Languish.org

These protests/disruptions have been going on all week in London, what do you think of their effectiveness and justification?

Lots of coverage on the BBC news website recently.

Now 'the police' (home secretary/Tory leadership candidate) seem to have had enough of it:

Quote
Extinction Rebellion: Police move in on London protesters
19 April 2019 

Hundreds of police officers have closed in on Extinction Rebellion protesters in central London as demonstrations entered a fifth day.

Officers surrounded a pink boat in Oxford Circus as actress Dame Emma Thompson told activists her generation had "failed young people".

More than 570 people have been arrested at protests this week in Oxford Circus, Parliament Square and Waterloo Bridge

Dame Emma joined the protests after flying from Los Angeles on Thursday.

She said: "We are here in this little island of sanity and it makes me so happy to be able to join you all and to add my voice to the young people here who have inspired a whole new movement."
.....

full item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47987891 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47987891)

I'm of the opinion that the worthy people taking part are in some respects dupes, because their campaign seems designed to alienate as many commuters and ordinary workers as possible. 

Almost as if some one set up the protest organisation to help discredit environmentalism.  :ph34r:

Yeah, this is already well on its way to "occupy wall street" level nonsense pressure-release.

Similar to that, the very core of the grievenaces have a lot of validity but the protesters put great (unintended) effort to discredit those.

The issue they're protesting over is completely valid.

How else are protests supposed to work other than be as large as possible and cause as much disruption as possible? That does not mean they should be committing violence, but it also doesn't mean they should stand in a corner singing kumbaya and not bothering anyone either.

MLK did not just give a speech before the Lincoln memorial, he lead marches across bridges and down streets that blocked traffic. He got involved in Strikes. He and other civil rights leaders challenged the powers that be and were often arrested or worse. And without those actions they would not have succeeded.

I hope the UK won't give in.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2019, 08:20:27 AM
The issue they're protesting over is completely valid.

How else are protests supposed to work other than be as large as possible and cause as much disruption as possible? That does not mean they should be committing violence, but it also doesn't mean they should stand in a corner singing kumbaya and not bothering anyone either.

MLK did not just give a speech before the Lincoln memorial, he lead marches across bridges and down streets that blocked traffic. He got involved in Strikes. He and other civil rights leaders challenged the powers that be and were often arrested or worse. And without those actions they would not have succeeded.

Yes but having realistic goals helps. Making a 60 millions large country "carbon neutral" in 6 years is not a realistic goal. Even with ignoring the fact that the UK going carbon neutral (whatever that means) would do precisely nothing for the climate where literally billions of people are going through developments leading to increased consumption.

Also, Emma Tomphson flying over from LA to participate, speaking from a pink-painted boat equipped with electric speaker equipment is just kind of typcial.

You demand an absolutely dramatic throw-away of most conveniences of modern life, but even while issuing these demands you refuse to do so yourself.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2019, 08:20:27 AM
The issue they're protesting over is completely valid.

How else are protests supposed to work other than be as large as possible and cause as much disruption as possible? That does not mean they should be committing violence, but it also doesn't mean they should stand in a corner singing kumbaya and not bothering anyone either.

MLK did not just give a speech before the Lincoln memorial, he lead marches across bridges and down streets that blocked traffic. He got involved in Strikes. He and other civil rights leaders challenged the powers that be and were often arrested or worse. And without those actions they would not have succeeded.

Because they're uncomparable issues, MLK fight was for rights denied to them by the 'state', whereas climate change is a direct consequence of the cumulative actions of all of us, so one thing is certain, their protest will result in more congestion and so more pollution.

I'd argue they'd be better off quietly engaging with people around them to work on way to reduce their own carbon footprints and lobbying their councillor/MPs to change government policy.

Tim in one way your post almost hit the nail on the head.  :P

Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2019, 08:40:41 AM
Also, Emma Tomphson flying over from LA to participate, speaking from a pink-painted boat equipped with electric speaker equipment is just kind of typcial.

You demand an absolutely dramatic throw-away of most conveniences of modern life, but even while issuing these demands you refuse to do so yourself.

Yes I didn't emboldened it, but it is deliciously ironic that someone should fly thousands of miles to protest about atmospheric pollution.

In the process probably creating more C02 pollution than someone like me does in a whole year. 

They should raise money for more electric cars and battery research.

And, well, you know...


green jobs :)

I have to agree with mongers that this issue isn't very comparable to the issues MLK confronted.

The idea that protests have to use illegal means is I think A) retarded and B) dangerous to democracy. There are plenty of legal ways to protest in a modern Western country. It strikes me as unhealthy to undermine the rule of law (which in a democracy includes democracy) over any and all political issues that you happen to care about.

I think the protests are infantile and counter-productive.

I've been going greener lately; sworn off airflights, cutting down on meat and dairy products etc. The problem is enormous and I think we all should make an effort; but fatuous grandstanding by a load of privileged middle-class wankers is no help at all.

In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 19, 2019, 10:35:52 AM
I think the protests are infantile and counter-productive.

I've been going greener lately; sworn off airflights, cutting down on meat and dairy products etc. The problem is enormous and I think we all should make an effort; but fatuous grandstanding by a load of privileged middle-class wankers is no help at all.

Excellent, Tricky.

And your 2nd point is spot on.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification.

Functioning democracies requires citizen to be gratified.

Get 'im, Yi!! :menace:

I don't know what he means.  :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 02:30:58 PM
I don't know what he means.  :(

That a functioning democracy needs citizens to feel that their collective expression is worth something. What you dismiss as self-gratification is an essential part of democracy. Otherwise, you have Monos, and Monos are not good for democracy.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2019, 02:41:14 PM
That a functioning democracy needs citizens to feel that their collective expression is worth something. What you dismiss as self-gratification is an essential part of democracy. Otherwise, you have Monos, and Monos are not good for democracy.

If a particular point of view is in fact a collective expression, in the sense of one held by a majority of the electorate, then in a functioning democracy that view should already be expressed through the choice of representatives.  If it is a minority view, democracy is in no way bolstered by expressing the view loudly and insistently.  Quite the opposite, as it is based on the premise that volume and stridency trump number of votes, which is anti-democratic.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 02:54:57 PM
If a particular point of view is in fact a collective expression, in the sense of one held by a majority of the electorate, then in a functioning democracy that view should already be expressed through the choice of representatives.  If it is a minority view, democracy is in no way bolstered by expressing the view loudly and insistently.  Quite the opposite, as it is based on the premise that volume and stridency trump number of votes, which is anti-democratic.

That's a very limiting view of democracy, which demands that I feel represented only in the sort of issues which my representatives deem worthy of bringing about, and only in the very specific moment of the vote. And we both know that neither can ever hope to fully encompass the sheer diversity of political views a citizen may hold at any given moment. It also assumes that political ideas emerge spontaneously in isolation, as opposed from conversations - conversations which can be loud, obnoxious, strident, stupid. It also assumes that volume and stridency is only limited to citizens in demonstration - and presumably, stridency and volume in media are somehow safe from such scathing assessment.

If the only possible democratic exchange is the fully rational, dispassionate, cigar-lounge discussion or the simple exercise of filling a ballot, then there has never been a democracy, and your ideal is, in fact, counter-productive. Democracy is about owning one's voice, and enjoying the dignity that comes with it. Your stance celebrates silence rather than dissent.  I maintain that this makes voting a meaningless ritual, democracy, a procedural matter, and citizens, disaffected from the process.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2019, 03:05:33 PM
That's a very limiting view of democracy, which demands that I feel represented only in the sort of issues which my representatives deem worthy of bringing about, and only in the very specific moment of the vote. And we both know that neither can ever hope to fully encompass the sheer diversity of political views a citizen may hold at any given moment. It also assumes that political ideas emerge spontaneously in isolation, as opposed from conversations - conversations which can be loud, obnoxious, strident, stupid. It also assumes that volume and stridency is only limited to citizens in demonstration - and presumably, stridency and volume in media are somehow safe from such scathing assessment.

If the only possible democratic exchange is the fully rational, dispassionate, cigar-lounge discussion or the simple exercise of filling a ballot, then there has never been a democracy, and your ideal is, in fact, counter-productive. Democracy is about owning one's voice, and enjoying the dignity that comes with it. Your stance celebrates silence rather than dissent.  I maintain that this makes voting a meaningless ritual, democracy, a procedural matter, and citizens, disaffected from the process.

I do not assume that volume and stridency are limited to demonstrations.

I don't really know what you mean by "feel represented."  I suspect this is the nub of the debate.  I cast a vote for several elected officials.  I am therefore by definition represented.

Does feeling represented mean something like other people feel the same way?  Does it mean placing my opinion in the public record? 

How is the feeling of representation different than the fact of representation?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2019, 08:20:27 AM
The issue they're protesting over is completely valid.

How else are protests supposed to work other than be as large as possible and cause as much disruption as possible? That does not mean they should be committing violence, but it also doesn't mean they should stand in a corner singing kumbaya and not bothering anyone either.

MLK did not just give a speech before the Lincoln memorial, he lead marches across bridges and down streets that blocked traffic. He got involved in Strikes. He and other civil rights leaders challenged the powers that be and were often arrested or worse. And without those actions they would not have succeeded.

How about protests that are large and don't cause as much disruption as possible?

MLK is a pretty decent decent example.  He was arrested for violating a court order that prohibited any demonstrations or parades - something I think you and I would agree is against the constitution.  When he led marches MLK was never trying to deliberately block anyone.  The usual understanding of civil disobedience is that it is proper to disobey unjust laws.

Look, if several thousand people want to protest climate change that's great.  To the extent that it's going to inconvenience a few people while the demonstration is going on is just something we'll have to live with.  But when disruption and inconvenience becomes the sheer point of the protest, I think it is ineffective and wrong.

This problem is not going to be solved by individual action.  It is going to take the organization the expenditure of resources that only a state, and in the case, many states acting in unison, will be able to achieve.

If the protesters can push state actors to act then that is a good thing. 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of pointless acts of self gratification.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 03:17:23 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2019, 03:05:33 PM
That's a very limiting view of democracy, which demands that I feel represented only in the sort of issues which my representatives deem worthy of bringing about, and only in the very specific moment of the vote. And we both know that neither can ever hope to fully encompass the sheer diversity of political views a citizen may hold at any given moment. It also assumes that political ideas emerge spontaneously in isolation, as opposed from conversations - conversations which can be loud, obnoxious, strident, stupid. It also assumes that volume and stridency is only limited to citizens in demonstration - and presumably, stridency and volume in media are somehow safe from such scathing assessment.

If the only possible democratic exchange is the fully rational, dispassionate, cigar-lounge discussion or the simple exercise of filling a ballot, then there has never been a democracy, and your ideal is, in fact, counter-productive. Democracy is about owning one's voice, and enjoying the dignity that comes with it. Your stance celebrates silence rather than dissent.  I maintain that this makes voting a meaningless ritual, democracy, a procedural matter, and citizens, disaffected from the process.

I do not assume that volume and stridency are limited to demonstrations.

I don't really know what you mean by "feel represented."  I suspect this is the nub of the debate.  I cast a vote for several elected officials.  I am therefore by definition represented.

Does feeling represented mean something like other people feel the same way?  Does it mean placing my opinion in the public record? 

How is the feeling of representation different than the fact of representation?

Yi, given that our Founding Fathers saw fit to add a Bill of Rights that guaranteed, among other things, the right to peacefully assemble, I don't think that they would agree with you, and frankly I don't either.

Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2019, 09:24:25 AM
I have to agree with mongers that this issue isn't very comparable to the issues MLK confronted.

The idea that protests have to use illegal means is I think A) retarded and B) dangerous to democracy. There are plenty of legal ways to protest in a modern Western country. It strikes me as unhealthy to undermine the rule of law (which in a democracy includes democracy) over any and all political issues that you happen to care about.

:bleeding:

Sauvages. Expliquons-nous sur ce mot. Ces hommes hérissés qui, dans les jours génésiaques du chaos révolutionnaire, déguenillés, hurlants, farouches, le casse-tête levé, la pique haute, se ruaient sur le vieux Paris bouleversé, que voulaient-ils ? Ils voulaient la fin des oppressions, la fin des tyrannies, la fin du glaive, le travail pour l'homme, l'instruction pour l'enfant, la douceur sociale pour la femme, la liberté, l'égalité, la fraternité, le pain pour tous, l'idée pour tous, l'édénisation du monde, le Progrès ; et cette chose sainte, bonne et douce, le progrès, poussés à bout, hors d'eux-mêmes, ils la réclamaient terribles, demi-nus, la massue au poing, le rugissement à la bouche. C'étaient les sauvages, oui ; mais les sauvages de la civilisation.

Ils proclamaient avec furie le droit ; ils voulaient, fût-ce par le tremblement et l'épouvante, forcer le genre humain au paradis. Ils semblaient des barbares et ils étaient des sauveurs. Ils réclamaient la lumière avec le masque de la nuit.

En regard de ces hommes, farouches, nous en convenons, et effrayants, mais farouches et effrayants pour le bien, il y a d'autres hommes, souriants, brodés, dorés, enrubannés, constellés, en bas de soie, en plumes blanches, en gants jaunes, en souliers vernis, qui, accoudés à une table de velours au coin d'une cheminée de marbre, insistent doucement pour le maintien et la conservation du passé, du moyen-âge, du droit divin, du fanatisme, de l'ignorance, de l'esclavage, de la peine de mort, de la guerre, glorifiant à demi-voix et avec politesse le sabre, le bûcher et l'échafaud. Quant à nous, si nous étions forcés à l'option entre les barbares de la civilisation et les civilisés de la barbarie, nous choisirions les barbares.

Quote from: Zoupa on April 19, 2019, 09:36:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2019, 09:24:25 AM
I have to agree with mongers that this issue isn't very comparable to the issues MLK confronted.

The idea that protests have to use illegal means is I think A) retarded and B) dangerous to democracy. There are plenty of legal ways to protest in a modern Western country. It strikes me as unhealthy to undermine the rule of law (which in a democracy includes democracy) over any and all political issues that you happen to care about.

:bleeding:

Sauvages. Expliquons-nous sur ce mot. Ces hommes hérissés qui, dans les jours génésiaques du chaos révolutionnaire, déguenillés, hurlants, farouches, le casse-tête levé, la pique haute, se ruaient sur le vieux Paris bouleversé, que voulaient-ils ? Ils voulaient la fin des oppressions, la fin des tyrannies, la fin du glaive, le travail pour l'homme, l'instruction pour l'enfant, la douceur sociale pour la femme, la liberté, l'égalité, la fraternité, le pain pour tous, l'idée pour tous, l'édénisation du monde, le Progrès ; et cette chose sainte, bonne et douce, le progrès, poussés à bout, hors d'eux-mêmes, ils la réclamaient terribles, demi-nus, la massue au poing, le rugissement à la bouche. C'étaient les sauvages, oui ; mais les sauvages de la civilisation.

Ils proclamaient avec furie le droit ; ils voulaient, fût-ce par le tremblement et l'épouvante, forcer le genre humain au paradis. Ils semblaient des barbares et ils étaient des sauveurs. Ils réclamaient la lumière avec le masque de la nuit.

En regard de ces hommes, farouches, nous en convenons, et effrayants, mais farouches et effrayants pour le bien, il y a d'autres hommes, souriants, brodés, dorés, enrubannés, constellés, en bas de soie, en plumes blanches, en gants jaunes, en souliers vernis, qui, accoudés à une table de velours au coin d'une cheminée de marbre, insistent doucement pour le maintien et la conservation du passé, du moyen-âge, du droit divin, du fanatisme, de l'ignorance, de l'esclavage, de la peine de mort, de la guerre, glorifiant à demi-voix et avec politesse le sabre, le bûcher et l'échafaud. Quant à nous, si nous étions forcés à l'option entre les barbares de la civilisation et les civilisés de la barbarie, nous choisirions les barbares.

:cool:

Good stuff Zoupa.

But that's an awfully big claim to ascribe to a clique that disrupts transport for a few week days.

mongers has the French.  He has the learning. :smoke:

Quote from: dps on April 19, 2019, 06:57:07 PM
Yi, given that our Founding Fathers saw fit to add a Bill of Rights that guaranteed, among other things, the right to peacefully assemble, I don't think that they would agree with you, and frankly I don't either.

I'm not denying anyone's right to construst as many giant paper-mache puppets as they wish; Ii'm questioning the efficacy and utility of their actions.

The problem with most protest movements (in a democratic state) is that they preach to the converted. I think climate extinction are a classic case of this. Have they forgotten (do they even know) that hourly-paid employees will lose money if they are delayed in getting to work and that their already inadequate pay packets will be even lighter? They are middle class folk already steeped in the need for change, their target should be to communicate this need to the masses.

Which is something that David Attenborough does so well in his documentaries. He calmly presents what is going on without hectoring. He isn't someone who can be dismissed as a scruffy lefty, being BBC aristocracy. Daily mail readers in the shires watch his shows and start to agonise over plastic waste. He has done so much more than all these protestors in raising consciousness and winning hearts and minds.

Which leads to change, even the current shabby excuse for a UK government are initiating change https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-plan-to-ban-plastic-straws-cotton-buds-and-stirrers

Even Mark Carney (governor of the Bank of England) is making speeches warning companies that if they don't adapt to the new green9er) economy then they will face destruction https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-34393864/bank-of-england-boss-carney-warns-of-global-warming-risk

The door to change is already opening at least in the UK; as individuals we need to think carefully about how we can help push that door open.

Quote from: Zoupa on April 19, 2019, 09:36:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 19, 2019, 09:24:25 AM
I have to agree with mongers that this issue isn't very comparable to the issues MLK confronted.

The idea that protests have to use illegal means is I think A) retarded and B) dangerous to democracy. There are plenty of legal ways to protest in a modern Western country. It strikes me as unhealthy to undermine the rule of law (which in a democracy includes democracy) over any and all political issues that you happen to care about.

:bleeding:

Sauvages. Expliquons-nous sur ce mot. Ces hommes hérissés qui, dans les jours génésiaques du chaos révolutionnaire, déguenillés, hurlants, farouches, le casse-tête levé, la pique haute, se ruaient sur le vieux Paris bouleversé, que voulaient-ils ? Ils voulaient la fin des oppressions, la fin des tyrannies, la fin du glaive, le travail pour l'homme, l'instruction pour l'enfant, la douceur sociale pour la femme, la liberté, l'égalité, la fraternité, le pain pour tous, l'idée pour tous, l'édénisation du monde, le Progrès ; et cette chose sainte, bonne et douce, le progrès, poussés à bout, hors d'eux-mêmes, ils la réclamaient terribles, demi-nus, la massue au poing, le rugissement à la bouche. C'étaient les sauvages, oui ; mais les sauvages de la civilisation.

Ils proclamaient avec furie le droit ; ils voulaient, fût-ce par le tremblement et l'épouvante, forcer le genre humain au paradis. Ils semblaient des barbares et ils étaient des sauveurs. Ils réclamaient la lumière avec le masque de la nuit.

En regard de ces hommes, farouches, nous en convenons, et effrayants, mais farouches et effrayants pour le bien, il y a d'autres hommes, souriants, brodés, dorés, enrubannés, constellés, en bas de soie, en plumes blanches, en gants jaunes, en souliers vernis, qui, accoudés à une table de velours au coin d'une cheminée de marbre, insistent doucement pour le maintien et la conservation du passé, du moyen-âge, du droit divin, du fanatisme, de l'ignorance, de l'esclavage, de la peine de mort, de la guerre, glorifiant à demi-voix et avec politesse le sabre, le bûcher et l'échafaud. Quant à nous, si nous étions forcés à l'option entre les barbares de la civilisation et les civilisés de la barbarie, nous choisirions les barbares.

I don't read French.

Google auto-translated for me. :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 04:36:23 AM
Google auto-translated for me. :hmm:

Nagyszerű, akkor ezek után mind írhatunk az anyanyelvünkön, vagy ez fent van tartva felsőbbrendűsegi-komplexusos franciáknak?

Why does Magyar sound quite nice but when written down looks like the black speech of Mordor?

Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2019, 06:14:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 04:36:23 AM
Google auto-translated for me. :hmm:

Nagyszerű, akkor ezek után mind írhatunk az anyanyelvünkön, vagy ez fent van tartva felsőbbrendűsegi-komplexusos franciáknak?

I had to move it to Google translate as it appears it wants to only translate from one language on a page. :(

There is a phrase somewhere about not stopping the enemy from making a mistake?  I think that probably applies here. 

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2019, 02:17:41 AM
The problem with most protest movements (in a democratic state) is that they preach to the converted. I think climate extinction are a classic case of this. Have they forgotten (do they even know) that hourly-paid employees will lose money if they are delayed in getting to work and that their already inadequate pay packets will be even lighter? They are middle class folk already steeped in the need for change, their target should be to communicate this need to the masses.

Which is something that David Attenborough does so well in his documentaries. He calmly presents what is going on without hectoring. He isn't someone who can be dismissed as a scruffy lefty, being BBC aristocracy. Daily mail readers in the shires watch his shows and start to agonise over plastic waste. He has done so much more than all these protestors in raising consciousness and winning hearts and minds.

Which leads to change, even the current shabby excuse for a UK government are initiating change https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-plan-to-ban-plastic-straws-cotton-buds-and-stirrers

Even Mark Carney (governor of the Bank of England) is making speeches warning companies that if they don't adapt to the new green9er) economy then they will face destruction https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-34393864/bank-of-england-boss-carney-warns-of-global-warming-risk

The door to change is already opening at least in the UK; as individuals we need to think carefully about how we can help push that door open.

Too late for being nice about it

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2019, 06:17:31 AM
Why does Magyar sound quite nice but when written down looks like the black speech of Mordor?

I saw something in Romanian the other day and I was thinking "This is Romance language?  It's looks like what you would get if you crossed Hungarian and Orcish".

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2019, 10:42:21 AM

Too late for being nice about it

CC, it's not about niceness, but about effectiveness and not being counter-productive, which was Tricky, mine and other's point.

Attenborough documentaries have not worked.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2019, 12:44:53 PM
Attenborough documentaries have not worked.

Do anything to gain attention?

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 01:17:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2019, 12:44:53 PM
Attenborough documentaries have not worked.

Do anything to gain attention?

Protesting is not exactly an unknown strategy to create change.

How do you see this protest being effective?

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

1. Protest
2. ???
3. Solve climate change by 2025

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

It will make some of the protesters feel better about themselves. But what could they do to be effective?

In an unsurprising development, people who are temperamentally or politically ill-disposed towards protests tend to underplay their efficacy. And people who are temperamentally or politically well disposed towards protests are more likely to assign them value.

The problem with assigning effectiveness to a protest is that we do not know. Any causal link between protest and policy change is ascribed retrospectively - and with great difficulty at that. The decision to organize, or participate in a protest must be made in relation to the nature of the cause, the value of protest as principle, and a wager about outcomes. No one can know for certain that the one protest they chose is "the one" protest that will tip the scales - and most likely because such a unique event does not exist. It takes a long series of events and demonstration to build up momentum, at least in any political cause I am aware of.

The challenge I see for people who tend to oppose protest as a matter of principle, or dislike, is that any alternative they propose (if/when they propose some, which is rare) is often considerably abstract, hoping for some spontaneous change that would arise in people, transmit through strongly worded letters to their representatives, who then find it in themselves to carry that issue to the political table.

The challenge I see for protests now is, first, that convenience of transportation has become such a highly rated value - both personally and structurally. Drivers tolerate less and less impediment to their commutes - in part because such commutes are longer and longer, and the consequences, made to be more and more important. People have become really aggressive (and dangerous) when their drive is hindered, and drivers attempting to drive through crowds are not uncommon. When protests are devised as really inward looking (as self-validation, as Yi would say) as opposed to bridge-building, it can create some backlash. The irony is that these tensions have been increased by the very car-centric way of life that environmentalism propose to fight.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification.

Well we have far from a well-functioning democracy. As democracy falters, the people's options go from voting to protesting to violence. Be glad we are still at the protest stage.

Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2019, 02:40:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

1. Protest
2. ???
3. Solve climate change by 2025

Apparently, the alternative is:

1. ???
2. ???
3. Solve climate change by 2025

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2019, 02:58:33 PM

Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2019, 02:40:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

1. Protest
2. ???
3. Solve climate change by 2025

Apparently, the alternative is:

1. ???
2. ???
3. Solve climate change by 2025

It is very likely that no path leads there.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2019, 02:57:37 PM
The challenge I see for protests now is, first, that convenience of transportation has become such a highly rated value - both personally and structurally. Drivers tolerate less and less impediment to their commutes - in part because such commutes are longer and longer, and the consequences, made to be more and more important. People have become really aggressive (and dangerous) when their drive is hindered, and drivers attempting to drive through crowds are not uncommon. When protests are devised as really inward looking (as self-validation, as Yi would say) as opposed to bridge-building, it can create some backlash. The irony is that these tensions have been increased by the very car-centric way of life that environmentalism propose to fight.

Probably doesn't help that they are also hindering mass transit what with buses and tube lines having faced disruption in the past week. If you want to try and hold a city hostage, you better be damn sure it is going to be effective.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 02:57:45 PM
Well we have far from a well-functioning democracy. As democracy falters, the people's options go from voting to protesting to violence. Be glad we are still at the protest stage.

By not well-functioning, do you mean something other than delivering results you oppose?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 03:27:27 PM
By not well-functioning, do you mean something other than delivering results you oppose?

Yes, I mean delivering results the people oppose.

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 03:25:03 PM
Probably doesn't help that they are also hindering mass transit what with buses and tube lines having faced disruption in the past week.

Yes. I think a much smarter move would have been to organize something that actively valued mass transit.

But still haven't answered the question of how you would ascribe effectiveness. What would an effective, and non-disruptive protest look like? What measures of effectiveness would you use?

You never responded to my question about feeling represented Ucks.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 03:29:04 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 03:27:27 PM
By not well-functioning, do you mean something other than delivering results you oppose?

Yes, I mean delivering results the people oppose.

Do you think elections are rigged?

What do you mean by rigged?

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 03:25:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2019, 02:57:37 PM
The challenge I see for protests now is, first, that convenience of transportation has become such a highly rated value - both personally and structurally. Drivers tolerate less and less impediment to their commutes - in part because such commutes are longer and longer, and the consequences, made to be more and more important. People have become really aggressive (and dangerous) when their drive is hindered, and drivers attempting to drive through crowds are not uncommon. When protests are devised as really inward looking (as self-validation, as Yi would say) as opposed to bridge-building, it can create some backlash. The irony is that these tensions have been increased by the very car-centric way of life that environmentalism propose to fight.

Probably doesn't help that they are also hindering mass transit what with buses and tube lines having faced disruption in the past week. If you want to try and hold a city hostage, you better be damn sure it is going to be effective.

Indeed.

And that's the stand out oddity of this protest, the targeting of mass transit; the is DLR one of the more efficient light rail systems and the London buses disproportionately hit by the Waterloo bridge and Oxford street blockades.
The TFL bus system being the most efficient in the country in terms of C02 emissions per passenger mile.

Ironically car drivers in central London had the better options in avoiding these blockages, as compared to some stuck on public transport.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 03:54:47 PM
You never responded to my question about feeling represented Ucks.

I am not sure I understand your question.

Yes, there is the technical fact of representation. Rules assert that by voting, I am represented.

But am I? Representation can never be just the technical conformity to one existing system - otherwise this system would never change, and African-Americans were truly represented by the white people elected in the South. What happens then, when my representative never, ever, carry any thing resembling my voice to the political arena? And what happens when other people - people exterior, say, to my county, seem to have their own voices considerably amplified by my own representative - like, lobbyists, or party leadership.

Adding to that, is the issue, which I deem fundamental for democracies, that citizens represent themselves to one another without the recourse to elected representatives. Admittedly, this is not a very technical meaning of representation: it simply means that we see each other acting as citizens, without being summoned by some higher authority. I don't want my sense of political belonging to be wholly swallowed by  institutions, however enlightened they may have been.

Feeling represented and being represented will always create discrepancies - and this is in fact, a good thing. Because it means you critique political leadership and hold them to account. You ask them to justify this discrepancy. If the moment of critique, and the moment of reckoning, are only limited to the performance of the vote, there are then very few moments of assessment, and these moments become overdetermined by the technical characters of the vote.

There is a reason why representation has been a major sticking point in the history of democracies.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
What do you mean by rigged?

To a significant degree decided by illegal actions that interfere with the election process.

@Ucks

First of all you picked a lousy example with blacks in the Jim Crow south, since they couldn't vote.

That aside, I think I understand what you're getting at.  Say there are 10, or 100, fervent, committed Pastifarians scattered throughout all the voting districts in the US.  They will likely not be able to elect a representative who will carry their banner.  However, if they organize a big Pastifarian rally on the Mall, they will feel represented because they have been noticed and people now realize there a couple thousand of their kind.  It's not about impacting policy, it's about being noticed.

Is that it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 03:27:27 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 02:57:45 PM
Well we have far from a well-functioning democracy. As democracy falters, the people's options go from voting to protesting to violence. Be glad we are still at the protest stage.

By not well-functioning, do you mean something other than delivering results you oppose?

From a West-European point of view, the American elections are...strange in case you would want a real democracy. The gerrymandering is one problem. The fact that it seems usual that efforts are made to made sure that certain groups of people won't be allowed to vote because they would mostly vote for the other party is another. A few european countries used to have compulsory voting. I think Belgium still has it. Compare that to the USA...     

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 04:55:43 PM
@Ucks
First of all you picked a lousy example with blacks in the Jim Crow south, since they couldn't vote.

Fine. Did the white slavers feel represented by their black representatives during Reconstruction?  :P

QuoteIt's not about impacting policy, it's about being noticed. Is that it?

Yes. :)

With two slight amendments:

as I said above, protests can impact policy. You just don't know what its future impact will be when you organize one, or when you remain spectator of one. The next Pastafarian protest may draw 30,000 people on the Mall. Or it may draw none. Or it may lead to larger appreciation for separation of church and state. People who point to specific "good" protests usually forget the hundreds of "bad" ones which led to it.

"being noticed" sounds perhaps too much like attention-seeking. I think protest perform vital functions of "noticing each other", so to speak. Pastafarians are gratified by the fact that they belong to a community which is made to exist through these actions. Protests truly enact political transformation within people - about the capacity for collective change. When elected representatives ignore protest, they spit in the face of that acknowledgment.

Quote from: The Brain on April 20, 2019, 04:51:47 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
What do you mean by rigged?

To a significant degree decided by illegal actions that interfere with the election process.

Illegal is sticky. AFAIK the legality of gerrymandering is not fully settled and to some degree depends on intent which is hard to prove.

However legal is not the same as democratic.

The electoral college is, of course, legal but does not represent everyone's vote equally.

The various attempts at suppression have frequently been found to be unconstitutional and therefor illegal. Whether or not these have significantly impacted elections is not something I have the facts to determine.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2019, 05:22:02 PM
Pastafarians are gratified by the fact that they belong to a community which is made to exist through these actions.

So you are conceding it's about self-gratification?  :whistle:

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

Let me turn the question around.  How has it not?  Is silence about the threat climate change poses better so that the Monos of the world can continue in their ignorant bliss?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 05:46:49 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2019, 05:22:02 PM
Pastafarians are gratified by the fact that they belong to a community which is made to exist through these actions.

So you are conceding it's about self-gratification?  :whistle:

Yi, self gratification is what occurs when you engage in whatever you do to cause yourself pleasure.  Others engage in activities that go beyond themselves.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification.

Well we have far from a well-functioning democracy. As democracy falters, the people's options go from voting to protesting to violence. Be glad we are still at the protest stage.

You live in the UK?

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2019, 06:05:33 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2019, 12:26:54 PM
In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification.

Well we have far from a well-functioning democracy. As democracy falters, the people's options go from voting to protesting to violence. Be glad we are still at the protest stage.

You live in the UK?

Do you think we are past the protest stage in the US?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 05:46:49 PM
So you are conceding it's about self-gratification?  :whistle:

Sure. I thought I had said as much. But you dismiss it as "merely" self-gratification (which I assume you ascribe to individual protesters), whereas I think it's a process of collective gratification that is essential for a functioning democracy. At some point, if every action is somehow about self-satisfaction, it seems like the accusation loses its explanatory power, no?

It's odd that so many people who live in a country that glorified violent acts of destructive protest are so contemptuous of any sort of protest.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2019, 07:21:30 PM
It's odd that so many people who live in a country that glorified violent acts of destructive protest are so contemptuous of any sort of protest.

That would be one, Mono and he doesn't live here.  :bowler:

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2019, 06:44:29 PM
Do you think we are past the protest stage in the US?

I was just curious why you were using "we" for the UK. I have no fucking clue where you live these days.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2019, 07:21:30 PM
It's odd that so many people who live in a country that glorified violent acts of destructive protest are so contemptuous of any sort of protest.

Luckily for at least one of those people, he managed to qualify his statement to functioning democracies, and is thus able to evade the hammer blow of your otherwise scathing indictment.

Just to clarify; the climate extinction protests involve a lot of illegal acts. In the UK it is perfectly possible to make a legal protest. The most recent one was the march in favour of remaining in the EU; a well-conducted march with something like 700,000 participants and no illegality. I'd have been happy to join that march if I'd been in the area that weekend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45925542

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2019, 05:49:01 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2019, 02:27:24 PM
How do you see this protest being effective?

Let me turn the question around.  How has it not?  Is silence about the threat climate change poses better so that the Monos of the world can continue in their ignorant bliss?

Paints caring about the environment as something the loony left does. Extinction Rebellion has openly connected it with illegal activity, something they are proud of.

Even the Guardian editorials seem conflicted on the extent to which they should embrace/castigate this movement.

More, perhaps even most, of the conversation seems to be about what they are doing rather than their cause.

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2019, 08:24:39 PM
I was just curious why you were using "we" for the UK. I have no fucking clue where you live these days.

Most of the discussion in this thread has not been country-specific.

I haven't moved in more than a decade, despite my best efforts.

And as we get closer to the point of warming more than 1.5 without government action I suspect the protests to become more intense.  This isn't a debate about policy alternatives reasonable people can disagree about.  The planet is warming because of our emissions. Governments do need to take quick and significant action.  What would you suggest to bring that about the short time we have left?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2019, 08:44:13 AM
And as we get closer to the point of warming more than 1.5 without government action I suspect the protests to become more intense.  This isn't a debate about policy alternatives reasonable people can disagree about.  The planet is warming because of our emissions. Governments do need to take quick and significant action.  What would you suggest to bring that about the short time we have left?

One of my big problems is that IDK about America but in England obsession/concern with climate change is at near-religious levels already. This is the silliest place to start becoming obstructious/violent over climate change.

The US, China, India, I'd assume Russia, are much more obvious places to do this but of course there would be a rather more serious pushback.

I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

Unless one is hoping the Conservatives will leap on climate change as a distraction from Brexit, I don't see how one could expect this illegal protesting to spur the government to anything other than a crackdown.

Especially since a crackdown would be a far better distraction than some boring announcement of new policies.

Not to mention that the last thing the British economy needs is becoming more heavily regulated right now

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2019, 10:50:33 AM
I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

The government is acting though, take a look at these figures (from the World Bank) :

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CAN:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

We want more of the same, a sustainable acceleration of decarbonisation is also feasible; pushing the country's economy off the rails so that we end up with gilet-jaunes demanding lower diesel taxes is the last thing we want.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/extinction-rebellion-london-protesters-offer-pause-climate-action

QuoteExtinction Rebellion: police to forcibly clear protesters from London sites

Police are planning to forcibly clear Extinction Rebellion protesters from Waterloo Bridge and Parliament Square as the group debates whether to continue its campaign of mass civil disobedience into next week.

The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, said the disruption was "counter-productive" to the cause of climate change and was stretching resources so much it could damage police's ability to fight violent crime.

Extinction Rebellion said it expected its supporters would be cleared out of two sites occupied without permission as police prepared to evict them if they declined to leave voluntarily.

Last week, the group gained global coverage for the disruption its tactics of civil disobedience caused in central London. On Sunday, the organisers said they intended to change tack and would offer to vacate some sites in exchange for the mayor acting on some of their demands.

The Metropolitan police said they had made 831 arrests and charged 42 people. The force's leader, Cressida Dick, said the group's tactics, centred on peaceful direct action, had caused too much disruption.

On Saturday, Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus were returned to normal use, after complaints from businesses about the blocking of some of the capital's key arteries.

On Sunday, activists rushed to Parliament Square, when police turned up in force to try to clear five roadblocks. Activists were using lock-on devices to hold the space, as well as gluing themselves to the ground and each other in order to slow down the police.

Activists said there were three people locked on trees in the square with more ready to go up. They promised attempts to evict them would be "spectacular" and could take police all night.

The stage-truck on Waterloo Bridge was finally removed by 5am on Sunday after police spent most of Saturday and well into the night removing protesters glued and locked on to it. Police spent hours using angle grinders to cut free the two protesters who had locked themselves down on the top of truck, before winching them down and carrying them into the back of waiting police vans.

...

Ronan McNern, a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, said: "We think they want everything cleared by the end of the week. People are willing to be arrested. There is a deep sense we do not want to be attached to any single site. What this disruption is doing, we are the news now. It is making people talk in pubs and buses about Extinction Rebellion. It makes them think about their existence which is under threat."

Extinction Rebellion is discussing withdrawing from some sites in return for being allowed to remain in others and having its demands met.

One manifesto from Farhana Yamin, a lawyer, advocated a "pause" in disruption next week to better project their demands and press for negotiations with government.

She wrote: "Today marks a transition from week one, which focused on actions that were vision-holding but also caused mass 'disruption' across many dimensions (economic, cultural, emotional, social). Week two marks a new phase of rebellion focused on 'negotiations' where the focus will shift to our actual political demands."

She continued: "We want to show that XR is a cohesive long-term, global force, not some flash in the pan."

Others in the group's leadership were planning further disruption and a meeting this week will attempt to decide on the group's strategy.

On Sunday at the Marble Arch site where protesters are allowed to gather, Extinction Rebellion is planning a concert which will be introduced by the environmental activist Greta Thunberg.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 21, 2019, 12:10:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 21, 2019, 10:50:33 AM
I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

The government is acting though, take a look at these figures (from the World Bank) :

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CAN:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

We want more of the same, a sustainable acceleration of decarbonisation is also feasible; pushing the country's economy off the rails so that we end up with gilet-jaunes demanding lower diesel taxes is the last thing we want.

That doesn't tell me what the government is doing just that the UK is doing better than Canada.  And since we have the oil sands, that is a pretty low bar.

Quote

However, another Extinction Rebellion organiser Larch Maxey told the BBC there "certainly won't be a pause in our activities".

He said: "On Tuesday we've got a series of strategic points around the city which we will be targeting to cause maximum economic disruption while simultaneously focusing on Parliament and inviting MPs to pause."

Asked if MPs would be able to get into Parliament, he added: "Not if we are successful, we're going to prevent them getting in so they have time to separate themselves from the politicking and concentrate on what's at stake here."

That's the language of the hard left.

item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48003955 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48003955)

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2019, 09:11:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2019, 07:21:30 PM
It's odd that so many people who live in a country that glorified violent acts of destructive protest are so contemptuous of any sort of protest.

Luckily for at least one of those people, he managed to qualify his statement to functioning democracies, and is thus able to evade the hammer blow of your otherwise scathing indictment.

That person qualified their statement with something rather difficult to define.

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2019, 12:42:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2019, 12:42:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

"Civil disobedience" is a much argued term, so yes, by some definitions any kind of "ends justify the means" actions can be called civil disobedience.

But by many definitions your actions have to be tied specifically to the cause you're trying to call attention to.  You chain yourselves to the trees you say shouldn't be logged, or you block the road to a nuclear weapons plant, or whatever.

And by a even more narrow definition (which was what MLK used) is ""Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."  So civil disobedience is openly violating a law that you feel is unjust, in order to call attention to that law e.g. for Rosa Parks not to move to the back of the bus.

Just blocking traffic and making everyday life for Londoners less pleasant doesn't count as civil disobedience in my book.

Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2019, 01:12:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2019, 12:42:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

"Civil disobedience" is a much argued term, so yes, by some definitions any kind of "ends justify the means" actions can be called civil disobedience.

You guys are big on the hyperbole today.  Where have I argued for "any kind of ends justify the means actions"?

QuoteBut by many definitions your actions have to be tied specifically to the cause you're trying to call attention to.

I would agree with that view.  And that is exactly what is happening here.  They are focusing their protests on Parliament.

QuoteAnd by a even more narrow definition (which was what MLK used) is ""Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."  So civil disobedience is openly violating a law that you feel is unjust, in order to call attention to that law e.g. for Rosa Parks not to move to the back of the bus.

While that can be a form of civil disobedience it doesn't work very well if what one is protesting is a lack of laws and government action.


edit: missed your last comment

QuoteJust blocking traffic and making everyday life for Londoners less pleasant doesn't count as civil disobedience in my book.

What book are your reading where that is ruled out as justifiable civil disobedience.  You guys seem to want to take the disobedience out of the term.  :P

I think it is clear that in CC's mind there is little chance of negative outcomes from Extinction Rebellion protests.

The prospect of a negative outcome is pretty much certain.  The question is what to do about it.  Many here advocate the be nice approach in the hope that politics will change sufficiently in time.  And ignore the fact their approach is very risky.

So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 06:44:36 AM
So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

Rather the options seem to be, hope something happens in time (what most of you are advocating) or try to do something about it.  As I said earlier, given the urgency of the need for governments to act, the decision to protest government inaction is a rational response.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 06:49:31 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 06:44:36 AM
So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

Rather the options seem to be, hope something happens in time (what most of you are advocating) or try to do something about it.  As I said earlier, given the urgency of the need for governments to act, the decision to protest government inaction is a rational response.

And I was describing this 'try to do something about it.' A protest can be rational but is this particular protest rational? And then I suppose more importantly, is it actually driving change? It has been over a week now.

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

A better test would be 'Is the protest directly counter-productive?'
For instance:
Violence at an anti-war demonstration.
Extra pollution / C02 emissions from an environmental demonstration.
Etc

If not directly so, I'm happy to see all demonstrations, but just because one has a 'worthy' aim doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 07:12:47 AM
Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal. ;)

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 09:47:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 07:12:47 AM
Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal. ;)

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

Quote from: mongers on April 23, 2019, 07:31:20 AM
A better test would be 'Is the protest directly counter-productive?'
For instance:
Violence at an anti-war demonstration.
Extra pollution / C02 emissions from an environmental demonstration.
Etc

If not directly so, I'm happy to see all demonstrations, but just because one has a 'worthy' aim doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

I think it is a fallacy to argue that protesters are emitting carbon and therefore should be ignored.  This problem is not going to be solved by individuals trying their best to reduce carbon.  It is not possible because people need to use energy in our modern society.  What is required is governmental action (the UN reports say on the scale of mobilizing resources for WWII) to create a new energy grid based on non fossil fuels.

On that scale it is petty to point at somebody trying their best to effect that kind of change while traveling around the world to do it.

The main danger in your definition is who gets to decide whether a protest is counter productive.  There are lots of examples of acts of civil disobedience being unpopular but still being a factor in effecting change.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 10:22:46 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 09:47:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 07:12:47 AM
Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal. ;)

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

I still don't see how blocking bridges/mass transit in London is affecting any change, you linking the emotive civil rights movement notwithstanding.

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 10:22:46 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 09:47:15 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 07:12:47 AM
Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal. ;)

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

I still don't see how blocking bridges/mass transit in London is affecting any change, you linking the emotive civil rights movement notwithstanding.

I understand that you do not see the value in protests like this.  But going to the point Mongers made, if the test for whether a protest ought to proceed is that it was viewed popularly as something that would not be counter productive then who gets to decided what is counter productive and what is not. 

You would surely say it is.  I would disagree.  That is where the importance of protests is apparent.  Our views are not deterministive.  Historians will in due course make a judgment as to what worked and what did not - assuming we still have a future.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2019, 12:42:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

Trying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Now maybe an attack on the livelihood of people is justified if the situation is critical enough, but that did not sound like resisting unjust laws like I normally think of when I think of civil disobedience.

I can only guess why someone would try to link this crap to civil disobedience.

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 11:24:20 AMTrying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Erh. No.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 23, 2019, 11:51:25 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 11:24:20 AMTrying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 12:04:43 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 23, 2019, 11:51:25 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 11:24:20 AMTrying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

I guess the only caveat is that is what one organiser has said is their plan. Issue with these decentralised movements is it isn't clear who is really in charge / what's the thoughts, motivations, dreams of the larger movement.  How many people support any given tactic at a given time is hard to judge.

On the flip side, if you can't examine what members of the group say about their aims, what do you draw on?

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 12:04:43 PM
No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.  If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

It's not sugar-coating. It's rejecting your, and other's attempt to paint this as a threatening movement akin to war or terrorism, which must be presumably be met with state-sanctioned violence.

So, yes. It's a protest. Once that economic disruption takes the form of bombing factories, deploying troops, or murdering CEOs, I'll join you in saying it's terrorism or war. Once that movement has a plan to violently overthrow Her Majesty's Government or create Soviets, I'll join you in saying this is a revolution. Maximizing economic disruption for a few days will neither topple capitalism, nor replace British Government with anarchist communes.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 23, 2019, 12:23:09 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 12:04:43 PM
No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.  If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

It's not sugar-coating. It's rejecting your, and other's attempt to paint this as a threatening movement akin to war or terrorism, which must be presumably be met with state-sanctioned violence.

So, yes. It's a protest. Once that economic disruption takes the form of bombing factories, deploying troops, or murdering CEOs, I'll join you in saying it's terrorism or war. Once that movement has a plan to violently overthrow Her Majesty's Government or create Soviets, I'll join you in saying this is a revolution. Maximizing economic disruption for a few days will neither topple capitalism, nor replace British Government with anarchist communes.

"state-sanctioned violence" comes in many forms or flavours.  To say this is akin to a war, and that the state should reply in kind with armed soldiers would be madness.

But to say these acts are criminal, and the state should reply with arrests and police use of force if necessary would appear to be entirely correct.

Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2019, 12:53:51 PM
But to say these acts are criminal, and the state should reply with arrests and police use of force if necessary would appear to be entirely correct.

I could agree, but only up to a point. Militarization of police force is a real problem now, which goes alongside training which emphasize protest as illegitimate, and protesters as threats. I would no longer trust the answer to be proportional, or friendly to the principles of protest.

I'm not sure we should generalise experiences in some countries to all countries.

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2019, 12:07:45 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 12:04:43 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 23, 2019, 11:51:25 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 11:24:20 AMTrying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

I guess the only caveat is that is what one organiser has said is their plan. Issue with these decentralised movements is it isn't clear who is really in charge / what's the thoughts, motivations, dreams of the larger movement.  How many people support any given tactic at a given time is hard to judge.

At one point do we determine the intentions of the individuals as being different from the group when he/she follows them into their actions?

If a protests attracts violence against police, bystanders, journalists, any car or any window that stands in its way, if you keep presenting yourself every night/every week-end for the protest but disagree with their methods... Why should society believe it?

Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2019, 11:24:20 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2019, 12:42:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 22, 2019, 12:26:53 PM
That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

Trying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Now maybe an attack on the livelihood of people is justified if the situation is critical enough, but that did not sound like resisting unjust laws like I normally think of when I think of civil disobedience.

Strawman meet Valmy, Valmy this is strawman. 

I would be very happy to discuss the pros and cons of civil disobedience if you wish.  But if you want to mis-characterize this to this degree, I am not sure how to accomplish that.  If you read my last several posts they have nothing to do with "trying to cause maximum economic disruption".  But having made the characterization yourself you led yourself into a convincing argument that such things only happen in strategic bombing campaigns which then led you into using an "attack" metaphor.

Now if only someone had made the argument that causing "maximum economic disruption" to society in general was a legitimate goal of civil disobedience.

edit: to be clear the economic disruption is to a particular place in a particular time related to Parliament.  You want your protestors to be all nice cuddly law abiding people.  In short you wish to eliminate disobedience from civil disobedience.

Until today the disruption wasn't only for parliament (/not really sure how parliament was bothered today).

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2019, 03:42:07 PM
edit: to be clear the economic disruption is to a particular place in a particular time related to Parliament.  You want your protestors to be all nice cuddly law abiding people.  In short you wish to eliminate disobedience from civil disobedience.

I never said I wanted that or even that I disapproved. I was merely saying that causing harm like that is not really a protest, it is an aggressive action. Now maybe aggressive action is needed, as I said many times. But civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, that is why it is disobedience. I don't think they are saying that the ability to use public roads or buildings is unjust and that all these public spaces should cease to be used. But rather this one person was clearly saying that they are going to actively cause harm until certain actions are taken (or just for a bit to put pressure on or whatever). I am just saying that call it what it is here, this is an attempt at revolutionary action not just trying to alert people's consciences like what you would do in a protest.

But I was just reacting to what that one guy was saying. I am not there.

I mean I have to admit that if the UK did some kind of radical emissions reform I would be glad of it. So there is that.

I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2019, 08:51:04 PM
I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

Are you making the argument that people riding the tube are engaged in a unjust and illegal act, analogous to refusing blacks service at a lunch counter?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2019, 08:51:04 PM
I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

I would say it is comparable to forming a picket line to keep out scabs, though not exactly the same since the scabs are obviously their direct opponents. Not unjustified but not exactly peaceful either.

I'd ask how this differs from the yellow umbrella protests( which Mono was alone in opposing)?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2019, 08:55:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2019, 08:51:04 PM
I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

Are you making the argument that people riding the tube are engaged in a unjust and illegal act, analogous to refusing blacks service at a lunch counter[/I]?

Prior to 1964, it was quite legal in parts of the US to refuse blacks service at lunch counters. 

Fine.  Remover the illegal act.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 01:03:10 AM
Fine.  Remover the illegal act.

A white man wishing to eat at a lunch counter but cannot do so because a black man is sitting in the spot as part of a protest is not committing an unjust act.  He is inconvenienced by the protest, just as people on the subways are inconvenienced.

So no, I'm not making the argument that tube-riders are engaged in unjust or illegal acts.

If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 02:27:07 AM
If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

But no one would argue that that someone checking a book out of a library is an unjust act, whereas leaving someone tied up in the basement generally would be.

We are super fucked, and folks living on an island have every reason to be concerned.

Greenland is falling apart  (https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587431/)

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 06:51:38 AM
We are super fucked, and folks living on an island have every reason to be concerned.

Greenland is falling apart  (https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587431/)

No 'we' are not, it's poorer countries, people at the margins of developed countries who'll have a very real struggle, the rest of you will only be marginally inconvenienced by climate change.

Otherwise well off people like yourself and us might have done something about the know problem earlier, like say drastically cutting back on air travel years ago.

Yeah.  Thanks, Tim :angry:

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 08:10:21 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 06:51:38 AM
We are super fucked, and folks living on an island have every reason to be concerned.

Greenland is falling apart  (https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587431/)

No 'we' are not, it's poorer countries, people at the margins of developed countries who'll have a very real struggle, the rest of you will only be marginally inconvenienced by climate change.

Otherwise well off people like yourself and us might have done something about the know problem earlier, like say drastically cutting back on air travel years ago.

I'm pretty sure the world population in 2119 is going to be closer to the world population in 1919 then the population in 2019. Things are going to get very bad.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 08:31:17 AM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 08:10:21 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 06:51:38 AM
We are super fucked, and folks living on an island have every reason to be concerned.

Greenland is falling apart  (https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587431/)

No 'we' are not, it's poorer countries, people at the margins of developed countries who'll have a very real struggle, the rest of you will only be marginally inconvenienced by climate change.

Otherwise well off people like yourself and us might have done something about the know problem earlier, like say drastically cutting back on air travel years ago.

I'm pretty sure the world population in 2119 is going to be closer to the world population in 1919 then the population in 2019. Things are going to get very bad.

:hmm:

Pointless conjecture, both you and I won't be alive then.

Nice side step, but in the here and now you and the rest of us continue to pollute the atmosphere in unsustainable quantities, so what are go going to do about you own share?

I use public transit exclusively. Buses and trains.

One feeling of unease I still have is that such general thoughts/views of impending doom and calamitic apocalypse due to the sins of humanity have been present throughout history.

This time of course this is supported by ample scientific evidence, but I do feel like the true reason the public is jumping on this (including many of these protesters) is the same "repent for our sins" reflex that previous generations had.

Which will actually decrease the chance of a measured switch toward a more sustainable global economy. With growing impatience, fighting climate change will take on more religious aspects and will end up sabotaging everything, since people will NOT stomach drastic cuts in standards of living.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2019, 09:03:41 AM
I use public transit exclusively. Buses and trains.

No aircraft then?

I am somewhat skeptical on the train vs. plane long term journey. Like this study studied: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane/

A vehicle doesn't just comes out of thin air and remains operation by sheer force of will. It is built, maintained, it requires an infrastructure, that needs building and maintaining.

Has anyone made a real study what would happen if the current European travel by air would be dumped on the railroads? Or the idea is to just stop travelling altogether?


How many people, for example, would need to drop their car usage to zero to match the stoppage of just a single cargo ship? Should the global economy be dismantled so we don't have to constantly criss-cross the bloody planet burning fossil fuels? But then how would that help? Most regions relying on their local resources would become far worse when it comes to damage to the ecology and climate, I'd bet.

Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2019, 09:23:05 AM
I am somewhat skeptical on the train vs. plane long term journey. Like this study studied: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane/

A vehicle doesn't just comes out of thin air and remains operation by sheer force of will. It is built, maintained, it requires an infrastructure, that needs building and maintaining.

Has anyone made a real study what would happen if the current European travel by air would be dumped on the railroads? Or the idea is to just stop travelling altogether?


How many people, for example, would need to drop their car usage to zero to match the stoppage of just a single cargo ship? Should the global economy be dismantled so we don't have to constantly criss-cross the bloody planet burning fossil fuels? But then how would that help? Most regions relying on their local resources would become far worse when it comes to damage to the ecology and climate, I'd bet.

It's rather complicated, but in part up to all of us to find out and make informed choices.

I think you're wrong on cars vs ship emissions. Modern cargo ships are impressively efficient. It's surprising how little effort is required to move 8-10,000 TEU half way across the planet vs moving one container on a lorry across a small country.

Plane travel is quite efficient. The principal problem is that it is also very fast, so the possibility of a weekend in Rome or a few days in Barbados become possibilities. If Emma Thompson had travelled by rail and sea to the protests then I doubt her carbon emissions would be much changed; on the other hand she would still be on her way or maybe would not have bothered coming at all.

Good point, but luxuries becoming available to the masses has been an insanely beneficial process for everyone, and global travel in particular needs to remain accessible if we ever hope to get rid of the very divisions that still prevent us from finding global answers to global challenges. Revoking flight to be a tool of the rich elite only would be a bad idea imho.

Overall, this whole topic is a very careful and complex balancing act of stopping destructive processes without destroying people's livelihoods and quality of life (and by that I mean things that have been ingrained as necessities, not luxuries).

By failing to act on it in time by governments, the whole thing is now being pushed to the radicals on both end of the spectrum, and is going to end up as a religious conflict of extremes.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 24, 2019, 09:44:19 AM
Plane travel is quite efficient. The principal problem is that it is also very fast, so the possibility of a weekend in Rome or a few days in Barbados become possibilities. If Emma Thompson had travelled by rail and sea to the protests then I doubt her carbon emissions would be much changed; on the other hand she would still be on her way or maybe would not have bothered coming at all.

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Just to remind everyone, Last fall the IPCC issued a report that stated we are almost out of time.  We need to have infrastructure in place by 2030 - that is 11 years from now.  And please also keep in mind that since the IPCC report was released the data shows the arctic is warming faster than had been anticipated.  So our window may be even shorter.

What do we need to do?  Here is a good summary from the Brookings Institute.

QuoteWhile it is vital to understand the risks with different levels of warming, an equally urgent question is whether and how the planet can get onto an emissions trajectory that would keep on a 2 degrees or, if at all possible, a 1.5 degrees path. There are a few key aspects of this challenge: a dramatic retooling of the global production and consumption toward low or zero greenhouse gas approaches by roughly 2030; a likely build out of untested carbon removal technologies at large scales toward mid-century; and widespread measures to adapt to climate change.

The IPCC report illustrates several approaches that could achieve 1.5 degrees with limited "overshoot" (i.e., going above 1.5 and then back down). Coal power would have to drop by 60-80 percent from 2010 levels by 2030. Renewable energy sources would grow by roughly 100-500 percent, reaching about half of total global electricity generation by 2030 (again, 12 years from now), and 70-90 percent by 2050. These features and others are laid out in detail in the information-rich figure below. The overall message is that the math can actually work, but the mechanism for realizing such rapid and dramatic transformations is, well, just not part of the report, and of course is the biggest question of all. In other words, the report tells us that these pathways are physically and technologically possible, but it is up to us to figure out what social and political approaches we have to take to implement those pathways.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/were-almost-out-of-time-the-alarming-ipcc-climate-report-and-what-to-do-next/

Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 23, 2019, 11:54:10 PM
I'd ask how this differs from the yellow umbrella protests( which Mono was alone in opposing)?

I don't know. I do not live in either city. I was just commenting on what that one protest leader was saying. Since you are the expert maybe you can tell me. Break down and compare and contrast both protests for us.

I guess one thing is that I generally support the ultimate goals of both, without knowing any specific lists of demands or anything.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 10:40:16 AM

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Since you are the expert maybe you can tell me

:yawn:

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 11:25:24 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 10:40:16 AM

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

I already see my family rarely enough, thankyouverymuch. How about you use less electricity? :P

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 06:35:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 02:27:07 AM
If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

But no one would argue that that someone checking a book out of a library is an unjust act, whereas leaving someone tied up in the basement generally would be.

That's the point I'm making to Raz.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 06:35:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 02:27:07 AM
If someone checked out a book from the library that you wanted to read, you would be inconvenienced.  If he tied you up with bungee cords and duct tape and left you in the basement, you would also be inconvenienced.  Those two are also similar in that regard.

But no one would argue that that someone checking a book out of a library is an unjust act, whereas leaving someone tied up in the basement generally would be.

That's the point I'm making to Raz.

It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 02:40:24 PM
It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

It's an example of an act that inconveniences someone.  That makes it, in your formulation, similar to other acts that inconvenience.

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 11:25:24 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 10:40:16 AM

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

But your criticism is of people who fly to attend events which have as their express purpose bringing about the changes in government policy that are needed.

It is much better to have those events take place with those people participating.  Otherwise you simply cede the field to the climate change deniers/delayers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:18:57 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 11:25:24 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 10:40:16 AM

Yeah, I don't understand the need to stress air travel and other individual choices for which there are no good alternatives.

I feel like a broken record, but this problem is not going to be solved on the individual level - not even close.  It is going to take governments mobilizing the resources of their respective countries to create new non emitted sources of energy and an energy grid that will distribute that energy in an efficient manner.

Of course there's alternatives, you could fly less.

But your criticism is of people who fly to attend events which have as their express purpose bringing about the changes in government policy that are needed.

It is much better to have those events take place with those people participating.  Otherwise you simply cede the field to the climate change deniers/delayers.

No it's not, my point is that people should fly less, given the excessive pollution involved and the as yet not fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 02:55:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 02:40:24 PM
It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

It's an example of an act that inconveniences someone.  That makes it, in your formulation, similar to other acts that inconvenience.

Are we still using your "illegal and unjust" criteria?

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

Quotenot fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

Does that really matter? I remember learning in Physics class that a gas fills the available space equally i.e. it will dissipate over time. Meaning, just because you don't drive, the 300 million Chinese cars will still flood your ass in due time :P

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 04:22:59 PM
Are we still using your "illegal and unjust" criteria?

I was asking if that was your criteria.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 04:22:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 02:55:24 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 02:40:24 PM
It's not a point that is particularly clear.  We are discussing non-violent direct action and you bring up kidnapping.

It's an example of an act that inconveniences someone.  That makes it, in your formulation, similar to other acts that inconvenience.

Are we still using your "illegal and unjust" criteria

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

That's more or less my position dps.  That's why I asked Raz if he thought riding the tube was an unjust act.

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 05:22:06 PM
That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying?  ;)

Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2019, 04:47:40 PM

Quotenot fully quantified rediactive forcing of where in the atmosphere the pollution is released.

Does that really matter? I remember learning in Physics class that a gas fills the available space equally i.e. it will dissipate over time. Meaning, just because you don't drive, the 300 million Chinese cars will still flood your ass in due time :P

It's a specific issue with burning kerosene in the upper atmosphere, how NOX, water vapour, particulates interact with the gases there to multiply the warming effect. The suggestions for the figure vary from one to more than two (a doubling), I think I've seen 2.6 or 2.7, but I'm no scientist and as yet I don't think there's a consensus.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 05:34:17 PM
That's more or less my position dps.  That's why I asked Raz if he thought riding the tube was an unjust act.

I do not.  Nor do I think eating at a table to be unjust act or trespassing laws to be unjust by themselves.  Why do you ask?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 06:07:20 PM
Why do you ask?

See above.

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 05:58:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying?  ;)

As Rich already pointed out there is no other* practical way to travel from Europe to North America.  So unless you are advocating for only locals lobbying locals I am not sure how your restrictions on travel would be practical.

*edit

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2019, 06:17:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2019, 06:07:20 PM
Why do you ask?

See above.

Okay, that was unspecific, but I'll go with what Damage Per Second said.  You said you agreed with him.  Civil disobedience is when you refuse to obey unjust laws.

Then I stand by my original statement in that I don't see how this is different than a strike or a sit-in.  Neither activity is in violation of an unjust law.  Refusing to work is not typically against the law.  A lunch counter sit-in is not a violation of an unjust law either.  The unjust law was allowing merchants to refuse to serve people based on race.  By sitting at the counter they are not violating that law.  Instead they are inconveniencing the lawful owner of the lunch counter and people who would like to eat at the lunch counter but can't because the space is occupied.  The behavior of the protesters is aimed at inconveniencing the owners and the public enough that they will relent and change the unjust law.  If they are in violation of the law it would be laws against trespassing or loitering, neither of which are unjust laws.

So in short, I disagree with your definition of civil disobedience.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 07:10:57 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 05:58:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 03:56:22 PM
ok, but why should people stop flying to events that are designed to affect change in government policy?  You have been critical of people flying to this event I don't follow that logic.

Because I think it's necessary for all of us to demonstrate to ourselves and others, the efficiency of our actions.

To be clear their action DO produce more pollution, so the calculation needs to be made by them, are the likely positive outcomes of their own protest actions going to outweigh the proven negative costs involved. 
As of yet I've seen no evidence that their actions have moved any government plans or affected politician's minds.

Otherwise environmental protesters and activist, can easily fall into the self fulfilling prophecy of 'my aims are worthy, therefore anything I do is justified and beyond criticism'.

If we followed your advice everyone who believed that immediate action is needed to stop the climate from warming more than 1.5 would stay home and simply hope that governments took action for fear that any activity would generate more emissions no matter how insignificant they might be compared to the emissions that might be reduced if governments are pressured into taking action.

Please go back and read the summary from the Brookings Institute as to what needs to occur to prevent warming of 1.5 or more.  Reduction of Coal as a source of energy and an very large increase is other sources of electricity.  Everyone could stop flying tomorrow and unless that those dramatic changes to the worlds electricity generation is achieved, it is all for naught.

You started this thread by taking the position that the protest was counter productive.  I suggest that the only way in which governments will take the steps necessary to carry out the changes to the electrical grid that are necessary in the next 11 years is if sufficient pressure is put on governments to act.  That is not going to be achieved if everyone stays at home.

CC, you're promoting a false choice, it's not an either or situation, you can lobby government/politicians to change policy and also cut your own pollution. Or is the assumption once persuaded a government / internations agreements results in changes, changes that happen elsewhere and don't materially affect our own lifestyles?

I take it you do a lot of flying?  ;)

As Rich already pointed out there is no other* practical way to travel from Europe to North America.  So unless you are advocating for only locals lobbying locals I am not sure how your restrictions on travel would be practical.

*edit

That's a yes then.

But Vancouver is paradise, why would he ever leave?  :huh:

My solution is for CC to still visit Europe but to increase his carbon efficiency by coming for 3 months instead of just a fortnight or so. That would be a great holiday and the reduced earnings would lead to further reductions in CO2 down the line  :cool:

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2019, 08:15:21 PM

That's a yes then.

To be fair though, CC's position is influenced by his frequent flying exactly as much as yours by you not flying frequently.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 05:44:02 PM

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 05:22:06 PM
That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

Apparently the rebellion is over.

Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2019, 01:53:53 AM
Apparently the rebellion is over.

No, it is glued to the Stock Exchange at the moment:

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/05a6fef8b2006b59f4218f99ee058fbdb49c1cd2/286_142_3214_1928/master/3214.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=4a594dc7e8653d6c9179361c2cb26d64)

Change of costumes since blocking the Natural History Museum:

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1207/production/_106551640_mediaitem106551639.jpg)

Quote from: Tamas on April 25, 2019, 02:41:01 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2019, 01:53:53 AM
Apparently the rebellion is over.

No, it is glued to the Stock Exchange at the moment:

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/05a6fef8b2006b59f4218f99ee058fbdb49c1cd2/286_142_3214_1928/master/3214.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=4a594dc7e8653d6c9179361c2cb26d64)

Yes, the last day.

Apparently the environment has been saved.

Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2019, 02:52:00 AM
Apparently the environment has been saved.

In fabolous style, too.

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 01:20:18 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 05:44:02 PM

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 05:22:06 PM
That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

Who decides what is "just"? The person who thinks it is just to revoke rights to protect the nation, to use but one example of the problem with your self referential definition.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2019, 08:43:11 AM

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 01:20:18 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2019, 05:44:02 PM

Quote from: dps on April 24, 2019, 05:22:06 PM
That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

Who decides what is “just“? The person who thinks it is just to revoke rights to protect the nation, to use but one example of the problem with your self referential definition.

If the laws you're breaking are the laws you're protesting against, presumably you consider those laws unjust, and you're trying to draw public attention to that injustice.

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
If the laws you're breaking are the laws you're protesting against, presumably you consider those laws unjust, and you're trying to draw public attention to that injustice.

You have dodged my question. I raised the scenario of breaking a law while protesting something other than the law.

What about the scenario BB suggested of protesting logging of old growth forest?  The protest group is not protesting the trespass laws they are violating.  They are protesting the logging. 

They are certainly breaking the law.  And when the Court issues an injunction to restrain the trespass they are also in contempt of court.  But that is certainly a textbook example of civil disobedience.

QuoteIn democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. If a disobedient is punished by the law, it is not for civil disobedience, but for the recognised offences she commits, such as blocking a road or disturbing the peace, or trespassing, or damaging property, etc. Therefore, if judges are persuaded, as they sometimes are, either not to punish a disobedient or to punish her differently from other people who breach the same laws, it must be on the basis of some feature or features of her action which distinguish it from the acts of ordinary offenders.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

Also, if you are interested, an event which led to policing reforms in this province related to how the police reacted to protesters who engaged in acts of civil disobedience (which mainly involved sitting down roads) at the APEC conference held in Vancouver.  Note the matters being protested had nothing to do with the laws that were being broken.

The full report on how the police reaction and suggestions for how police ought to act in the future is here

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/hv%207641.a8%20r6%202001-eng.pdf

One of the main recommendations was to allow an opportunity for non violent protest - even though the protesters were certainly violating the law of trespass.  The practical suggestion was to give time and space before warning and then removing the protesters from the road.  In this instance the pepper spray was deployed almost immediately.

The scenarios you mention are not civil disobedience, IMO. 

To directly answer the question you posed, there's no one source that can determine if a given law is just or not.  If a protester is breaking a law and states that they believe the law is unjust, then in general I'm willing to believe that they do actually believe the law unjust, which would qualify their actions as civil disobedience by my definition.  That doesn't mean that I or anyone else not involved in the protest would necessarily agree that the law is in fact unjust.

Are those actual pics from the protests? 

Ucks, maybe you can tell me how the elaborate outfits are empowering and uplifting.  To me they make it look like a bunch of bored trustifarian fine arts grads.

The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2019, 05:14:20 PM
Are those actual pics from the protests? 

Ucks, maybe you can tell me how the elaborate outfits are empowering and uplifting.  To me they make it look like a bunch of bored trustifarian fine arts grads.

I think you'll find a lot of them are college and university lecturers /staff, hence the protest is victorious and wound down just in time for the next semester.  ;)

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 05:20:05 PM
The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 04:37:56 PM
The scenarios you mention are not civil disobedience, IMO. 

Ok, no law against creating your own definition.  Pun intended.

One small positive thing one can do is make the most of the comsumer electronics one has and buy less 'landfill android'

Delving into the details of this laptop, show the HD has been powered up for over 26,000 hours, whereas the shit Android tablet I had, probably didn't get above 100 hours of use before it failed recently. <_<

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2019, 05:14:20 PM
Are those actual pics from the protests? 

Ucks, maybe you can tell me how the elaborate outfits are empowering and uplifting.  To me they make it look like a bunch of bored trustifarian fine arts grads.

Nope. I got nothing. On this, I share your assessment. Then again, maybe you had to be there.

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 05:20:05 PM
The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Can you think of a way to violate laws legalizing slavery as a form of civil disobedience?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 09:50:21 PM

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 05:20:05 PM
The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Can you think of a way to violate laws legalizing slavery as a form of civil disobedience?

Not offhand, but not every protest has to be civil disobedience.

Well, we can have civil disobedience in response to slavery we just have to junk your definition of civil disobedience and use, I don't know, the one they were using when there was slavery in this country.  Happily, Thoreau wrote an book on the subject helpfully entitled "Civil Disobedience".

One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Blocking streets is certainly inconvenient. But these are increasingly the only public spaces remaining, and they belong to protesters (who are themselves part of the public) as much as they belong to drivers, despite current trends to oppose both. I find suggestions to create "protest spaces" - far from any actual public viewing much more threatening, for they stifle political expression. In every place where such measures have been taken, protest get largely ignored. That such measures are China-approved should give us pause.
Occupying streets is a time-honored part of a democratic society; the inconvenience of streets being blocked to me is still very much less than the inconvenience of an authoritarian, or illiberal society. I would have thought that the current turn to illiberalism would make that point very salient. Otherwise, if we decide that streets must always be free of protesters, and if collective protest is still something we value, our models of urban planning should include large spaces in high-visibility public and political areas. At some point, we have to decide what value we ascribe to democracy. 

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
But these are increasingly the only public spaces remaining,

Interesting. Do you think the number of public spaces is being reduced?

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2019, 12:08:34 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
But these are increasingly the only public spaces remaining,

Interesting. Do you think the number of public spaces is being reduced?

Yes, and importantly, because the streets used to be historically the main public space. They represent on average, 70% of public spaces in cities, and as tolerance for things other than cars on them has markedly decreased, so has the amount of public space available for anything else. Meanwhile, the spaces where people do congregate are actively privatized and controlled: malls, universities, private squares, apartment courtyards, even in many cases municipal parks, which are more aggressively policed because they are conceived as gardens.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 09:50:21 PM

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 05:20:05 PM
The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Can you think of a way to violate laws legalizing slavery as a form of civil disobedience?

Slavery is probably not a great example because enslaved blacks were given zero representation within the legal system.  It's not like you could tell them "you should just organize and vote for candidates who will free you".  Similarly I think Palestinians are probably well entitled to use force against Israeli soldiers (it's when they frequently target civilians that things go off track).

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2019, 12:08:34 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
But these are increasingly the only public spaces remaining,

Interesting. Do you think the number of public spaces is being reduced?

Yes, and importantly, because the streets used to be historically the main public space. They represent on average, 70% of public spaces in cities, and as tolerance for things other than cars on them has markedly decreased, so has the amount of public space available for anything else. Meanwhile, the spaces where people do congregate are actively privatized and controlled: malls, universities, private squares, apartment courtyards, even in many cases municipal parks, which are more aggressively policed because they are conceived as gardens.

Ah so you are talking about over the last couple centuries? You made it sound like this is something that is currently occurring.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

But the only reason why we are talking about civil disobedience is because our threshold for what constitutes protest has been considerably lowered, and is now increasingly envisioned through the lens of criminal behavior. As more and more forms of protests are controlled, reduced, disciplined, reduced, more and more forms of protests against such laws become envisioned less as the normal expression of civic rights, and more as the extraordinary acts of political courage required by civil disobedience. 

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2019, 12:38:19 PM
Ah so you are talking about over the last couple centuries? You made it sound like this is something that is currently occurring.

I don't see how you got that impression that I was talking about centuries. It *is* something that is currently occurring. The recent decrease in public urban spaces is well-documented in urban studies. Just go back 50 years ago: there were much less cars on the streets. White collars used to work with the same 9-to-5 schedule. Workers tended to live close to their factories. Two-cars households were much rarer. Occupying the streets then was surely inconvenient, but much less so than today, when streets are pretty much full morning to evening, when businesses rely on just-in-time, when individual contractors, and consultants of all kinds are always on the road. And so, the tolerance for occupying streets has correspondingly decreased. Rather than question the matters of having so many cars, all the time, on our streets, we rant about protesters. Such decrease in access to the streets has thus reduced available public space; it has been compounded with an increase of policing of urban parks, and the practice of privatizing green spaces (think gated communities).

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 12:52:33 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2019, 12:38:19 PM
Ah so you are talking about over the last couple centuries? You made it sound like this is something that is currently occurring.

I don't see how you got that impression that I was talking about centuries. It *is* something that is currently occurring. The recent decrease in public urban spaces is well-documented in urban studies. Just go back 50 years ago: there were much less cars on the streets. White collars used to work with the same 9-to-5 schedule. Workers tended to live close to their factories. Two-cars households were much rarer. Occupying the streets then was surely inconvenient, but much less so than today, when streets are pretty much full morning to evening, when businesses rely on just-in-time, when individual contractors, and consultants of all kinds are always on the road. And so, the tolerance for occupying streets has correspondingly decreased. Rather than question the matters of having so many cars, all the time, on our streets, we rant about protesters. Such decrease in access to the streets has thus reduced available public space; it has been compounded with an increase of policing of urban parks, and the practice of privatizing green spaces (think gated communities).

This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2019, 12:58:11 PM
This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

Cool. Feel free to continue to express your annoyance.  :cheers:

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 09:50:21 PM

Quote from: dps on April 25, 2019, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2019, 05:20:05 PM
The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Can you think of a way to violate laws legalizing slavery as a form of civil disobedience?

Slavery is probably not a great example because enslaved blacks were given zero representation within the legal system.  It's not like you could tell them "you should just organize and vote for candidates who will free you".  Similarly I think Palestinians are probably well entitled to use force against Israeli soldiers (it's when they frequently target civilians that things go off track).

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

The phrase "civil disobedience " was coined to describe methods for opposing slavery in the US.  What we appear to be talking about in this thread is ways to limit protests to something that most of the public won't even notice.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I said no such thing.  I agree with your assertion that civil disobedience only really applies as a concept within a democratic system.  I said that as a way of saying that comparisons to the underground railroad weren't useful.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 01:17:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I said no such thing.  I agree with your assertion that civil disobedience only really applies as a concept within a democratic system.  I said that as a way of saying that comparisons to the underground railroad weren't useful.

What I am concerned about is your concept that one needs to create a "line" for civil disobedience and somehow that the qualifier that the people involved in the act have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process.  By framing the question in that way you are implying the civil disobedience is something separate from the democratic process.  The whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2019, 12:58:11 PM
This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

Cool. Feel free to continue to express your annoyance.  :cheers:

I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

Awesome. I am sure the discussion narrowly focused on the London case that you desperately want to have is going to be super interesting.  :cheers:

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM

Slavery is probably not a great example because enslaved blacks were given zero representation within the legal system.  It's not like you could tell them "you should just organize and vote for candidates who will free you".  Similarly I think Palestinians are probably well entitled to use force against Israeli soldiers (it's when they frequently target civilians that things go off track).

That depends on which Palestinians you are talking about - the ones in Israel proper are Israeli citizens, and fully entitled to vote in Israeli elections; there are Arab political parties in the Knesset. Certainly, they face discrimination in their daily lives (as do minorities in many Western nations) but they are not disenfranchised.

The ones in the occupied territories, or elsewhere in the ME, are not citizens and cannot vote--not surprisingly, as they wish to create their own nation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:29:46 PMThe whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

I'm not sure I understand the discussion about whether people "can" engage in civil disobedience. I thought part of the point was to participate, get arrested and charged, and thereby put pressure on the government and the public faced with the distressing sight of lots of otherwise worthy citizens being arrested and charged with offences - in that way, demonstrating the depth of the protester's convictions (that they are willing to give up their freedom for whatever cause).

Onlookers are, presumably, to look at this and say 'all these good people feel so strongly about this cause, they are willing to face persecution for it. Maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss the cause.'

The demeanor of the protesters is a vital piece of the protest. If the protesters are otherwise upright law-abiding citizens, they behave in a dignified manner, and they face actual penalties for protesting, their protest gains moral and political weight. Conversely, if they appear to be a bunch of hooligans or partiers taking the opportunity of a protest to have fun, they act like entitled brats, and they face no penalties for protesting, the protest loses moral and political weight.

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2019, 02:32:22 PM
I'm not sure I understand the discussion about whether people "can" engage in civil disobedience. I thought part of the point was to participate, get arrested and charged, and thereby put pressure on the government and the public faced with the distressing sight of lots of otherwise worthy citizens being arrested and charged with offences - in that way, demonstrating the depth of the protester's convictions (that they are willing to give up their freedom for whatever cause).

Onlookers are, presumably, to look at this and say 'all these good people feel so strongly about this cause, they are willing to face persecution for it. Maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss the cause.'

The demeanor of the protesters is a vital piece of the protest. If the protesters are otherwise upright law-abiding citizens, they behave in a dignified manner, and they face actual penalties for protesting, their protest gains moral and political weight. Conversely, if they appear to be a bunch of hooligans or partiers taking the opportunity of a protest to have fun, they act like entitled brats, and they face no penalties for protesting, the protest loses moral and political weight.

I agree, and I'd add the codicil that I expressed earlier (and Thoreau earlier than me) that the successful civil disobedience campaign needs to make a significant percentage of the population say Under those circumstances, I'd break that law, too."  Successful civil disobedience must seem, to their target audience, anyway, as "more just than obeying the law."

Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2019, 02:21:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:29:46 PMThe whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

Democracy can certainly include attempting to change the way people vote.  Otherwise, candidate debates aren't part of democracy at all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 02:09:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

Awesome. I am sure the discussion narrowly focused on the London case that you desperately want to have is going to be super interesting.  :cheers:

Yeah having a discussion about the city where the protest happened seems like a foolish idea. :wacko:

Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2019, 02:21:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:29:46 PMThe whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

And how do people decide to vote and if they are going to vote how they will cast their ballot?  Perhaps one of those ways is that issues are brought to their attention. 

Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2019, 02:21:35 PM
The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

Of course it's democracy. Plenty of regimes allow for a vote. Absolute monarchies of old had voting. Voting no more makes democracy than buying and selling make a free market.

At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2019, 04:30:50 AM
At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

I've legally protested in the street in SF and London.

Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2019, 04:40:29 AM

Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2019, 04:30:50 AM
At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

I've legally protested in the street in SF and London.

And that didn't involving blocking a major bridge for 3 days or glueing yourself to a mass transit light train? :unsure:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

I thought the point was to draw attention to an issue.  If the point is to inconvenience people, that's not a protest;  that's just being a dickhead.

Quote from: dps on April 27, 2019, 08:42:12 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

I thought the point was to draw attention to an issue.  If the point is to inconvenience people, that's not a protest;  that's just being a dickhead.

If the point was to draw attention to it you'd just visit people's houses and have a little chat or send out letters, or buy billboards.  The point is to force someone to change.  I'll use the lunch counter sit-ins as an example again.  If you simply brought up the fact that blacks couldn't eat at these lunch counters people would respond, "yes I know, that's the way we want it".  What Sit-ins accomplished was to create a situation where the owners could not profit and where the public could not use the lunch counters either.  Both the owners and the public were deeply inconvenienced and the only way way to remove that inconvenience was to comply with the demands of the protesters or use physical violence.

I think I understand Yi's statements about self-gratification now.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 04:13:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

Sorry, didn't notice this before.

I think Poland was a strike and the civil disobedience in India was to affect change in British policies made in London not a government located in India.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2019, 06:23:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 04:13:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

Sorry, didn't notice this before.

I think Poland was a strike and the civil disobedience in India was to affect change in British policies made in London not a government located in India.

I do not disagree.  Both are civil disobedience and the goal was to force the Raj and the Polish Communists to go back to their masters and say "we can't operate like this".  Strikes are a form a civil disobedience particularly in a country where the industry is owned by the state.

Yi stated "In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification." and I think this is correct if we view protests as simply marching around to send the message "we are upset".  I do not share the view of protests as simply marching around to raise awareness that you are upset.  I view protests as a part of civil obedience which is typically illegal, frequently destructive and sometimes violent.  The point is not to raise awareness but to force a change without resorting to outright war.

The fundamental problem with Yi's "self-gratification" statement is he ignores at a definitional level that a person engaging in civil disobedience risks losing their liberty. His world view breaks down when people act against their individual self-interest for the common good.

I quibble with a strike being civil disobedience but generally we agree.