"I've had climate change deniers admit that they think climate change is real but don't want to have to change their lifestyles and think it's mostly the dirty poors who will suffer. Most of them people aren't brainwashed or uneducated, they are just psychos with little to no potential for redemption and probably just need to be culled from earth."
I like to push when they make their inhumanity known, whether implicitly or explicitly. Once they share their gross disregard for human life and willingness to continue to CONSOOM other people to death, I ask them why they shouldn't be treated like the existential threat they are? Don't their victims have a right to self-defense against such callous behavior? If it's a matter of life and death, haven't they legitimatized themselves as a target of defensive violence? What would they have climate activists do, then, when such relations of power and pain are made clear? Their comfort relies on the oppressed asking nicely to live and taking "no" as an answer... What a downright absurd assumption. Their victims and those in solidarity should and will assert themselves. "We shall not make excuses for the terror" and all that.
Sorry for the long post. Hope it was worth the read.
I do try to have at least a little bit of tact, some "just asking questions/devil's advocate" energy. It's not my intent to come off as explicitly threatening violence in the moment (though in reality I truthfully am), more just to shift them from thinking of bad things happening to other people to thinking of bad things happening to themselves.
Most of the people we're talking about here are white, at least affluent enough to think they'll be spared the suffering, and by and large have zero sense of empathy for the poor or poc. It's grotesque, but that's the level of moral regard we're working with. The poor people they're willing to hurt, or at least allow to be hurt, are just an abstract. I myself am white passing, traditionally masculine in appearance, and educated enough to give the impression I'm at least of a class background that I wouldn't be explicitly hostile to these pieces of shit - so in other words they are able to see themselves through my eyes when they couldn't even begin to pretend to for someone more different, whether in person or abstract. Coming from me makes the position 'real' in a way they don't seem to have ever considered for their victims. While I may be pretending to be thinking through the matter from the perspective of one of their victims, I make it pretty clear that I arrived at this conclusion myself. If I can think of it, then, so too can other people. Suddenly their nameless victims aren't just livestock awaiting their fate, but through my presentation, given agency in their calculation... And maybe for the first time.
It's usually a downright surprise to these shit heels. They're briefly baffled that other people are real and have agency and not merely unfortunate props in their climate genocide plans. Once I have them admitting to/acknowledging the potential for or even inevitability of retaliation, they seem a lot less Gung-ho. Most folks think of the violence in the abstract; refugees drowning from a capsized boat, heat deaths or famines, or at most, wars over resources between those people over there. They don't like to think of gunning people down at the border, and even less of themselves doing it. But what of their victims? What of their victims who are justified and right to target these idiots themselves? They cannot see themselves as the good guy in this situation, so they usually either get more quiet with a scared look on their face as the implications of their position fully dawn on them, or, they try to double down and admit to being willing to enact the violence required to sustain that position. That's when I make the hypothetical switch from their victims to their victims allies. THAT'S a real curve ball, because again, up until this point they've had the distance of life circumstance/identity separating themselves from experiencing empathy or even fear. They either don't care about the victims still or don't/pretend not to fear the victims. But motivated and militant people in their own country? That's way too close to home to be ignored. It's also suddenly very hard to tell friend from foe. I might be "playing devils advocate" in my spoken word, but I usually make it clear around here by tone or otherwise that this isn't a hypothetical. I've thought about this, and they haven't. Who else is thinking like me? And if they were wrong to assume I'd be on their side, what might a similar miscalculation cost them in the future?
At this point in the conversation it's inevitably coming to a close since I've made my point. It's either time to return to polite discussion or part ways. But it has never failed to leave people rattled. There's the "Oh shit moment" where they realize their vulnerability in this whole thing for the first time, and that's just inherently funny to me. I like to hope it might shake one or two from their stupor and begin to actually have some degree of empathy for their victims, but barring that, it's funny to watch them lose their sense of safety about it all in real time. They assumed they'd get to keep their treats... But they're wrong lmao. They will have their lifestyles compromised willingly or not, and now they have to live with that realization. What they do with that from there is their problem 🤷
I can only get away with this because of my whole host of privileges. Things like my gender, physical appearance, accent/apparent education, all that stuff. I don't recommend it, or at least not in executing it the same way unless you fit a similar profile, but if you can figure out how to do it in a way that works for you? Godspeed. Being scared by the future they're creating is the least comfy racist genociders deserve, so get out there and make it happen.
I want to add that I present all of this from a, "What would you do in the refugees position?" kind of way. These are egotistical and unrepentant genociders; use their own mindset against them. "Would you lie down and accept your death? Or would you fight to try and change your fate? Even if you were doomed to fail, wouldn't you want to take some of the people responsible for you and your family's miserable death with you first? You should really be more open to averting climate catastrophe for your own good."
Again, the threat should always be implicit for your own safety, but clearly center these people as the target of the violence for best effect.
I like to push when they make their inhumanity known, whether implicitly or explicitly. Once they share their gross disregard for human life and willingness to continue to CONSOOM other people to death, I ask them why they shouldn't be treated like the existential threat they are? Don't their victims have a right to self-defense against such callous behavior? If it's a matter of life and death, haven't they legitimatized themselves as a target of defensive violence? What would they have climate activists do, then, when such relations of power and pain are made clear? Their comfort relies on the oppressed asking nicely to live and taking "no" as an answer... What a downright absurd assumption. Their victims and those in solidarity should and will assert themselves. "We shall not make excuses for the terror" and all that.
I'm curious, how do they respond?
Sorry for the long post. Hope it was worth the read.
I do try to have at least a little bit of tact, some "just asking questions/devil's advocate" energy. It's not my intent to come off as explicitly threatening violence in the moment (though in reality I truthfully am), more just to shift them from thinking of bad things happening to other people to thinking of bad things happening to themselves.
Most of the people we're talking about here are white, at least affluent enough to think they'll be spared the suffering, and by and large have zero sense of empathy for the poor or poc. It's grotesque, but that's the level of moral regard we're working with. The poor people they're willing to hurt, or at least allow to be hurt, are just an abstract. I myself am white passing, traditionally masculine in appearance, and educated enough to give the impression I'm at least of a class background that I wouldn't be explicitly hostile to these pieces of shit - so in other words they are able to see themselves through my eyes when they couldn't even begin to pretend to for someone more different, whether in person or abstract. Coming from me makes the position 'real' in a way they don't seem to have ever considered for their victims. While I may be pretending to be thinking through the matter from the perspective of one of their victims, I make it pretty clear that I arrived at this conclusion myself. If I can think of it, then, so too can other people. Suddenly their nameless victims aren't just livestock awaiting their fate, but through my presentation, given agency in their calculation... And maybe for the first time.
It's usually a downright surprise to these shit heels. They're briefly baffled that other people are real and have agency and not merely unfortunate props in their climate genocide plans. Once I have them admitting to/acknowledging the potential for or even inevitability of retaliation, they seem a lot less Gung-ho. Most folks think of the violence in the abstract; refugees drowning from a capsized boat, heat deaths or famines, or at most, wars over resources between those people over there. They don't like to think of gunning people down at the border, and even less of themselves doing it. But what of their victims? What of their victims who are justified and right to target these idiots themselves? They cannot see themselves as the good guy in this situation, so they usually either get more quiet with a scared look on their face as the implications of their position fully dawn on them, or, they try to double down and admit to being willing to enact the violence required to sustain that position. That's when I make the hypothetical switch from their victims to their victims allies. THAT'S a real curve ball, because again, up until this point they've had the distance of life circumstance/identity separating themselves from experiencing empathy or even fear. They either don't care about the victims still or don't/pretend not to fear the victims. But motivated and militant people in their own country? That's way too close to home to be ignored. It's also suddenly very hard to tell friend from foe. I might be "playing devils advocate" in my spoken word, but I usually make it clear around here by tone or otherwise that this isn't a hypothetical. I've thought about this, and they haven't. Who else is thinking like me? And if they were wrong to assume I'd be on their side, what might a similar miscalculation cost them in the future?
At this point in the conversation it's inevitably coming to a close since I've made my point. It's either time to return to polite discussion or part ways. But it has never failed to leave people rattled. There's the "Oh shit moment" where they realize their vulnerability in this whole thing for the first time, and that's just inherently funny to me. I like to hope it might shake one or two from their stupor and begin to actually have some degree of empathy for their victims, but barring that, it's funny to watch them lose their sense of safety about it all in real time. They assumed they'd get to keep their treats... But they're wrong lmao. They will have their lifestyles compromised willingly or not, and now they have to live with that realization. What they do with that from there is their problem 🤷
I can only get away with this because of my whole host of privileges. Things like my gender, physical appearance, accent/apparent education, all that stuff. I don't recommend it, or at least not in executing it the same way unless you fit a similar profile, but if you can figure out how to do it in a way that works for you? Godspeed. Being scared by the future they're creating is the least comfy racist genociders deserve, so get out there and make it happen.
It was worth the read. Thanks for sharing!
I want to add that I present all of this from a, "What would you do in the refugees position?" kind of way. These are egotistical and unrepentant genociders; use their own mindset against them. "Would you lie down and accept your death? Or would you fight to try and change your fate? Even if you were doomed to fail, wouldn't you want to take some of the people responsible for you and your family's miserable death with you first? You should really be more open to averting climate catastrophe for your own good."
Again, the threat should always be implicit for your own safety, but clearly center these people as the target of the violence for best effect.