the pipeline down for x amount of time, but when gas prices go up and there's no public explanation as to the motives, I feel that would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the capitalist class while setting back the cause for the masses.
Considering you would really need a mass movement to cripple infrastructure long-term, I think it's more helpful to continue building in ways that may still be dubiously legal but have more chance to really build a mass movement i.e. the many indigenous groups fighting to protect their land from pipelines.