Hot take. Liberals and the general public won't believe that there is something truly existential going on until they see people actually performing action that seems proportional to the size of the threat being claimed.
This kind of mild action doesn't look like people seriously believe that the world is coming to an end unless something happens. To a lot of people it looks like a form of lifestyle protesting. It looks like a social media spectacle instead of the very serious kind of action they expect if people genuinely truly believe what they're saying.
Here in the UK especially people have not forgotten how the fur trade was destroyed by people literally attacking shops selling fur, destroying their stock. They haven't forgotten the radical animal groups that brought about change in animal testing by attacking the animal testing places and freeing animals. They haven't forgotten what radical climate activists of the 80s-90s also used to do.
What people see today is incredibly underwhelming compared to what action they have seen in the past, and for that reason it is hard to take seriously the existential nature of the climate threat because they genuinely do expect people to be doing huge things in response to something truly existential. The action being performed is not proportional to the size of the threat.
In essence what I'm saying is that this kind of action is the complete and total opposite of propaganda-of-the-deed. It undermines the claims made about the problems by being so underwhelming.
You can have a go at me for implying escalation is necessary but I do believe that the action climate activists are taking right now is grossly out of proportion with the claims being made. The action should be matching the claims but it does not, and that's no good.
escalation
Honestly at this point it's hard to imagine an act that isn't justifiable. The stakes are infinite. The planet is visibly, rapidly dying. You can't possibly kill or immiserate more people than the weather will over the next twenty or thirty years.
I'm sure there's a problem with the existing action not matching the rhetoric. The general population is sceptical of exaggerative claims, they think if you truly believe the things you're saying that a lot more genuinely serious action would be happening but it's not... So they're left with questions about whether the rhetoric is real or exaggerated. They come to the conclusion it can't be that serious because nobody is doing anything. That people think that there's still some political method of avoiding it.
I think that when we go over the edge and into the realm of serious action shit will happen extremely fast, a lot of people will go over that edge simultaneously, things will kick off in a big way.
Hot take. Liberals and the general public won't believe that there is something truly existential going on until they see people actually performing action that seems proportional to the size of the threat being claimed.
This kind of mild action doesn't look like people seriously believe that the world is coming to an end unless something happens. To a lot of people it looks like a form of lifestyle protesting. It looks like a social media spectacle instead of the very serious kind of action they expect if people genuinely truly believe what they're saying.
Here in the UK especially people have not forgotten how the fur trade was destroyed by people literally attacking shops selling fur, destroying their stock. They haven't forgotten the radical animal groups that brought about change in animal testing by attacking the animal testing places and freeing animals. They haven't forgotten what radical climate activists of the 80s-90s also used to do.
What people see today is incredibly underwhelming compared to what action they have seen in the past, and for that reason it is hard to take seriously the existential nature of the climate threat because they genuinely do expect people to be doing huge things in response to something truly existential. The action being performed is not proportional to the size of the threat.
In essence what I'm saying is that this kind of action is the complete and total opposite of propaganda-of-the-deed. It undermines the claims made about the problems by being so underwhelming.
You can have a go at me for implying escalation is necessary but I do believe that the action climate activists are taking right now is grossly out of proportion with the claims being made. The action should be matching the claims but it does not, and that's no good.
Right?
I'm sure there's a problem with the existing action not matching the rhetoric. The general population is sceptical of exaggerative claims, they think if you truly believe the things you're saying that a lot more genuinely serious action would be happening but it's not... So they're left with questions about whether the rhetoric is real or exaggerated. They come to the conclusion it can't be that serious because nobody is doing anything. That people think that there's still some political method of avoiding it.
I think that when we go over the edge and into the realm of serious action shit will happen extremely fast, a lot of people will go over that edge simultaneously, things will kick off in a big way.