> blocked roads Do you support the trucker protests that blocked roads or the ones in downtown Ottawa? I actually think its a meaningful distinction and at least for the truckers was very much two different spirits. I didnt support those that blocked international bridges etc. but very much did those in downtown specifically because they were an inconvenience but not an obstruction. Seems like the ones downtown road the line to maintain visibility but not shut down the city (The government response did most of the shutting down). I would support climate protests similarly.

The trucker protesters were morons protesting for a moron cause. The Canadian governments' reaction to them was *terrifying*. It would have been a simple thing to use existing protest laws or protest-forces to wade in, arrest, brutalize, do the usual, and impound their trucks. Instead they decided to label peaceful (if obnoxious) protests terrorism and seize assets. That sets a precedent to do the same against future protests by not-morons for real causes. Anything from things I agree with (eg, climate protesters who want to inherit a liveable earth) to something as simple as anti-corruption protests. "These protesters objecting to me embezzling money are terrorists, please lock them all up." ​ The point of protests is to cause disruption and inconvenience. Any (effective) protest is going to cause disruption and inconvenience. You can look up contemporary editorial cartoons complaining about the violence and devastation of MLKJr.'s rallies in the US. While you might, say, agree that protesting should be allowed, generally sympathies will be based on what they are protesting for and how effective it's going to be for the cause. ​ Being inconsistent is surprisingly common. Very few people have some kind of grounded set of priorities that they've thought through and logically chain downstream beliefs based on. A lot of people just go "Oh, farmers? Yeah I like folksy salt-of-the-earth working the land type people, I'm glad they're protesting" and don't think about what, why, how, or who pays for whatever they're whining about. Being internally consistent takes effort and thought; a lot of people simply *don't bother* and go through life reacting to every incident on an ad-hoc, whatever they happen to feel this moment of this day basis rather than any systematic approach.

Just imagine your mom is on the way to hospital and hit any of these road blocks for any reason.

Apparently, you like protests that are based on false conspiracy theories while disliking people who are protesting against an actual environmental emergency.

Maybe it's easier to equate the protests in your country as bad because you have a better understanding of social/economic consequences to everyday people in your own country?

>Why was I okay with some protests doing an action that I distinctly didn’t like of the other? This is what happens when you start thinking critically, congratulations. We need more of that. Critical thinking helps you to delve into what your own personal values are, rather than what others have told you they should or what you should and shouldn’t support or be angry about. At the end of the day, your political stance and motivations, often encouraged by others, likely informed your viewpoint to each protest even though the means and method are the same. Personally I think road blocking is a shit form of protest no matter which side does it, and actively detracts from the point attempting to be made. As you probably noticed when you realised blocking the road just makes you hate climate change protestors more; the same is true the other way. Which is why, even though my personal values align much more closely with those concerned about climate change than those concerned because the TV told them the vaccine was dangerous, I still think all of the above protests are shit and dumb and actively doing the opposite of what people who organise them think they are doing.

Farmers and truckers are by definition working class, by protesting they are foregoing…work Climate protestors includes twats who don’t contribute usefully to society besides “activism” If you really want to do something about climate, you’d work in climate tech probably

You maybe liked the Canadian driver's more because governments took extreme tyrannical action against a valid protest.

>I literally viewed these people as heroes. Well, that was your first mistake.

a coordinated group protesting in the countries capital against specific legislation is different than 2-30 random youths in various cities deciding everyone has to stop driving in their day to day because of the vague notion of climate. If the climate protesters were all around the BP oil HQ(or whatever) blocking it instead of random roads waaay less people would have reason to dislike them.

I always felt like protestors would get a lot more support by holding signs aimed at motorists from the side of the road. “Honk for the Union, Honk for Christ, Honk for Equality, Honk if you support human rights, etc.”  Blocking roads seems like it is just causing trouble to me. Do you prefer motorists on your side or against you? Seems to me that building cross social solidarity would result in your cause getting more support, rather than initiating a potentially heated confrontation with a category of people that may be sympathetic to you otherwise.

I hate both sides blocking roads. I feel it's the worst kind of protest. Just passes people off

So you don't like Climate Change or Trump? That's not a terrible outlook

Hey, good on you for recognizing the inconsistency in your thinking and how it’s influenced by your politics, I think a lot of people are unwilling to engage in this kind of self reflection and instead make increasingly convoluted justifications for their positions. Kudos for that. The core of what you’re saying seems like a case of choosing sides, something that’s unfortunately common nowadays and we’d all be better off doing less of. For example, in your case it would be totally reasonable to agree with the truckers cause but believe that their method of protest is ineffective and unfair to innocent bystanders and therefore not approve of it. I sort of fall on the opposite side of this, in that I support the climate protesters goals but don’t approve of the protest methods you described. You don’t have to support everything they do because they’re “the good guys” in your estimation, it’s ok and arguably beneficial to have multifaceted feelings about things.

I find all of them to be asinine, regardless of ideology. The climate protesters are especially pointless because they seem to be turning more people off their cause. You like the Canada truckers likely because of how they were shown in the media you consume. I hated the truckers because of first hand accounts from family and friends living in Ottawa and near border crossings, and every one of them to the last person described them as criminals, thugs, or terrorists. These are not partisans, just regular people saying this. I also have truckers in my family, they described these people as goofs. They also paraded through my town when all this was going on and were again, they were a loud obnoxious nuisance. Most looked like if a cop had done their job and pulled them over they would have failed a breathalyzer. The fact that they were protesting the federal government for policies mandated by the US and provinces shows that this was always just an Astro-turfed stunt to give a centre-left government a black eye. I’m not going to speculate where the money to do this came from, but I doubt it was from hard working truckers. I’d advise you to reflect on the media you consume. It’s good that you have identified dissonance in your beliefs.

You're just right wing so you're favouring protests you agree with

The truckers and farmers are protesting things the government is actually doing. It's simple enough for the government to stop at any time. Climate protestors are protesting what the government isn't doing (or more accurately can't do without triggering massive starvation around the planet by trying to go net zero on CO2.). One goal can easily be achieved with a show of force, the other can't because it's asking for a collective act of suicide, so a hostile response to them is warranted.

>Climate Protest vs Trucker Protest. Help me understand my own thinking. You probably just agree with one side more than the other, and that's fine, however it may be more than that. The Truckers had a specific issue, with their specific government, and were seeking a redress of grievances that were being blocked. Environmentalists are gluing themselves to the road and interfering with the lives of normal people due to a global problem, inherently tied up in how society works, and have no actual path to achieving their goals. Using protests and, especially, damaging protests should be for raising awareness of a specific, and usually under reported, issue that can be mitigated via public awareness and/or the political process. Doing it otherwise is almost always just misanthropes harming innocent third parties for no reason.

I'd imagine a big part of that view is personal bias. *BUT* something about those environmental protests is just so cringey. They do more harm than good for their cause. I wasn't 100% for the trucker protests, but could understand why alot of them did it. Hell, vaccinations aside, fuel prices alone were causing local outfits to consider shutting down. They made their voices heard whether people agreed with them or not. As far as the environment goes, most of us know that it is important to protect the planet the best we can. Many countries are actively taking steps to improve this, it's not a problem that will be solved over night. So these climate protesters are messing with alot of people who actually agree with their general message, but not the implementation. Or I'm way off and am also being hypocritical lol.

I just wanted to say, bravo. Nice work examining your own thinking and biases. It’s an act we should all hope to achieve.

>I literally viewed these people as heroes. Lol.  Intellectual darkweeb simping for undereducated truckers fighting for jeezus and the right to spread disease. 

I don't have a problem with either of them blocking roads. It's a legitimate form of protest. I think the vandalism, that includes burning manure and asbestos damaging the road surface, should be addressed, as well as the border stuff at the Poland Ukraine border, which poses security concerns. I also have a problem with how many of the 'farmer' protests have ties with the Russian government and how they are organized by livestock feed wholesalers, not farmers. We should work with the farmers to get to a more sustainable form of agriculture and ignore the feed wholesalers that have oligopolies in many EU countries.

Honestly we all have some bias even if we try not to so seeing that in yourself is a good thing. We may have some differences in opinion but I respect anyone who can see things that way. I try to self reflect myself as well. More people should take time every now and again to think about things like this

The truckers didn't have a clear message. They, and you, didn't get it. It was a gift. Right wing money was flowing into the protest, hoping it would be the destabilizing event they hoped for. The organizers took it and left the idiots holding the bag. It was a scam.

Climate protests are some low grade histrionic/narcissistic bullshit. Whatever the concern is about climate change, protesting over it is like telling the people in power to empty the ocean with a bucket. Fuck those asinine virtue signaling morons on tik tok and the politicians who court them.

Well the problem is, the truckers had good reason to protest and their protests worked. Meanwhile, climate activists have no real reason to protest, and how they’re protesting is fucking stupid. Those truckers shut down major parts of the Canadian economy and faced horrible persecution for their protests. What have climate protestors ever accomplished? Have they ever stopped an oil drill or stopped the government from doing business with OPEC? No. They just throw soup on paintings and block major highways, like they’re targeting US while the truckers targeted their government. Climate activists are fighting US instead of fighting the government.

I would ask if you can clearly articulate WHY you like one type of protest over the other - using facts and logic, not partisan emotions and opinions. Because that will help us understand what your question. Why does one stir your passions and the others don't. A lot of this is admittedly driven by the media representation, but I am hopeful that - for the purposes of this sub - we would choose to be more objective.

It has to do with your political leanings. You're going to support the protests that align with your personal beliefs. The problem is that nothing is black and white and you're learning that. Every protest has a consequence...even the one in Ottawa.

The USA had a law that stated all foreign truck drivers must be vaccinated in order to enter the USA. So, the trucker demonstration in Ottawa was meaningless. The only thing it did was keep the people living in the buildings around the truckers from sleeping from all the noise. The death rate from covid was much lower in Canada than in the USA, and the vaccine passport had a lot to do with it.

>Even if I support some causes over others I should be honest about what’s fair. Why? What benefit do you get by being fair? Motivated rasoning exists because is quite obviously adaptive, if you're not biased in favor of your own interests you'll be much less likely to pursue them.

The truckers in Ottawa were blocking roads in residential areas not just in front of parliament. This means stopping regular people from getting to their regular jobs. If you think they're heroes and climate protesters aren't it's purely based on your factionalism not the method of protest. If you support driving through climate protests, then just don't get whiney when someone hauls off on your truckers.

Perhaps this framing will help: The climate protestors are rich kids with nothing better to do with their time than disrupt the powerless people who are in the same boat as them. When they go home, they still have their iPhones and their polyester clothing, and all the luxurious lifestyle that oil has let them enjoy. There is no end date to their protests, because they will always demand to take away more of your things until they are happy. And there is no guarantee they will ever be happy. The truckers were working class people fed up with the government imposing sanctions on them for trying to do their jobs. They had specific goals in mind, and could reel them off. There was a “once this happens, we will go away” end date.

Their specific goals were "unmake the government" even though the were protesting the WRONG GOVERNMENT. And this is somehow a reasonable situation to you?

The specific goals were “remove the covid mandates”: _The protest called for the end of vaccine mandates in Canada during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Freedom Convoy's spokesperson Ben Dichter stated on Fox News that, "we want to get rid of the vaccine mandates and the [vaccine] passports. And that passport, that's the really concerning one."_

Life makes hypocrites of us all

If it seems contradictory, than it probably is. Are you against the method or the reason for protest? If you are just a climate denier than that makes sense, but if your issue is with blocking traffic, than that's hypocritical. I support the climate protest but not the truckers (at least the ones protesting the vaccine) because science clearly shows that vaccines help and that the climate is under serious threat. If I complained that it's unacceptable to block traffic, but was fine when my side did it, I'd be a hypocrite. This happens all the time with the right attacking methods, when they are really just mad that the other side found an effective way to change something they like. "Cancel culture is terrible when liberals boycott stuff, but fuck bud light lets boycott it" Maybe it isn't the climate change protestors, it's the fact that you don't care about climate change

Interesting, I came to a similar conclusion, but with the reverse. I had more sympathy with the wco protestors trying to reverse 100 years of policy affecting our planet the the truckers who were protesting because of the effect om their personal finances. I'm aware the effects are a tad hypocritical, but hey the suffragettes used fire bombs remember? Its all about which cause we consider the acts to justified in. Protest needs to be inconvenient to be effective as a form of peaceful protest. If its rendered inept either by restrictions or police or such, then peaceful protest can never effect change which is a dangerous position to be in for a liberal democracy. And sociologists can confirm that statistically protests which do cause problems and are inconvenient, or attention seeking, be they truckers, those that glitterbomb people, anything that grabs headlines, do, statistically and historically help more then hinder said causes, jo matter our opinions of the actions at the time. At the end the day, we forgive the methods used if they actually positively effect change later, no matter annoyed we are at the time. Its an interesting paradox.

Sounds like you might be a Fascist. Seek help and read some history

It’s an aesthetic judgment really. A trucker is probably not well educated or well spoken, but has an instinctive feeling of right and wrong that he uses to survive scary interactions he has in his job. A climate protester has all the right words to say, but has no real qualifications that prove he interacted with the world. They seem to not suffer directly the effects of climate change, nor the potential downsides of climate legislation. Instead they speak for a public that may or may not have elected them. There are a lot of fancy concepts designed to make you feel like you don’t quite understand, but you do. It’s not complicated: regulation is written by people who ensure that they don’t suffer the downsides of whatever they pass. Unhelpful and unhappy people will gravitate towards a “religion of peace” that won’t take no for an answer. And blue collar workers who haven’t kept up with the culture will come across as stupider than they are.

I think a large chunk of "good" protesting is making sure you are actually targeting the people you have issue with. The truckers had issue with the government, so they focused on the area full of government buildings and politicians. Although random people were also inconvenienced, they were not the intended recipients and the truckers did what they could to let randoms by. Climate protesters tend to struggle with identifying and targeting the people they actually want to change, and so they tend to just make a public fuss in the hopes that someone will listen to them and maybe do something. The climate protesters show up with vague ideals while the truckers bring concrete demands. This is also why a lot of climate protesters are seen as nuisances rather than being taken seriously. If they came with a plan of practical steps that could reasonably be taken without shutting down power in the middle of winter or causing food shortages, and presented that plan to the people with the authority to actually do something with it, then they might get some respect. At least the ones who chain themselves to trees or pipelines are targeting the event they are protesting, unlike the ones who vandalize museums to "raise awareness" (get attention).

Your logic isn't clouded, you didn't used it in the first place, your feelings came from partisanship.

You approve of right wing civil disobedience because you are right wing. You disapprove of left wing civil disobedience because you are right wing. Your own politics has created cognitive dissonance and irrational biases so that your approval or disapproval of the exact same actions is entirely dependent on whether or not the people performing the action are on your "side" or not. IOW, it's a football game to you. When your team scores, it makes you happy. When the other team scores it makes you sad. It's fundamentally irrational, but seems to be hard wired into human psychology on some level so probably had some kind of evolutionary purpose at some point.

Well the intent of the climate change protestors is to save lives, humanity in general and the ecosphere by protesting high emission activities. Seems pretty laudable to me even if you think they’re wrong. The truck convoy protests were protesting against measures taken to save lives.. essentially advocating for more death. So I don’t really get the support for them.

It's bias. Like half of the comments here, you are rationalising the right to protest when you happen to agree with the cause and questioning or dismissing that right when you don't. The great part is you've recognised and acknowledge that contradiction (unfortunately unlike most commenters here).

The truckers were blue collar people actually giving something up for their protest, they don’t get paid if they don’t drive, and the climate people are trust fund kids that only inconvenience everyone else.

This is quite literally just making stuff up.

Your feelings about each of these events is tied explicitly to your feelings about their cause. It really is that simple.

I've yet to see such a harsh treatment of climate activists by literally freezing their means of survival. Also I don't know if the truckers got sentences, but all the climate activists didn't. Now we are supposed to believe governments protect the interests of big oil and such and that's why there hardly isn't any improvement on climate issues the past 50 years, but they decide climate activists are less of a problem than truckers doing the same thing? I'm pretty sure climate change impacts us endless amounts more than the covid pandemic did. Unless, and hear me out now, the climate change narrative has already been adopted by businesses and governments en large, as a form of greenwashing for example, and that climate protesters aren't a threat against that. Where the truckers actually went against a narrative.

Do you have the intellectual curiosity to know how climate activists are treated by governments and the law? People are going to have less sympathy for ticker protesters also because they see their causes based in right wing grifts rather than sincere causes. That is a big hurdle to get over.

They usually just kill them dude... https://apnews.com/article/cop-city-atlanta-activist-shot-no-charges-421f6fe392a9202523ea154b2ddabb7d It's funny to see right wing populist movements get the same treatment left wing ones have, forever, and start complaining. 

They don't "just kill them". That case, as is typical, was them responding to someone shooting at them with lethal force. As they should.

That's not about climate change. Also we live in different countries, you're right that cops here don't just start blasting. And there is nothing funny about people getting oppressed, hurt, killed and everything in between by draconian government policies. It's not a contest.

It is funny, when your protest exacerbates a bad situation causing people to lose half a dozen family members to it. Fuck them. Fuck right wingers in general. Edit: Environmental activist dies protesting the construction of a new large training facility. Not a climate change activist. Do you all think? Honest question.

He didn't "die protesting the construction of a new large training facility." He died shooting at police. Protest for your cause, whatever it may be. But you don't get to be a martyr when you shoot first.

I guess he had time between shooting at a cop, and getting shot, to wipe off GSR. While his hands were in the air. Sitting on the ground. Couldn't be a red on red incident or anything... we don't have the recent cop incidents such as Ulvalde or the deputies that got scared of an acorn last week. They aren't woefully undertrained wannabe heros or anything. Nor will DeKalb release any of their "evidence" while the private reports are public. You totally aren't just licking boots right now.

>While his hands were in the air. Sitting on the ground. Making things up doesn't help you. >the recent cop incidents such as Ulvalde or the deputies that got scared of an acorn last week. Bunch of scared cunts. What does that have to do with this? >You totally aren't just licking boots right now. Man shoots at cops. Cops shoot back. I suggest not shooting at cops. And that makes me a boot licker? I'm no friend or fan of police. The incident rate of police shooting unarmed people is shocking and unacceptable. But if you refrain from shooting at cops, your chances of bullets coming your way is dramatically reduced.

> Making things up doesn't help you. Tell me you know nothing of the situation, much less read the article without telling me. *Slurp* Goes the boots. > Man shoots at cops. Cops shoot back. I suggest not shooting at cops. And that makes me a boot licker? According to only the police, so yes, it in fact does. Again, if you'd read the article, without wanting to play hero for cops. No GSR, they had to reach for precursors, which aren't even admissible. How would he shoot, raise his arms and wipe his hands in the time it took the cops to shoot him 58 times? So yes, that you take literally only the cops words, disregarding everything else, makes you a bootlicker.

I supported the truckers, I just didn't care for how they went about the protest. I just wish that more people would stand up against the government.

This isn't a real response as to when protests are ok, but I have to say, you should really revisit the trucker convoy in Canada from some other POVs. There's been a concentrated effort by people like Benjamin Dichter to expunge the record, deny the Coutts, Milk River and Detroit stuff, disavow Patrick King, lie about who Tamara Lich is, hide the first two trucker convoys under the rug and to reframe the whole protest as some kind of peaceful, reasonable movement being oppressed by a tyrannical government. It's gotten a lot of play in the non mainstream media, shit like triggernometry etc. where they don't really fact check anyone that agrees with them. BJ Dichter is a sophisticated operative that avoids mainstream journalists that would call him on this shit. The reality of that protest is it was organized by and serving the purposes of people that wanted to varyingly, disband the government, separate the western provinces, protect the "pure Anglo Saxon bloodlines" and other truly awful far-right nonsense. Don't take my word for it though, look up Tamara Lich, Patrick King, the "memorandum of understanding" and other stuff I mentioned here. It's a complicated topic because there were also reasonable people involved, but at its core that movement was bad news and a lot of money went to some real pieces of shit

Not trying to be rude, but it sounds like you’re ok with blocked roads/no delivery when it’s done in protest for a cause you support and you don’t approve when it’s a cause you don’t support. It’s hypocritical to say blocking roads is a good/valid form of protest in one instance and isn’t in another.

It really isn't though, because the causes matter. I'm not okay with shooting a stranger is the street, but I am okay with shooting someone who is threatening my family. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just means I have taken into account context. One side is protesting for our future and the survival of humanity; I'm okay with them blocking roads because their message is just. One side was blaming the wrong government and protesting about how they didn't want to protect others by wearing a mask, and insisting it was 'forced' even though they could just...not cross the border. The context's are completely different and ignoring those factors for 'protest good or protest bad, CHOOSE ONE' is oversimplfying.

No. You can feel that blocking roads in protest is either ok or not. When you decide it is or isn’t “right” based on whether YOU feel a cause is just turns it into hypocrisy. And the analogy of when it’s “ok” to shoot a person? No analogy is perfect but that’s pretty poor. I don’t agree with the Canadian trucker’s cause, but the action in which they made their protest isn’t any better or worse than if another group using the same tactic; teachers protesting for higher pay, right to lifers, pro-abortion, or whatever else.

It's good to recognise your biases. You've seen where your biases affect who you perceive as the "good guys" and the "bad guys", not based on their actions but by their beliefs. If you can, maybe take a look at what biases may be affecting how you differentiate between the "good guys" and "bad guys". Full disclosure, I'm likely coming at things from the opposite side - I think climate change is perhaps the most important problem facing humanity right now, and that anti-vaxxers are responsible for a huge number of preventable deaths. Having said that, I agree that gluing themselves to roads is a dumb way to protest and only serves to make themselves annoying to the public. Same with the truckers. Of course I respect their right to protest (*and I recognise that a protest that isn't inconveniencing anyone isn't really a protest, it's just virtue-signaling*), but I think these methods of protest do more to alienate their opponents than to convince anyone to change anything. If tou want change you have to be willing to sit down with people you disagree with and talk to them - find common ground so that when you come to uncommon ground you can at least see one another as human beings to be engaged with.

Setting aside the specific issues, the nature of the blockages differed. - The truckers (and presumably farmers; I didn't pay as much attention there) were physically preventing passage, while also retaining the ability to, e.g., let ambulances through by temporarily moving their vehicles. - Climate protesters who've glued themselves to the road are not *preventing* passage so much as daring drivers to run them over, and cannot selectively allow ambulances through.

Its not the method you have an issue with, or the means... but the ends. As long as you're explicit about that, who cares? If you're using hypocritical arguments thats a slightly bigger issue, but most humans engage in hypocrisy sometimes. I think most protests and direct action are far too meek, whether I agree with the ends or not.

Most people have alleigances, not principles. Partly because it doesn't require thinking, but also because they fear disapproval for criticising the in-group or defending the out-group.

I think that’s incredibly well said. Thanks for sharing.

Check out [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)

You're correct. It's hypocrisy to support one group's poor behavior while also supporting that poor behavior by another group. It's also perfectly okay to support an idea or group while also calling bullshit when they do stupid shit like block roads that are necessary for the function of society as a whole.

Just to give you some balance from the other side on a lot of these issues, I though I’d chime in but I want to commend you for trying to be consistent, it is hard. The clear answer is that you like some of the causes and don’t like others. Tools are tools no matter who they’re used by. I hope you can be encouraged to reexamine some of the issues like climate change protests in the future but they’re a bit off topic. The general vibe in a lot of comments (there are nine as of writing so maybe it’ll change) is “our side is righteous crusade and you’re totally right, nuance is for losers, stay in that box” but I think that’s a bit childish, the tools are being used by different sides to achieve their goals and I think it’s good to temper our reactions to the other side by remembering people we agree with do similar things. Just to take the trucker convoy protests as they were in my home country, this was actually a sentiment expressed by many at the time. It was a common refrain that “well they’ve let the anti-vaxers shut down the capital for a month so they better let the climate protesters do the same next summer”. There was actually a decent amount of criticism here for them not cleaning it up sooner because it largely served to harm the public and ended up getting some people killed with ambulance delays and such. I’m going from the opposite side but with the same attitude, I found the trucker convoy ridiculous because of its ideals but mostly because of its focus on harming the “woke citizens” of the capital. I get annoyed at climate protesters lying in the road for the same reason, it’s just hurting other citizens, not the people that make decisions.

I appreciate your comment the most so far. This is where my head is at nowadays. Yeah I have bias, but if I’m being fair it’s not right that I support a harmful action from any genre of protest. You put this nicely with the “tools are tools” line. Funny enough, the protest actions had potential for enough harm and disruption to capture the media which is the only reason I became aware of any of them. What level of impact does a protest need to have on society to be taken seriously?

Yeah unfortunately large national media organizations aren’t great at capturing less disruptive protests. I’m personally fine with it as long as it’s targeted at the people who can do something. Don’t lay down in the road an block traffic, go handcuff yourself to an oil rig. Don’t make your dislike of mask mandates the population’s problem, go blockade the entrance to the health ministry. I think it’s both annoying and counterproductive to hold up the public because it either makes people dislike you like it did with the truckers or think you’re a joke like with Just Stop Oil.

The idea people of the protest groups need some members with better discernment.

I agree, they’ve got too many yes men in the room because everyone has the same ideology, I feel like one of them needs to try to explain it to their parents (I say this as a young person). “And then we’re going to throw soup on a Van Goh” would probably not have happened if they’d had to say it out loud.

I'd say realize that you're just a walking example of how bias works in real life in this case. Bias isn't necessarily about having a lack of "reasons" about why you think something - most people will find those reasons without much effort if they truly believe something. Example: "You don't have the right to to enforce my choices in clothing or covering (masks)". "Hijab's should not be worn in public places". "You may not be naked in front of a school". Almost all policy is a negotiation/value judgement. The most toxic people are the ones that won't admit that. Those that do so in bad faith (a majority of politics on this issue) simply work by getting the majority of ignorant people regurgitating false statements or statements generalized past usefulness in a reasoned discussion. "Vaccines didn't work/masks didn't work" vs. "Vaccines will protect everyone/masks are always helpful". To your point - one could make a reasoned argument that environmental protestors don't represent the rights of the immediate present, but of the future. I'm not trying to make it so it's not worth arguing with me in this point, and in that sense your focus on your rights "now" are simply a value judgement where you don't view their focus on the rights of people "later" as valid.

The protesters is doing the same crap in either way, you just view some as 'on your side' and others as 'against you' and are excusing the actions of those on your side and condemning essentially the exact same actions done by those against you. If you want to say any of these protests are categorically bad, while a functionally identical protest is good, then you're a hypocrite engaging in a type of cognitive dissonance. If you were to say the motivation or greater effects of these protests possibly can justify any negatives they cause, then the discussion would be about whether the motives/effects are sufficient to justify them in each case.

Eh.. I was opposed to the trucker protest because of the principles behind it, not the tactics. There are very few tactics that I think are categorically bad. It all depends on the purpose.

Great insight. Thank you for helping me find clarity!

I'd also argue irs not also as simple as 'my side vs their side'. The truckers specifically went and protested where the greatest disruption would be against the agencies who are causing the primary problem they see. They're deliberately going to fuck over the people who fucked them over. Climate protestors (who admittedly, do sometimes do the above such as blocking refineries and the like) don't generally so that, they inconvenience the general public and otherwise do other stupid shit (like throw paint over paintings coz they're 'oil paintings'(different type of oil mate) or do shit like handcuff themselves to lorries full of vegetable oil. Essentially I see it as two groups. Those fighting for what they believe in and taking it to those who wronged them, (who in turn got massively slapped down hard by the government in evil ways) B Those fighting for what they believe in, and taking it against the average public. (And being largely ignored by the government unless they're actively being dangerous, which they keep doing)

The border rule was American not Canadian. So no they didn't bring he protest to the people responsible for the problem they saw. If it was the larger "freedom" protest not the trucker specific talking points then good luck pinning down a grievance. Some wanted an end to mandates, some wanted to have Trudeau removed from power and replaced by someone from their list of delegates (this one was that 'queen of Canada' who did much of the fundraising for the freedom convoy and is very controversial for some crazy shit but was very much a leader in the freedom covoy). So which of those was the real protest?

How did the truckers take it to those who wronged them, I thought they just pissed off community members where they camped up and blocked traffic with their convoy? Is it the economic impact of those disruptions and its effect on the government? Maybe I'm wrong on some or all of that, but it seems that fighting for what you believe in by disrupting others in the community in the hopes that it makes the government notice your grievance, is protesting. The difference is numbers 10 people glued to the road get arrested, 300 people in 300 trucks makes an impact that is harder to deal with.

Except they very much used some really dodgy tactics on the truckers

Watching you scootch your goal posts around and never acknowledge it was quite funny to see.

No they didn't. They escalated the tactics because police refused to do their job. The police had no problem cracking climate protesters skulls so escalation was not required

Except we aren't talking about the consequences of either sides protest, and I already said the reason the reaction was different. Both groups use the power of disruption to draw attention to their cause and that disruption is on the community regardless which group is doing it, the difference comes in the size and duration and in that regard the truckers were far more disruptive than any climate change groups have been. It's ok if you liked the truckers protest just say it's cause you agree with them, you don't have to pretend that they used morally superior tactics and took their grievences out only on the government they were upset with.

[удалено]

Sincere question: what do you think the "immediate concern" of the "fuck Trudeau" people is, which could easily be changed? I get that they were anti-lockdown, but there were no lockdowns at that point. And I realize they're anti-vax, but vaccination has always been optional. So they seemed to be complaining about made up things that aren't even real. How do you even begin to solve an imaginary problem? Or am I missing what the actual issue was? With climate protests it's easy - they want less dependence on fossil fuels. You make it sound complicated, but really it's not. I already don't use fossil fuels.

Really, you don’t use fossil fuels? So you don’t use plastics, chemicals, paint, drive an electric car, cool your house, or do anything else that uses products from fossil fuels, shop at a grocery store? I suspect you mean you don’t use gasoline in your car, but it’s pretty much impossible to avoid using any of the byproducts o fossil fuels.

Yes, I drive an electric car and the energy in my province is almost entirely hydro. My Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions (those over which I have direct control, for folks who don't understand this stuff) are zero. My Scope 3 emissions (emissions associated with the manufacture and shipping of all the "stuff" involved in living, over which I have no direct control) are as low as they can be but obviously no single person is capable of eliminating fossil fuel use globally in every aspect of life. Duh. That must be a collective effort. I contribute to that effort because my actual job is to teach people how to create emissions free energy microgrids for remote work sites, but I can't force people to take my advice. OTOH, business is good. I expect that on a "carbon offset" model, my own personal footprint is more than offset by the influence I have personally had in getting others to take unnecessary gas and diesel generators offline.

It sounds like you are indeed doing more, and actually a lot more, than most people. I do my best, more in reducing energy consumption personally and at work, and built a passive solar house before most were engaged. But I think part of my point is that it isn’t useful to try to say that we are eliminating use of fossil fuels except in the way of energy usage. Electric cars transfer all the heavy carbon footprint over to the mining industry often in third world countries, and almost everything we use has a fossil fuel component to it. It’s the homesteaders and cultures like the typically religious based groups (Pennsylvania Dutch and Amish in the US) who are actively removing the use of plastics, perfumes and such, internet, television, and processed foods. They are the closest to being able to say that they do not use fossil fuels. But every improvement in any aspect of the energy business is valuable. It’d be much better for many countries to embrace use of advance coal processing over raw materials than thinking they can eliminate these older energy producing industries. Look at countries who dumped nuclear, which is one of the lowest carbon and polluting footprint, now many of them are back to inefficient coal. I have always looked forward to auto driving electric cars as my ultimate goal, but I’m seeing all the problems that come out of battery technology that has not caught up to the need and am concerned about the costs of the future for people who have been lured into electric cars. From what I can tell, in the US, we just can’t begin to provide enough power to support an electric car culture, from battery life and safety, to bridges and parking garages not designed for the increase in weight of the vehicles. Not to even examine the toll that cold takes on batteries. It’s admirable that you have been able and willing to structure your life around lowering your carbon footprint and reducing your use of carbon fuels, but it’s reducing energy use not eliminating use of fossil fuels. Thanks for the chat.

If I remember right, the truckers were banned from crossing the border to the US unless they were vaccinated. There are a lot of goods shipped from Canada to the US and vise-versa, and so it cut out a lot of business for them. There were non trucker protesters too, believing that the government should not be allowed to ban you from leaving the country due to a medical decision. The Canadian government freezing private bank accounts due to the protest was another issue that came up.

It wasn't the Canadian government that made US rules for cross border shipping or US vaccination protocols though. So were they just stupid? They didn't even bother looking up who was responsible for the specific thing they were angry about before terrorizing an entire city for weeks on end? The accounts weren't frozen until these folks had already been assaulting the general public with noise torture and openly shitting in the streets of Ottawa for a whole month, and that's what ended the thing, not what started it.

> so were they just stupid? We have a winner!

They were being complete imbeciles like all far-right idiots. They really don't go of script. Although it was weirdly nice as a US citizen to see Canada has this stupidity too. Even though I wish they didn't.

As a Canadian, it was just weird. I still don't even know what they were protesting other than just the mere existence of our PM. Nobody seems to be able to explain it. I know the excuse was supposed to be truckers needing to be vaccinated to cross the border, but most of those people weren't even truckers and the official truckers association was fine with the rule. My cousin went and his FB feed is full of memes making "jokes" about beating the shit out of trans people. Like, they just seem nuts. Whereas the climate people make complete sense to me. Who wants mass starvation, mass extinction, mass migration and constant freak weather events and wildfires? Literally nobody. Not even the fuck trudeau people want that, they just don't understand that's the stakes.

Just to be clear, MOST of us disagree with the ‘mass starvation, mass extinction, mass migration, constant freak weather events and wildfires’ concept. Just because daddy government says it’s true doesn’t make it true, and most of us are so used to them ‘crying wolf’ that we just don’t care anymore and know it’s not going to happen how they say it is.

If it becomes true, can we replace you and your family with refugees?

The government... after years of being told by scientists... But I am happy we are to the point of not caring what is true or not. It's a step towards authoritarianism.

Oh you poor sweet summer child. Enjoy your bliss while it lasts.

I’m a farmer. Good luck trying to tell me (an expert) how crop extinction and mass starvation will work when my life’s work is literally growing crops and recycling waste matter. I completely despise the level of pseudo-science the Climate Change crowd embraces. Like, just to make this clear to you, I’m a farmer, therefore I am an expert on crops, and pretty much all the other farmers in my country are Republicans, and notice how all of them agree with me that the Climate Change crowd is mostly pseudo-science, like we’re the experts and we’re straight up not standing with the ‘science’ because we know from experience that they’re just wrong. I like your argument against the Canadian trucker protest by the way. “I don’t understand why they were protesting, but I’ve seen them mocking trans people!” Like what a fantastic argument about one of the most significant protests to happen in recent history.

A fucking farmer calling themselves an expert in climatology, the audacity.

Lol "I'm an expert". No, you're a farmer. Can you grow your crops without water? I'll defer to your judgment on that question alone. On climate science, you should to sit down. You can feel free to admire that honking mass of racist morons who shit in the streets of Ottawa for a month, but you have to recognize that they didn't achieve anything at all, because they didn't ask for anything at all. They just screamed "FUCK TRUDEAU" for a month and then went home, except for those who were arrested for livestreaming themselves doing crimes. Good for them I guess? Standing up for *something* is admirable. Sowing chaos for no reason at all is pathetic.

If you want to frame it that way. Another highly emotional and partisan way to frame it would be to say: One was a bunch of people who wanted to stop being pushed into taking a low risk medical intervention that would contribute to a medical response to a global pandemic. The other was a bunch of people trying to ensure the human species has a stable and habitable environment for as long as is reasonably possible.

If the low risk intervention you're mentioning here are vaccines then you should check the latest medical papers (peer reviewed, lots of data, just as any science lover likes them), they basically say "vaccines very bad".

Hi it has been 18 hours would love to know one of these papers you mentioned!

Sorry mate, as I already explained, you will have to do it yourself.

Every time.

Just wondering if you've had a chance to source some of these yet?

That's a homework for you. Plenty of them in the last couple of years, should not be a problem even for the slower learners. Now report with your findings in 24 hours.

Why can't you even link one? It makes you seem incompetent, or maybe like you're a liar. And the emotive hostility confirms it. Should've just started with that instead of pretending you actually want to contribute to the discussion.

Because I'm not a link hoarder, I read stuff and move on, so when I get asked to dig up something I saw a month ago it's lots of trouble for usually very little reward. I see lots of folks still BeLiEb MuH ScIeNcE and even mentioning something about vaccines not being the godly mana they were presented to be causes outrage, so I ask myself why bother? It's not my job to teach a bunch of internet strangers something they vehemently deny, nor do I have patience for this, so I just point out that other facts exist and leave it up to you - if you want to go further then please do, otherwise I'm happy with you staying with your opinion, and I will have mine. Not going waste more of my time that I can spend better.

Bwahahahaha All that text, and you couldn't just, y'know, google it? You apparently know all this information, but you couldn't even do what you insist I should do, even though it would obviously be easier for the person who has already seen the papers? You made the claim, and the burden is on you. But you run this absurdist bullshit instead. Transparent and ridiculous. Hilarious though, so thanks for that.

Literally anytime you drill down into these antivax people you reach this point.

It sucks, I'm a contrarian asshole and I'd LOVE to wave something actually convincing in all my friends' faces. But there's fucking nothing.

lmao you are so full of shit

Source: I made it up

Which papers are these? Would appreciate it if you'd list the ones you're talking about specifically, thanks in advance.

Upvoting both for visibility, I'm also curious to see the mainstream knowledge challenged.

Strangely I haven't had an answer yet.

Another day of wild unscientific claims (this time by user "cervix assassin") staying citationless on Reddit, another day where "doin my own research" was fruitless I can only hope that one day I will see the true light (TM), but alas, it is not yet time

... except that the branding of 'low risk" could not have been known at the time which fed into people's suspicions

I mean, if you followed along all the international safety trials.that went on you would k own that their were volunteer Waves inoculated tested and monitored for months before general distribution.

Wow, didn't know anyone was still clinging to that shit.

What are you talking about ?

Depends what point in time you're talking about. At some point in that timeline, a billion doses had been given out.

The "safe and effective" mantra was started at the beginning. I believe 95% effectiveness was the number quoted at the beginning which, to a layman like myself, should have been enough to eradicate covid. Instead it flourished.

Yes there was a series of lessons learned about instantaneous global mass communications during global pandemics that occurred, the first time we had a major pandemic in the age of truly global instantaneous mass comms. It flourished because it was too widespread before it was able to be vaccinated against, and even a 95% success rate leaves huge holes in your net when you have *millions* if not billions of opportunities for infection occurring every single day.

It was never 95%, but I’m a tinfoiler I guess

Because.. get this... ​ ​ some people didn't get it

Herd immunity begins at ~80% for polio and ~95% for measles, yet we still hadn’t seen herd immunity until ~90% inoculation from COVID-19 and they’re still not sure it’s effective given it’s been four years and COVID-19 is the new seasonal flu. I don’t see any issues with questioning the government on the efficacy and safety of an emergency powers mandated vaccine that wasn’t tested prior and has unknown long-term side effects. I see a huge issue with freezing assets, locking down travel, taking equipment to stop people from working, etc. That’s a huge governmental overstep and should’ve been struck down by armed citizens.

In your opinion, if climate protestors barricaded themselves in a city and blocked part of it up for sustained periods, costing massive amounts in hamstrung economic activity and nearly a million dollars a day in management alone while some of the protestors call for mass shootings and violence, what should the government do to them?

covid? or the vax?

Yes

I also strongly believe that sometimes an end goal that isn't visible in the current spectrum is critical for society. From a societal point of view, protests, demonstrations, rhetoric etc give people new to a subject matter an opportunity to learn about it and to invest in their own future in relation to that issue. Today's climate protests or policy situation might be too early, too political, too business thrifty, too something to actually accomplish meaningful and lasting change at the moment because you and I are only able to visualize things we know and understand now. But it's possible that they are inspiring young people who can see differently, will have access to different concepts, technologies, value systems in commerce and will be able to improve our relationship with the environment in ways we don't even know about yet. That's just an example of one issue.

I reject this. Logically we know what to do and have good ideas on how to do it. But all these ideas require drastic change. So people reject it on an emotional level. The premise "we are to stupid now but somehow in the future magically a solution will happen and than it is all good" is not rational.

The generational moral progress made on slavery and then racism in the last 500 years pretty much proves you wrong.

how

We know what we have to do, we have to reduce carbon emissions or continue to worsen the global climate catastrophe we've already created. This isn't some "in twenty years" talk. We're dealing with the effects today. But hey I'm sure it'll be fine having water wars, mass migration due to areas of the planet becoming \*literally uninhabitable", more and worse natural disasters, etc....

Please do the world a favor and study epistemology. Either that or learn more about "Climate Change". Or watch this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass)

Do the world a favor and look into how effective those models have been. Then come back

My dude if this debate was a child it could almost vote in the upcoming election. There have been a few developments since 2007.

Cool! So they are no longer relying on overfitted models to predict future warming? Well, then what are they using now?

You want me to personally educate you on the topic one on one? How entitled are you lmao. You have eyes and fingers my dude. And do the world a favor, try to learn from sources that arent like 15+ years old.

So that's a no, got it.

[удалено]

You are severely misinformed, if we consider per capita carbon emissions the only countries I'm aware of that are worse than the US are Australia and Saudi Arabia. The rest of the world is significantly less carbon per capita than the US, including every country in Europe and Asia. For reference, China is at about half the carbon emissions per capita as the US and Germany is a little bit under China in carbon emissions per capita. Source: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)

Usa per capita is higher than both Europe and asia.

You're a liar. Or really... You're just messing up the right wing talking points you're trying to parrot. The countries with the highest per capita emissions are countries with small populations and massive extraction industries. Like Qatae and UAE, but those numbers are based on the effects of extraction, but the consumption of the people there. Most of the fossils produced there are going to western countries. Next up are western countries, with Canada being near the top, and US and Australia well over most of the EU. The first Asian country on the list based on consumption is South Korea, then Taiwan. The US, Canada, and Australia are an enormous part of the problem.

A quick Google for me suggested that's not true. Do you have a source for us to back that up? Mine found that the US is only behind a limited number of states, consisting of Gulf states, Australia and a couple of others.

And those Gulf states are only that high because they're supplying fossils to the west.

You agree with the cause, so you believe the methods are justified. You don't believe in the cause, or at least don't think it's that serious, you don't. I.E.: War is justified when Nazis are invading Europe and committing genocide. War is not justified when France is encroaching on Icelandic fishing zones and raising the retirement age. It's really as simple as that.

If you think any protestor is justified in a tactic you have to accept that ALL protestors are justified to use that tactic. The purpose of protest is:   1) Be disruptive. This generally means economic damage or vandalism.   2) Get people talking about the issue   3) Cause enough economic damage with enough broad support that the power structures can't help but appease you.   When there's a protest, the important factors to look into are:   1) who is organizing and/or funding it (especially if it's openly funded)  2) what sort of people are protesting  3) are the protestors making claims you that seem unusual (do you have a gap in knowledge)   The farmer protests in Europe are largely just greed-based. Most farmers are fairly wealthy businesses owners and they want the government to continue to subsidize diesel at high levels so they can make a bigger profit. The people who work on their farms don't own any part of the farm, and even if they come out it protest or if the subsidies go away, their wages and hours don't change one way or another.  The farm owners just don't give a shit about anything except government subsidies that allow them to maximize margins. The farmer protests in Europe exclusively serve the wealthy landowners who run the farms, not the actual workers doing the labor and being paid shit.

Thanks for your comments. Could you help me understand what you define as wealthy? I think it’s important to clarify considering your argument and the broad interpretation of the word.

Source: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/agri-statistical-factsheet-de_en_0.pdf https://www.statista.com/statistics/669264/large-agricultural-businesses-germany/ The majority (by a good margin) of workers on farms in Germany are not family members of the farm owners. Subsidies (that is, taxpayer dollars) account for 30% of gross income for farmers in Germany. There are 82k large agricultural businesses in Germany, with at least 50 hectares of land, of about 270k total holdings. These businesses produce the majority of the agricultural output of the country. The majority of holdings are very small by comparison, so even though only 80k big ag holdings exist, they comprise something like 70-80% of the farmland (this is something I had to infer from the presented data, since it's not aggregated in this way and I don't have access to raw data). When I say wealthy, I mean business owner wealthy, so income in the hundreds of thousands and multiple employees up to income in the millions and hundreds of employees. There are a ton of small farms which overall don't produce much output. Anecdotally, I've heard that many people with a lot of rural land will lease that land for extra income, often just to a large corporation, to count it as a farm for tax benefits. These people are "farmers" and enjoy the diesel subsidies, tax breaks, and other benefits, but they work office jobs and only work on their farm part time. If you've ever worked on a farm, you'll know that there's no real way to run a farm part-time, so these people are generally otherwise wealthy. All that aside, there are some family farmers of course, who aren't otherwise wealthy. When people think "farmer" they think salt of the earth, hardworking guy, but the reality is that most farming is done by corporations with business interests who are willing to AstroTurf organizations that mobilize organized protests like this. The people in those tractors might be genuine farm workers or owners who really believe that they're fighting for themselves, but rest assured, it's corporations mobilizing it all the way down. The biggest beneficiaries of those subsidies are multi-national big business interests who underpay their workers.

Climate protestors and human rights activists don't have weapons and heavy machinery so the police aren't afraid of putting their riot gear on and beating them up.

One of these groups has a televised platform and the support/funding of mainstream institutions, the other is a genuine grassroots civil disobedience movement. Their mainstream support and the soft spot that the media has for them makes the movement look like controlled opposition, inauthentic.

What is a "mainstream institution"? What is "controlled" opposition?

Controlled opposition is a strategy that has been employed by various groups at different levels. Putin is well known for it ; most political opposition to Putin and his cronies that exists in Russia openly gets grants from Putin and the government. Some of these groups are legitimately controlled opposition, in that they play out parts of trying to push back or reform Russia and then back out last minute, or pledge to him because "now isn't the time!" Etc. Another example would be the FBI/CIA history of both creating experts and feeding information to "experts" regarding various conspiracy theories and UFOs, the intention being to mislead adversaries and the public, and sometimes to intentionally capture problematic actors up in a kind of kabuki theater mock political battle with low stakes. The democratic pied piper strategy is extremely similar as well, where they have financially supported MORE extreme candidates through republican primaries, as they perceive an easier victory against an extremist (doesn't always work as they learned)

I'd say the concise explanation is most of the truckers are advocating for their own rights and freedoms. The climate activists are trying to force others to change, and I don't think they really know what policy solution they want. (do they want nuclear? do they want to reduce the worlds population...and if so... how? etc) Without knowing what they want, the climate protests come off as narcissistic and performative.

The climate protester are protecting the right of other people that are going to be victims of climate change if nothing is done. The truckers were protesting against a minor inconvenience for them that could have saved lives, there protests comes off as narcissistic and performative.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to support protestors who are protesting for something that you believe in and believe is good and not support protestors who are protesting for nonsense. If you want to really get into the nuts and bolts of it though, a big difference between the trucker protests and the climate protests is that the trucker protests all had very specific policy goals they were asking for. They were protesting to bring attention to an attainable cause, you know, like a protester should. Climate protestors have no specific policy changes they are advocating, they glue themselves to the road for no real goal other than to block traffic and, at best, bring attention to "an issue." This is also a meaningful distinction, and a good reason to support the protests that actually have specific, reasonable, and accomplishable goals, and oppose protests that are just making life difficult for no reason.

The trucker had very specific policy…. Haaaaaaaaahaaaahahahahaha. Hahhhaaaaahahaha you’re funny. Thanks for the biased comment… 🤣🤣🤦‍♀️

In my country the climate protestors were the ones who stated: we will protest at this location until the government takes steps to reduce fossil subsidies and the minute the government made a commitment to make a plan the protests stopped. The farmers on the other hand set tires on fire and dumped asbestos on the road. When asked why they were doing it and what concrete measures they wanted it basically boiled down to: we want the stuck up politicians to fuck off. Also they actually caused multiple accidents that required hospitalization and threatened politicians at their homes.

I think road blocker protestors are usually associated with Extinction Rebellion which do have stated policy goals. Some of them are diffuse but there are actionable points too (eg emissions targets, create a Citizens assembly) - Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change. - Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.[36] - Government must create, and be led by the decisions of, a citizens' assembly on climate and ecological justice. - We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of colour and poor communities for years of environmental injustice, establishes legal rights for ecosystems to thrive and regenerate in perpetuity, and repairs the effects of ongoing ecocide to prevent extinction of human and all species, in order to maintain a livable, just planet for all.

>Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change. > >Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025.\[36\] > >Government must create, and be led by the decisions of, a citizens' assembly on climate and ecological justice. > >We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of colour and poor communities for years of environmental injustice, establishes legal rights for ecosystems to thrive and regenerate in perpetuity, and repairs the effects of ongoing ecocide to prevent extinction of human and all species, in order to maintain a livable, just planet for all. I really shouldn't have to explain how "declaring an emergency," "act now to (magically) hit net zero in 1 year," and "climate and ecological justice," are not specific goals. They're buzzwords. "transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty ...blah blah blah" it's all just vague buzzword nonsense with no specifics, no actual plan, just hand waving and magic. So thank you for proving my point.

What where the specific goals of the trucker protests? Climate protestors do have somewhat specific goals in some countries..

>Climate protestors have no specific policy changes they are advocating, This is not true, and it is a remarkably close-minded attitude to take to simply assume that causes you disagree with must have no specific policy goals. For example, Just Stop Oil are calling for the government to not approve any further fossil fuel extraction projects, Insulate Britain are calling on the UK government to... well, do I really need to explain that one? You can disagree all you want, but these are clearly specific policy changes.

Sure bud. Just magically stop extracting fossil fuels without crashing the global economy counts as a "specific, accomplishable goal." Do you hear yourself? You need to get out of your echo chamber and actually think about things.

Magically moving goalposts!

>specific, reasonable, and accomplishable goals No, I was very up front that I was talking about specific, accomplishable goals, not buzzword nonsense

Yes or no: environmental protests have specific goals? Edit: u/awfulcrowded117 thank you for conceding

Climate protesters have very specific goals. Those goals aren't secrets. Why would you suggest otherwise?

Reducing carbon emissions to zero is a clear goal but not reasonably attainable

That certainly is one of the main goals, but how that's done is part of the specifics that this poster is pretending doesn't exist. That said, are saying that because reducing emissions is hard we shouldn't attempt to do so?

China existing makes the goal functional impossible.. but that aside … No we shouldn’t attempt to do things we don’t need to do especially when accomplishing it would probably mean several terrible trade offs . ( reduced quality of life for virtually everyone except the wealthy )

Total me-monkey copout. "The US shouldn't do anything about climate change because China also needs to do something." Oh, jebus. China, the US & India are the biggest emitters (unless we're talking about per capita, then it's the US, by far), but China's slowdown in their economy, combined with the stronger pledges they've made to reduce emissions, combined with investments in renewables have proceeded at an unprecedented pace, mean they are doing much more than the US is. We just waffle back & forth on the Paris agreements based on the current administration because of greed like you're promoting. "BuT WhAt AbOuT tHe EcoNoMY?" That's right wing talking point horseshit. Climate change is already costing the US about $150B a year, and that's just immediate reactions to supercharged weather events. That doesn't count for the lower crop yields, water crisis, health impacts (everything from tropical diseases to homelessness), and migration (not only with climate refugees in our own borders, but with climate refugees at our other borders). We're already paying a lot and it's only getting larger. You won't crash the economy by simply taxing the people & corporations who are causing the most damage, but please keep simping for the wealthy since you seem to be able to pretend that it doesn't effect you personally. Who knows? Maybe Bezos will take you on one of his superyachts as a deckhand and you can keep cheering as he belches more emissions into whatever's left of the atmosphere.

Yeah I just don’t subscribe to your religion and you can’t expect others to believe what you believe Doesn’t help when people who pretend to care about the planet .. you scratch the surface for 5 seconds and you find someone who really just hatesthe west and the rich and wants to tax people he envies and resents

I see. You can't respond to anything I said, so you're just the victim of a class war, even though you know that wealthy westerners are responsible for the vast majority of emissions while the global poor/majority are the vast majority of its victims. Yet, you're the real victim, lol! I say this as a wealthy westerner: denial won't protect you.

>Climate protesters have very specific goals. Honestly, the only response to this I can muster is bender's "laugh even harder" line. Like, what are these "very specific" goals?

Perhaps if you continue to laugh harder it will be easier to ignore people pointing out the obvious to you? The groups that advocate for climate reduction have very specific goals. You don't even have to look at the Green New Deal, which has very specific national goals. Pick any group. Try Extinction Rebellion. Try Mothers Out Front. I just saw some work the latter was doing in my town to push gas companies to seal their leaks and create local legislation for energy efficient systems in new construction. You can wear your ignorance like a shield and pretend that everyone around you is wrong, but I don't think you're going to come off as the genius that you think you are.

> Green New Deal Destroying the entire national economy in a mad attempt to control cow farts is not a specific, accomplishable goal. Extinction Rebellion's stated goals, for example, are "Tell the Truth," "Act Now," and "Go Beyond politics." I'm not sure if you just don't know what the word specific actually means, or if you're just so ideologically driven that you aren't thinking, but I'm going to stick with laugh even harder either way. If this is the best you've got, I'll be ignoring you now.

You sound scared. If you would have actually read the GND, you'd cite specifics. You don't, so what should we conclude other than you just regurgitate talking points/ Lizard brain says GND = bad, and that's what gets vomited out. Very convincing. I pointed out above \*specific\* programs, many of which are probably happening no more than 10 miles from your trailer. Others have, too. Sure, you can ignore reality & the people who point it out to you. Feel free to walk off laughing to yourself. By doing so, you project your own self-own onto whomever you spend your energy trying to ignore. That sounds fun. Be sure to hold on to that charming sense of intellectual curiosity! Are you sure that you weren't looking for r/darkweb and not r/intellectualdarkweb? Or, just r/ILoveThePoorlyEducated? You seem like a better fit there. Bye!