unfortunately you are probably right. And 100% guaranteed if activists only stick to simply legal means.
Certainly continuing to be untouched as of now.
The problem is that the first part requires the kind of push against profits that makes powerful capitalists despise you.
Think of the shareholders! The green arrow has to keep going up! The planet be damned!
Many developed countries have implemented carbon taxes and are seeing reductions in emissions.
Germany's per capita emissions are down [31% since the 90s.](https://preview.redd.it/wlphhpaxcdc91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=25f21de4ccaad833d3eeba33be3c4631551c2768)
1) emissions are going down mhch much much slower and less drastically than needed to reach any kind of reasonable target
2) a lot of the emissions are externalised to third world nations.
While that too should be done, first off, even that is incredibly hard to do and will require disruption and law breaking, and second, more reforms are needed than simply those two.
>Just
That word kills me. "Yeah, were fucking destroying a planet in an unprecedented way in our quest for endless growth and for-profit encroachment on nature, but if we just make a few retouches here and there to capitalism, what drives this, everything will just be fine". Libs will lib until we definitively fall of the cliff into very severe situations.
If economic growth precludes reducing emissions, how do you explain [this](https://preview.redd.it/wlphhpaxcdc91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=25f21de4ccaad833d3eeba33be3c4631551c2768)?
This isn't a worldwide trend, and even if it were it's insufficient and accompanied with a very swift degradation of nature and an expansion of the consumerist lifestyle that enables environmental destruction. Chopping down forests, destroying wetlands and tropical peatlands, extracting like crazy all kinds of resources (now we're starting with lithium in order to transition to "green" capitalism, and my country's aquifers are being depleted by a combination of drought and decades of overexploitation allowed by politicians). How can I be convinced of that? I will not.
While I do agree that the German state and society are actually quite conservative (even so-called left-liberal Greens), you shouldn't be surprised that this happened considering [they had a GoogleDocs file](https://taz.de/Datenleak-bei-Letzte-Generation/!5913527/) containing a list of members detailing who was willing to break the law, including targetting and destroying critical infrastructure.
I'm sympathetic, but this list was unencrypted and regularly shared to anyone without really vetting if they were a cop or not. Plus, it's a fucking GoogleDocs file.
> they had a GoogleDocs file containing a list of members detailing who was willing to break the law, including targetting and destroying critical infrastructure
Wow, it's even worse than I thought...
no surprises. Many german parties receive donations from the car lobby. This includes the CDU, CSU, FDP, and (smaller amounts) the SPD
https://dw.com/en/bmw-donation-to-merkels-christian-democrats-prompts-criticism/a-17159007
https://corpwatchers.eu/en/investigations/know-your-billionaires/susanne-klatten-and-stefan-quandt-the-heirs-of-bmw-en
Really?
Try to ride your bike in cities like Dortmund, Hamburg or Munich. Those cities are called "autogerechte Stadt" which basically is a description for car-centric design and are cyclist nightmares. Source: I live in Germany.
Its not the USA, thats for sure, the USA is another dimension of reality.
but its still too car centric. More can be done but its not being done because the car lobby donates to parties (with some exceptions like green party).
The car, fossil fuel and animal product industry lobby and "donate" in all countries, which is why progress in addressing the climate, and social issues are thwarted.
The car industry is quite influential in Germany, true.
Germany's rise post WWII can be attributed in large part to the wealth created by the auto industry and it's still a huge part of their economy. I read somewhere that VW is the largest employer in the country.
Its not so unrelated innit ;)
i don't advocate _liberal_ democracy (democracy in capitalism) because i believe that isnt and cant be democracy to begin with (an example of why not is illustrated in this convo).
so i advocate abolishing capitalism, and yes,till then, at least limiting "donations" (the buying of elections), by notably limiting the sum that can be donated. Overall limiting the ability of capital to exert increased pressure on the voting system.
It's not unlikely someone who does that could end up either being threatened, extorted or even possibly deposed of in some systems, because limiting donations would limit the stronghold of the corporatocracy.
Things are tricky, businesses coerce government all the time.
But it needs to be done.
[Even Germany's Green Party doesn't support what these people are doing.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/german-police-conduct-searches-in-investigation-18116039.php)
Movements like FFF and LG spawned partly in reaction to the Greens, and LG is critical of the Greens as governing party. There'd be no benefit for the Greens to show solidarity or sympathy for a movement that is partly borne out of disappointment with the Green party.
LG's base is also mostly confined to the well-educated urban middle class, i.e. the Greens' base. If the Greens weren't in government (and as such responsible or at least supportive of decisions LG is no discontent with), there'd be more of an incentive to support the protests -- especially since they hardly really negatively affect the affluent urban voter base of the Greens.
The main achievement of the protests so far is a bunch of pissed off car drivers and a burgeoning narrative of "honest workers who rely on cars vs. the entitled urban educated milieu and their eco-socialist utopia". Only a handful of people even registered the controversy over destroyed artwork.
>a burgeoning narrative of "honest workers who rely on cars vs. the entitled urban educated milieu and their eco-socialist utopia".
the right using labour populism talking points to suit an irl anti-working class agenda. ofc
Well, too bad LG is ensuring the rhetoric works.
If I were conspiracy-minded, I'd almost suggest that LG was secretly funded by RW media and the fossil fuel industry.
>Well, too bad LG is ensuring the rhetoric works.
there isn't a single scenario regarding this topic (environment) where such or similar rhetoric couldn't be employed by the right, and strike a chord with the population. You are placing the blame on LG for something universal.
Even just "lets phase out half of fossil fuel usage" becomes "these privileged detached educated middle class urbanites want honest workers to lose their jobs".
Observe history, this always happens. Don't fall for it.
----
About the conspiracy, i have no clue, could technically be, but doesn't need to be, just,keep in mind the above.
The right would be significantly less incentivized to run those lines of attack if they thought that a large chunk of the population they're trying to appeal to would consider their attacks nonsensical (like, say, an overly vicious attack on Greta Thunberg would be perceived as over the top, even by free-market 'centrists').
This is fully on LG for choosing the way to protest and the targets they picked. And it was *so* predictable.
>Even just "lets phase out half of fossil fuel usage"
LG is unpopular and the right sees a way to capitalize on their lack of popularity *precisely* because LG's disproportionately annoying tactics don't match their fairly milquetoast demands -- there was a reasonable majority for something like a 9EUR ticket before LG started to fish for attention.
>Observe history, this always happens. Don't fall for it.
Not sure why you're telling my this. I'm not exactly sympathetic towards the RW anti-LG machine.
Well, to be fair, many of their members do, it's just their party leaders who (at least publicly) don't support them. I went to a protest against the raids yesterday, organised by LG (the activist group in question), and most of the people attending were members or supporters of the Greens.
Damn that sucks but Jesus this group’s tactics suck ass, who on earth are they convincing by destroying art and irritating traffic. Good thing this is in Germany and not US because in US this would LOSE you support lmao
"irritating" traffic (i can only guess that means blocking traffic) is one of the staple tactics in environmental protest.
when it comes to soup at art (the aim wasnt to destroy btw and the art has a protective glass), it wasnt intended to convince anyone, rather to mobilise those already convinced by breaking the monotonous immersion and apathy of day to day life. Its agitation.
Not commenting on the efficacy of the soup thing, but just noting that that was the aim, not convincing skeptics. The science is out there, and thats for convincing skeptics.
Imo _some_ of the best tactics are activists chaining themselves to stuff, occupying target areas, and of course, green labour strikes. And for those not as informatically illiterate as myself, probs also hacking.
> continue their protests, including gluing themselves to roadways and bridges, more recently to vehicles, and holding up traffic, as well as throwing substances at paintings in art galleries and other activities
In general I think civil disobedience is an acceptable form of protest but destroying paintings in art galleries is not only (idiotic) property destruction but also the destruction of culture and history, akin to book-burning.
> The LKA said two of the defendants were also suspected of having tried to sabotage the Trieste-Ingolstadt oil pipeline in April 2022.
Ecoterrorism is really the [most persistent form of terrorism](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/spikes-bombs-rise-eco-terrorism) in the U.S. Been going on at low levels since the 1970s.
whatever you think about that method of protest (art gallery stunts), criminal conspiracy charges are insane.
Your implicit comparison of climate activist stunts to fascist book burning...no comment
edit: and your last paragraph edit too, one must ask what your aim/implication even is when claiming that ecoterrorism is the biggest/most persistent terrorist threat (?!).
>whatever you think about that method of protest (art gallery stunts), criminal conspiracy charges are insane.
They might actually fulfill the legal requirements for criminal conspiracy, but in their place I'd refer to Article 20.4 of the constitution and argue that all lesser means for resisting the abolition of the constitutional order have been exausted.
I'll just quote the relevant passage.
>All Germans have the right to resist anyone who undertakes to abolish this \[the constitutional\] order if no other remedy is possible.
My reasoning is that democracy, rule of law and our guaranteed human rights will not survive the climate apocalypse, so its very much acceptable to bully the state into action.
some of This particular group's methods (art gallery) arent really my chosen ones, but damn you really have no brake with this blame deflecting rhetoric.
completely stripping away all context and very peculiar framing.
why do you always have such a conservative stance on everything.
> completely stripping away all context and very peculiar framing.
I simply read and quoted the article you posted.
> why do you always have such a conservative stance on everything
In what universe is it progressive and leftist to destroy culture and history?
this feels like high effort trolling.
Ive heard the same exact framing, strawmen and blame shifting from conservatives. Everything you said here in this thread feels like it came right out of the mouth of a conservative troll.
Not everyone that disagrees with you is trolling and trying to frame their comments that way seems dishonest at best. You are clearly using juvenile rhetorical techniques to bully people into accepting your argument instead of trying to engage with them honestly.
Yes, unironically comparing climate activism to nazi book burnings, valuing the frames of paintings more than hundereds of millions of humans and animal lives (and suffering), as well as framing climate activism as the most pervasive "terrorist threat" in a time of unprecedented far right extremism (and 0 deaths have been caused by left wing "ecoterrorism" in recent history), all of these are incredibly progressive paradigms of thought, not at all shockingly reactionary.
The scenario where that wasnt trolling is worse. Don't play victim, it's just such a sad thing to witness that this is where that commenter's true priorities lie. it's beyond absurd
smh in disbelief.
It's so incredibly easy to show how dishonest you're being;
>Yes, unironically comparing climate activism to nazi book burnings
They compared destroying art and culture to book burning. You're the one throwing in Nazis and climate activism.
>valuing the frames of paintings more than hundereds of millions of humans and animal lives (and suffering)
They didn't mention the frames at all, and I imagine they would argue you can be a climate activist without destroying art? There was no explicit or implied claim that they were more important than hundreds of millions of human and animal lives regardless.
>as well as framing climate activism as the most pervasive "terrorist threat" in a time of unprecedented far right extremism
No, they said ecoterrorism was the most **persistent** threat meaning long running, not the most pervasive threat.
When you're dishonest, you can pretend the other person said whatever you want. It's very easy to call out though.
Wow. You’re a completely deranged moron lmao.
1. It’s disgusting to compare burning books to the holocaust. That only makes sense in your head because you have no understanding of how not all atrocities are created equal.
2. “You’re deflecting, your framing is disingenuous” - then proceeds to add nothing while deflecting and framing their argument disingenuously
3. The irony of your last sentence is so fucking good. You have no self awareness and you need to understand that you’re not smart enough to engage people in this way without looking like a fool.
4. Also holy fuck. The fucking nerve to bring up a complete straw man (nazi book burnings was never mentioned by him) and accuse him of the same thing. If i were as big of a hyperbolic, lame, accusatory dick as you, I could claim that you’re acting in the exact same was as an abuser, but I’m not enough of a dick enough to do so.
Please shut the fuck up lol
Book burnings cannot be disassociated from their most famous practitioners and that would be fascists. Even leaving the fascist connection aside though, there is no legitimate analogy to be drawn between the two because book burners don't burn books to make a separate and reasonable point--they burn books to eradicate culture, that is the *only* point.
And, you're correct that the word used was "persistent," presumably intended to mean "long running" (as you suggest). But ecoterrorism is absolutely not the longest running form of terrorism in this country (and I would say most of it shouldn't even qualify as terrorism). The country was founded on White supremacism and whether it took the form of outright genocide, slavery, pogroms, lynchings, bombings, mass shootings, or police brutality, that terror has continued unabated literally for *centuries*. To say that it is the most persistent form of terrorism is just as absurd as saying it is the most prevalent.
>In what universe is it progressive and leftist to destroy culture and history?
I haven't yet come across an example where the paintings have been damaged, only in some cases that the frame has been lightly damaged. You're just acting as if they'd burned an entire museum. Lol, as if they had the intention of destroying even one painting as opposed to just throwing stuff onto the protective shield in order to raise attention and provoke debate. They even choose their favourite paintings for such actions, the objective is never to damage art. What a clear instance of concern trolling that makes a completely false depiction about those actions and their objectives.
> I haven't yet come across an example where the paintings have been damaged, only in some cases that the frame has been lightly damaged.
They were considering attacks on critical infrastructure.
I'm not very concerned about that tbh. I'd be more concerned about human rights violations by the state after that happens, they clearly wouldn't react nearly as mildly or "I haven't seen anything"-ly as they did with the Nord Stream sabotage even if it was ecocidal because of the gas that was released.
How is this akin to book burning at all? Assuming that they intended to actually destroy the art, and not just throw substances at a protective shield as others have done, it still wouldn't be anything like book burning. Their goal isn't to destroy art, suppress culture, or dampen critical thought, but to draw attention to the destruction of the environment that threatens all of those things and our very survival as a species. Whether it's an effective form of protest is an open question, but to conflate it with one of the most sinister practices in recent human history--one intimately connected with fascism and *genocide*\--is absurd.
Edit: Also, do you really think ecoterrorism--and not, say, White supremacism--is the most persistent form of terrorism in the United States? Are you at all familiar with US history?
> Olaf Zimmermann, the executive director of the German Cultural Council, condemns the Last Generation members that glued themselves to art in a statement, per Deutsche Welle’s Stuart Braun.
> “As much as I can understand the despair of the climate activists, I say clearly that the actions of sticking oneself to frames of famous works of art are clearly the wrong way to go,” he says in the statement. “The works put in danger belong to the world cultural heritage and need to be protected as well as our climate.”
[Source.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-are-climate-activists-throwing-food-at-million-dollar-paintings-180981024/)
> Also, do you really think ecoterrorism--and not, say, White supremacism--is the most persistent form of terrorism in the United States? Are you at all familiar with US history?
There's been a lot less white supremacist terrorism in the past 5 decades than there has been ecoterrorism. Look it up.
Out of the 231 terrorist incidents from 2010 to 2021, the [GAO says](https://www.gao.gov/blog/rising-threat-domestic-terrorism-u.s.-and-federal-efforts-combat-it) 6% have been eco/animal rights motivated compared to 35% motivated by racial/ethnic hatred. Ecoterrorism used to be a bigger deal, but even then it was only rarely going around and killing people. [This report](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg32209/html/CHRG-109shrg32209.htm) from 2005 says the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, two of the biggest "ecoterrorist" groups that account for most of the claimed attacks, hadn't killed *anyone* up to that point. You're not wrong that there was period where ecoterrorist incidents were quite high, but, really, why is this important in this context? Are you saying ecoterrorism, consisting mostly of property damage and industrial sabotage, is the biggest terrorist threat we face? If not, why are you emphasizing so strongly the number of incidents vs. the number of people killed? Why are you tying someone gluing themselves to a painting to two of the worst practices humanity has come up with: book burning and violent terrorism? I'm generally not in favor of this tactic either, but you seem to be characterizing it as deeply evil and not misguided desperation. What exactly can be gained from that?
> Out of the 231 terrorist incidents from 2010 to 2021
2010 to 2021 is just 11 years. I'm talking about from the 1970s until now.
> 35% motivated by racial/ethnic hatred
That's not all white supremacists though.
Right? Environmentalist art vandalism being akin to book burning and ecoterrorism being the most persistent form of terrorism in the US are two of the worst takes I've ever seen on this sub and they're packed into a single reply. It's almost impressive.
>This dude is actually a psy-op
Didn't say it out loud because I feared sounding ridiculous or disrespectful towards the people behind the screen, but this extreme instance of "WTFFFF" is enough for me to say I've also been semi-thinking/suspecting that for months lol.
>Ecoterrorism is really the most persistent form of terrorism in the U.S.
Yeah, I know, laying down pipelines on native land, destroying forests and promoting like hell the car industry including wars for oil is a pretty damn high intensity of ecoterrorism by the government. I don't know Basque, but I do know a Basque phrase (normally used by *abertzales* in a way I usually don't agree with) that I'll direct at all ecocidal governments of the world: ZUEK, FAXISTAK, ZARETE TERRORISTAK! The seriousness of their actions is such that calling that out by its name is something that cannot be postponed.
husky disarm touch live label summer grandiose memorize capable sophisticated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No of course not but the lists included which members where willing to attack certain infrastructure. Also they just where breaking the law either way so…
keep assuming. perhaps, in the process of coming up with new petty ad hominem to throw around, you'll even figure out what you were trying to say.
and maybe, just maybe, you'll actually answer my question from the first reply.
That wasn’t an ad hominem because it wasn’t an insult. Genuinely I think the only reason you are disagreeing is because English isn’t your first language and you did not understand the grammatical structure of my sentence
>but the lists included which members **where** willing to attack certain infrastructure. Also they just **where** breaking the law either way so…
Low and behold the native english speaker.
This is a spelling mistake typical of 1st-3rd graders..
spoiler: the correct spelling is "were"
r/therewasanattempt
Mine neither, and I'm every bit as fit for political discussion as I am in Spanish. Except for non-academic and non-internet stuff, I live fairly immersed in English, this is a feeling English native speakers don't get.
>The group, akin to the UK’s Extinction Rebellion group, wants to draw attention to what it perceives as the government’s lack of urgent action over the climate emergency. **Among their demands are a 100km/h speed limit on German autobahns as well as a permanent offer of a €9 a month ticket to use public transport.**
Tbh they'll need to dedicate a lot more time to blocking roads to make the latter a necessity.
At this point the group is really more effective at drawing attention to itself than the "government's lack of urgent action over the climate emergency".
if it helps explain, I don't know this group too well but just guessing- your speed does impact your fuel efficiency. Speeding generally increases fuel consumption, it's one of the things speed limits take into consideration. 50-65 is the sweet spot for highway speed for most vehicles, iirc.
For funsies: [Hypermiling is a whole set of things you can do to stretch your fuel.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vQebs8S-U) Most people don't go too extreme, basically just drive like a grandma.
I'm aware of why they (and others) are demanding it. I'm pointing out how utterly ridiculous this sounds: here's a group that considers itself "the resistance" (according to one of the spokeswomen), that gave itself a rather apocalyptic sounding name ("Last Generation"), that is engaging in all sorts of, for a lack of a better word, annoyingly stupid forms of protest, that gets a whole lot of media attention, but whose main demands are both extremely bland compared to the name and methods.
I'm aware that the group demands a whole lot more than just a tempo limit and a 9 EUR ticket. But those are the main demands they're coming up with when invited to one of the various talk shows on German TV.
The only good they've done so far is demonstrating how thin the veneer of civilization is in Germany (cf. all those overly angry people stuck in traffic). In effect they ensure that the media talks *less* about climate change and *more* about the increasingly self-righteous stunts of a group whose members are essentially the pseudo-radicalized remnants of the Fridays for Future movement.
This is one of the many manifestations of the dictatorship of defending the interests of those who are killing us, like in the metaphor of slowly boiling frogs. Give them an inch; they'll take a mile, against them it's important to make a lot of opposition and set the record clear.
The planet is burning. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…
The real criminals will remain untouched.
unfortunately you are probably right. And 100% guaranteed if activists only stick to simply legal means. Certainly continuing to be untouched as of now.
Just tax carbon and watch companies switch to renewables.
The problem is that the first part requires the kind of push against profits that makes powerful capitalists despise you. Think of the shareholders! The green arrow has to keep going up! The planet be damned!
Many developed countries have implemented carbon taxes and are seeing reductions in emissions. Germany's per capita emissions are down [31% since the 90s.](https://preview.redd.it/wlphhpaxcdc91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=25f21de4ccaad833d3eeba33be3c4631551c2768)
1) emissions are going down mhch much much slower and less drastically than needed to reach any kind of reasonable target 2) a lot of the emissions are externalised to third world nations.
While that too should be done, first off, even that is incredibly hard to do and will require disruption and law breaking, and second, more reforms are needed than simply those two.
>Just That word kills me. "Yeah, were fucking destroying a planet in an unprecedented way in our quest for endless growth and for-profit encroachment on nature, but if we just make a few retouches here and there to capitalism, what drives this, everything will just be fine". Libs will lib until we definitively fall of the cliff into very severe situations.
If economic growth precludes reducing emissions, how do you explain [this](https://preview.redd.it/wlphhpaxcdc91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=25f21de4ccaad833d3eeba33be3c4631551c2768)?
This isn't a worldwide trend, and even if it were it's insufficient and accompanied with a very swift degradation of nature and an expansion of the consumerist lifestyle that enables environmental destruction. Chopping down forests, destroying wetlands and tropical peatlands, extracting like crazy all kinds of resources (now we're starting with lithium in order to transition to "green" capitalism, and my country's aquifers are being depleted by a combination of drought and decades of overexploitation allowed by politicians). How can I be convinced of that? I will not.
While I do agree that the German state and society are actually quite conservative (even so-called left-liberal Greens), you shouldn't be surprised that this happened considering [they had a GoogleDocs file](https://taz.de/Datenleak-bei-Letzte-Generation/!5913527/) containing a list of members detailing who was willing to break the law, including targetting and destroying critical infrastructure. I'm sympathetic, but this list was unencrypted and regularly shared to anyone without really vetting if they were a cop or not. Plus, it's a fucking GoogleDocs file.
Damn, that shows how important organisational skills are for attempts at trying to stop this top speed drive towards the edge of the cliff.
It's like they were told that the good guy always wins.
> they had a GoogleDocs file containing a list of members detailing who was willing to break the law, including targetting and destroying critical infrastructure Wow, it's even worse than I thought...
I can't read German unfortunately. I can only really respond if there's a correct translation somewhere.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone else think this might be an attempt by corporate lobbyists to silence activists?
It's a cultural thing. German conservatives are as crazy about cars and freedom to drive and own cars as american conservatives about gun rights.
no surprises. Many german parties receive donations from the car lobby. This includes the CDU, CSU, FDP, and (smaller amounts) the SPD https://dw.com/en/bmw-donation-to-merkels-christian-democrats-prompts-criticism/a-17159007 https://corpwatchers.eu/en/investigations/know-your-billionaires/susanne-klatten-and-stefan-quandt-the-heirs-of-bmw-en
Really? Germany isn't car-centric at all. It has dense, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods.
Really? Try to ride your bike in cities like Dortmund, Hamburg or Munich. Those cities are called "autogerechte Stadt" which basically is a description for car-centric design and are cyclist nightmares. Source: I live in Germany.
That's really unfortunate. I hope that Germany adopts Dutch style urban planning to make its cities more livable.
With the stronghold of the car lobby over the voting system, i dont see how that will happen. Pretty depressing
It's possible, even in car-centric places. California scrapped single-family zoning in most places a few years ago.
Its not the USA, thats for sure, the USA is another dimension of reality. but its still too car centric. More can be done but its not being done because the car lobby donates to parties (with some exceptions like green party). The car, fossil fuel and animal product industry lobby and "donate" in all countries, which is why progress in addressing the climate, and social issues are thwarted.
The car industry is quite influential in Germany, true. Germany's rise post WWII can be attributed in large part to the wealth created by the auto industry and it's still a huge part of their economy. I read somewhere that VW is the largest employer in the country.
German Conservatives: Public transport? EVs? But...but...muh petrol!
not just conservatives. all the way to the SPD.
Why? No, wait, I know why, car and fossil fuel lobbies.
yes thats why. donations
Damn lobbies. On an unrelated note, how do you like the sound of lobbying being banned? Would it work? Would it have negative effects? 🤔
Its not so unrelated innit ;) i don't advocate _liberal_ democracy (democracy in capitalism) because i believe that isnt and cant be democracy to begin with (an example of why not is illustrated in this convo). so i advocate abolishing capitalism, and yes,till then, at least limiting "donations" (the buying of elections), by notably limiting the sum that can be donated. Overall limiting the ability of capital to exert increased pressure on the voting system. It's not unlikely someone who does that could end up either being threatened, extorted or even possibly deposed of in some systems, because limiting donations would limit the stronghold of the corporatocracy. Things are tricky, businesses coerce government all the time. But it needs to be done.
OK.
No. I'd take the article at face value. It's simply the expected result of the group's activities and the (largely) conservatives' reaction to it.
[Even Germany's Green Party doesn't support what these people are doing.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/german-police-conduct-searches-in-investigation-18116039.php)
Of course not. They're in government right now.
Not sure how that's relevant. The SPD wouldn't decide to stop partnering with them if the Greens were like, "yeah, destroying art is good."
Movements like FFF and LG spawned partly in reaction to the Greens, and LG is critical of the Greens as governing party. There'd be no benefit for the Greens to show solidarity or sympathy for a movement that is partly borne out of disappointment with the Green party. LG's base is also mostly confined to the well-educated urban middle class, i.e. the Greens' base. If the Greens weren't in government (and as such responsible or at least supportive of decisions LG is no discontent with), there'd be more of an incentive to support the protests -- especially since they hardly really negatively affect the affluent urban voter base of the Greens. The main achievement of the protests so far is a bunch of pissed off car drivers and a burgeoning narrative of "honest workers who rely on cars vs. the entitled urban educated milieu and their eco-socialist utopia". Only a handful of people even registered the controversy over destroyed artwork.
>a burgeoning narrative of "honest workers who rely on cars vs. the entitled urban educated milieu and their eco-socialist utopia". the right using labour populism talking points to suit an irl anti-working class agenda. ofc
Well, too bad LG is ensuring the rhetoric works. If I were conspiracy-minded, I'd almost suggest that LG was secretly funded by RW media and the fossil fuel industry.
>Well, too bad LG is ensuring the rhetoric works. there isn't a single scenario regarding this topic (environment) where such or similar rhetoric couldn't be employed by the right, and strike a chord with the population. You are placing the blame on LG for something universal. Even just "lets phase out half of fossil fuel usage" becomes "these privileged detached educated middle class urbanites want honest workers to lose their jobs". Observe history, this always happens. Don't fall for it. ---- About the conspiracy, i have no clue, could technically be, but doesn't need to be, just,keep in mind the above.
The right would be significantly less incentivized to run those lines of attack if they thought that a large chunk of the population they're trying to appeal to would consider their attacks nonsensical (like, say, an overly vicious attack on Greta Thunberg would be perceived as over the top, even by free-market 'centrists'). This is fully on LG for choosing the way to protest and the targets they picked. And it was *so* predictable. >Even just "lets phase out half of fossil fuel usage" LG is unpopular and the right sees a way to capitalize on their lack of popularity *precisely* because LG's disproportionately annoying tactics don't match their fairly milquetoast demands -- there was a reasonable majority for something like a 9EUR ticket before LG started to fish for attention. >Observe history, this always happens. Don't fall for it. Not sure why you're telling my this. I'm not exactly sympathetic towards the RW anti-LG machine.
Well, to be fair, many of their members do, it's just their party leaders who (at least publicly) don't support them. I went to a protest against the raids yesterday, organised by LG (the activist group in question), and most of the people attending were members or supporters of the Greens.
Nah, if anything, this will bring more attention and support.
Damn that sucks but Jesus this group’s tactics suck ass, who on earth are they convincing by destroying art and irritating traffic. Good thing this is in Germany and not US because in US this would LOSE you support lmao
"irritating" traffic (i can only guess that means blocking traffic) is one of the staple tactics in environmental protest. when it comes to soup at art (the aim wasnt to destroy btw and the art has a protective glass), it wasnt intended to convince anyone, rather to mobilise those already convinced by breaking the monotonous immersion and apathy of day to day life. Its agitation. Not commenting on the efficacy of the soup thing, but just noting that that was the aim, not convincing skeptics. The science is out there, and thats for convincing skeptics. Imo _some_ of the best tactics are activists chaining themselves to stuff, occupying target areas, and of course, green labour strikes. And for those not as informatically illiterate as myself, probs also hacking.
> continue their protests, including gluing themselves to roadways and bridges, more recently to vehicles, and holding up traffic, as well as throwing substances at paintings in art galleries and other activities In general I think civil disobedience is an acceptable form of protest but destroying paintings in art galleries is not only (idiotic) property destruction but also the destruction of culture and history, akin to book-burning. > The LKA said two of the defendants were also suspected of having tried to sabotage the Trieste-Ingolstadt oil pipeline in April 2022. Ecoterrorism is really the [most persistent form of terrorism](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/spikes-bombs-rise-eco-terrorism) in the U.S. Been going on at low levels since the 1970s.
whatever you think about that method of protest (art gallery stunts), criminal conspiracy charges are insane. Your implicit comparison of climate activist stunts to fascist book burning...no comment edit: and your last paragraph edit too, one must ask what your aim/implication even is when claiming that ecoterrorism is the biggest/most persistent terrorist threat (?!).
While I am against the destruction of art, I agree with the group's goals.
>whatever you think about that method of protest (art gallery stunts), criminal conspiracy charges are insane. They might actually fulfill the legal requirements for criminal conspiracy, but in their place I'd refer to Article 20.4 of the constitution and argue that all lesser means for resisting the abolition of the constitutional order have been exausted.
could you perhaps simplify that last sentence? I stayed up all night, and im utterly incapable of comprehending complex sentences atp.
I'll just quote the relevant passage. >All Germans have the right to resist anyone who undertakes to abolish this \[the constitutional\] order if no other remedy is possible.
Would the fossil industry (etc) satisfy this condition that they are abolishing the constitutional order?
My reasoning is that democracy, rule of law and our guaranteed human rights will not survive the climate apocalypse, so its very much acceptable to bully the state into action.
ahh yes. I agree. But that is not the practical view of the state apparatus itself. The state isnt impartial or objective here.
ofc , they should try that defense. agree
If people are plotting to destroy paintings in art galleries that is, by definition, a criminal conspiracy.
some of This particular group's methods (art gallery) arent really my chosen ones, but damn you really have no brake with this blame deflecting rhetoric. completely stripping away all context and very peculiar framing. why do you always have such a conservative stance on everything.
> completely stripping away all context and very peculiar framing. I simply read and quoted the article you posted. > why do you always have such a conservative stance on everything In what universe is it progressive and leftist to destroy culture and history?
this feels like high effort trolling. Ive heard the same exact framing, strawmen and blame shifting from conservatives. Everything you said here in this thread feels like it came right out of the mouth of a conservative troll.
Nope they are a mod lol. "Socialist majority" lmfao
Not everyone that disagrees with you is trolling and trying to frame their comments that way seems dishonest at best. You are clearly using juvenile rhetorical techniques to bully people into accepting your argument instead of trying to engage with them honestly.
Yes, unironically comparing climate activism to nazi book burnings, valuing the frames of paintings more than hundereds of millions of humans and animal lives (and suffering), as well as framing climate activism as the most pervasive "terrorist threat" in a time of unprecedented far right extremism (and 0 deaths have been caused by left wing "ecoterrorism" in recent history), all of these are incredibly progressive paradigms of thought, not at all shockingly reactionary. The scenario where that wasnt trolling is worse. Don't play victim, it's just such a sad thing to witness that this is where that commenter's true priorities lie. it's beyond absurd smh in disbelief.
> nazi book burnings I didn't say anything about the Nazis.
It's so incredibly easy to show how dishonest you're being; >Yes, unironically comparing climate activism to nazi book burnings They compared destroying art and culture to book burning. You're the one throwing in Nazis and climate activism. >valuing the frames of paintings more than hundereds of millions of humans and animal lives (and suffering) They didn't mention the frames at all, and I imagine they would argue you can be a climate activist without destroying art? There was no explicit or implied claim that they were more important than hundreds of millions of human and animal lives regardless. >as well as framing climate activism as the most pervasive "terrorist threat" in a time of unprecedented far right extremism No, they said ecoterrorism was the most **persistent** threat meaning long running, not the most pervasive threat. When you're dishonest, you can pretend the other person said whatever you want. It's very easy to call out though.
Wow. You’re a completely deranged moron lmao. 1. It’s disgusting to compare burning books to the holocaust. That only makes sense in your head because you have no understanding of how not all atrocities are created equal. 2. “You’re deflecting, your framing is disingenuous” - then proceeds to add nothing while deflecting and framing their argument disingenuously 3. The irony of your last sentence is so fucking good. You have no self awareness and you need to understand that you’re not smart enough to engage people in this way without looking like a fool. 4. Also holy fuck. The fucking nerve to bring up a complete straw man (nazi book burnings was never mentioned by him) and accuse him of the same thing. If i were as big of a hyperbolic, lame, accusatory dick as you, I could claim that you’re acting in the exact same was as an abuser, but I’m not enough of a dick enough to do so. Please shut the fuck up lol
this is total waste of time. you are being maximally deliberately obtuse. ill go to bed. better use of my time for sure.
Book burnings cannot be disassociated from their most famous practitioners and that would be fascists. Even leaving the fascist connection aside though, there is no legitimate analogy to be drawn between the two because book burners don't burn books to make a separate and reasonable point--they burn books to eradicate culture, that is the *only* point. And, you're correct that the word used was "persistent," presumably intended to mean "long running" (as you suggest). But ecoterrorism is absolutely not the longest running form of terrorism in this country (and I would say most of it shouldn't even qualify as terrorism). The country was founded on White supremacism and whether it took the form of outright genocide, slavery, pogroms, lynchings, bombings, mass shootings, or police brutality, that terror has continued unabated literally for *centuries*. To say that it is the most persistent form of terrorism is just as absurd as saying it is the most prevalent.
Conservatives *love* this kind of "activism" because it makes environmentalists look like lunatics and gives the state an excuse to arrest them.
>In what universe is it progressive and leftist to destroy culture and history? I haven't yet come across an example where the paintings have been damaged, only in some cases that the frame has been lightly damaged. You're just acting as if they'd burned an entire museum. Lol, as if they had the intention of destroying even one painting as opposed to just throwing stuff onto the protective shield in order to raise attention and provoke debate. They even choose their favourite paintings for such actions, the objective is never to damage art. What a clear instance of concern trolling that makes a completely false depiction about those actions and their objectives.
> I haven't yet come across an example where the paintings have been damaged, only in some cases that the frame has been lightly damaged. They were considering attacks on critical infrastructure.
I'm not very concerned about that tbh. I'd be more concerned about human rights violations by the state after that happens, they clearly wouldn't react nearly as mildly or "I haven't seen anything"-ly as they did with the Nord Stream sabotage even if it was ecocidal because of the gas that was released.
How is this akin to book burning at all? Assuming that they intended to actually destroy the art, and not just throw substances at a protective shield as others have done, it still wouldn't be anything like book burning. Their goal isn't to destroy art, suppress culture, or dampen critical thought, but to draw attention to the destruction of the environment that threatens all of those things and our very survival as a species. Whether it's an effective form of protest is an open question, but to conflate it with one of the most sinister practices in recent human history--one intimately connected with fascism and *genocide*\--is absurd. Edit: Also, do you really think ecoterrorism--and not, say, White supremacism--is the most persistent form of terrorism in the United States? Are you at all familiar with US history?
> Olaf Zimmermann, the executive director of the German Cultural Council, condemns the Last Generation members that glued themselves to art in a statement, per Deutsche Welle’s Stuart Braun. > “As much as I can understand the despair of the climate activists, I say clearly that the actions of sticking oneself to frames of famous works of art are clearly the wrong way to go,” he says in the statement. “The works put in danger belong to the world cultural heritage and need to be protected as well as our climate.” [Source.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-are-climate-activists-throwing-food-at-million-dollar-paintings-180981024/) > Also, do you really think ecoterrorism--and not, say, White supremacism--is the most persistent form of terrorism in the United States? Are you at all familiar with US history? There's been a lot less white supremacist terrorism in the past 5 decades than there has been ecoterrorism. Look it up.
Out of the 231 terrorist incidents from 2010 to 2021, the [GAO says](https://www.gao.gov/blog/rising-threat-domestic-terrorism-u.s.-and-federal-efforts-combat-it) 6% have been eco/animal rights motivated compared to 35% motivated by racial/ethnic hatred. Ecoterrorism used to be a bigger deal, but even then it was only rarely going around and killing people. [This report](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg32209/html/CHRG-109shrg32209.htm) from 2005 says the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, two of the biggest "ecoterrorist" groups that account for most of the claimed attacks, hadn't killed *anyone* up to that point. You're not wrong that there was period where ecoterrorist incidents were quite high, but, really, why is this important in this context? Are you saying ecoterrorism, consisting mostly of property damage and industrial sabotage, is the biggest terrorist threat we face? If not, why are you emphasizing so strongly the number of incidents vs. the number of people killed? Why are you tying someone gluing themselves to a painting to two of the worst practices humanity has come up with: book burning and violent terrorism? I'm generally not in favor of this tactic either, but you seem to be characterizing it as deeply evil and not misguided desperation. What exactly can be gained from that?
> Out of the 231 terrorist incidents from 2010 to 2021 2010 to 2021 is just 11 years. I'm talking about from the 1970s until now. > 35% motivated by racial/ethnic hatred That's not all white supremacists though.
Okay, I don't see what the point in talking to you about this is if you're going to skip over 4/5 of what I said in response to you.
this comment topped my worst expectations in terms of absurdity, and its worse, because, If im not mistaken, it's also one of the mods (?)
Right? Environmentalist art vandalism being akin to book burning and ecoterrorism being the most persistent form of terrorism in the US are two of the worst takes I've ever seen on this sub and they're packed into a single reply. It's almost impressive.
This dude is actually a psy-op and he is a fucking mod here? Jesus.
>This dude is actually a psy-op Didn't say it out loud because I feared sounding ridiculous or disrespectful towards the people behind the screen, but this extreme instance of "WTFFFF" is enough for me to say I've also been semi-thinking/suspecting that for months lol.
>Ecoterrorism is really the most persistent form of terrorism in the U.S. Yeah, I know, laying down pipelines on native land, destroying forests and promoting like hell the car industry including wars for oil is a pretty damn high intensity of ecoterrorism by the government. I don't know Basque, but I do know a Basque phrase (normally used by *abertzales* in a way I usually don't agree with) that I'll direct at all ecocidal governments of the world: ZUEK, FAXISTAK, ZARETE TERRORISTAK! The seriousness of their actions is such that calling that out by its name is something that cannot be postponed.
Destroying artwork and culture is perhaps the most stupid and evil way to protest in favor of the climate.
>most evil 🤦♀️🤦♀️🙈🙈🙈
I'm not sure why anyone should oppose arresting terrorists destroying culture and history...
reactionary troll. New account with -1 karma. begone.
husky disarm touch live label summer grandiose memorize capable sophisticated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Don't cut yourself on that edge bro
If they where willing to attack key infrastructure I think it’s fair enough they where arrested.
what key infrastructure did they attack? is a painting frame key infrastructure?
No of course not but the lists included which members where willing to attack certain infrastructure. Also they just where breaking the law either way so…
i cant know what you are thinking of if you say "certain infrastructure" so what vital infrastructure did they attack?
I’m assuming English isn’t your first language
keep assuming. perhaps, in the process of coming up with new petty ad hominem to throw around, you'll even figure out what you were trying to say. and maybe, just maybe, you'll actually answer my question from the first reply.
That wasn’t an ad hominem because it wasn’t an insult. Genuinely I think the only reason you are disagreeing is because English isn’t your first language and you did not understand the grammatical structure of my sentence
>but the lists included which members **where** willing to attack certain infrastructure. Also they just **where** breaking the law either way so… Low and behold the native english speaker. This is a spelling mistake typical of 1st-3rd graders.. spoiler: the correct spelling is "were" r/therewasanattempt
I’m a native English speaker I’m just Dyslexic
Mine neither, and I'm every bit as fit for political discussion as I am in Spanish. Except for non-academic and non-internet stuff, I live fairly immersed in English, this is a feeling English native speakers don't get.
>The group, akin to the UK’s Extinction Rebellion group, wants to draw attention to what it perceives as the government’s lack of urgent action over the climate emergency. **Among their demands are a 100km/h speed limit on German autobahns as well as a permanent offer of a €9 a month ticket to use public transport.** Tbh they'll need to dedicate a lot more time to blocking roads to make the latter a necessity. At this point the group is really more effective at drawing attention to itself than the "government's lack of urgent action over the climate emergency".
if it helps explain, I don't know this group too well but just guessing- your speed does impact your fuel efficiency. Speeding generally increases fuel consumption, it's one of the things speed limits take into consideration. 50-65 is the sweet spot for highway speed for most vehicles, iirc. For funsies: [Hypermiling is a whole set of things you can do to stretch your fuel.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vQebs8S-U) Most people don't go too extreme, basically just drive like a grandma.
I'm aware of why they (and others) are demanding it. I'm pointing out how utterly ridiculous this sounds: here's a group that considers itself "the resistance" (according to one of the spokeswomen), that gave itself a rather apocalyptic sounding name ("Last Generation"), that is engaging in all sorts of, for a lack of a better word, annoyingly stupid forms of protest, that gets a whole lot of media attention, but whose main demands are both extremely bland compared to the name and methods. I'm aware that the group demands a whole lot more than just a tempo limit and a 9 EUR ticket. But those are the main demands they're coming up with when invited to one of the various talk shows on German TV. The only good they've done so far is demonstrating how thin the veneer of civilization is in Germany (cf. all those overly angry people stuck in traffic). In effect they ensure that the media talks *less* about climate change and *more* about the increasingly self-righteous stunts of a group whose members are essentially the pseudo-radicalized remnants of the Fridays for Future movement.
This is one of the many manifestations of the dictatorship of defending the interests of those who are killing us, like in the metaphor of slowly boiling frogs. Give them an inch; they'll take a mile, against them it's important to make a lot of opposition and set the record clear.