The Protest Thread.

[V8Granite]

Fuck 'em.

Word

Dave!

[jamcg]

I hope there’s someone who couldn’t get away from the police because of the gridlock in jail with them

[Gavster]

I'd argue against these protests being "non-violent". People caught up in the delays could have been reprimanded in their jobs, missed important medical appointments, lost earnings, incurred costs or penalties from being late or missing important events or appointments and more. Hell, someone might have missed a date with their future love because of it. Basically cause a huge amount of negative effects through a systematically delivered protest where the negative outcomes could all be very easily predicted.

The welfare state is often criticised as delivering a form of 'structural violence' because it causes negative effects through the absence of comprehensive support. This protest is no different to my mind. Although it's short-term, it still causes huge amounts of personal, medical, financial and professional distress for a vast swathe of individuals, as a result of a carefully planned activity. They very easily could have predicted the potential negative effects of this activity. And the whole "but the planet is burning and we're all going to die anyway" argument is just a convoluted eye-for-an-eye argument.

Peaceful protest is sitting in a room and refusing to eat. Or holding up a placard outside Westminster. Fucking with the lives of the population is an act of violence IMO.

[ZedLeg]

That’s a slippery slope though, where do you draw the line at non violent violence?

Is a sit in at shell’s office violence?

Throwing soup over the covering for a painting?

Public protest march?

[Gavster]

That’s a slippery slope though, where do you draw the line at non violent violence?

Is a sit in at shell’s office violence?

Throwing soup over the covering for a painting?

Public protest march?

If Whitehall is closed for a march there's still plenty of ways to avoid that, even if the traffic is bad. A sit-in at Shell's office does nothing violent. Throwing soup on a painting definitely is an aggressive act, although it has zero negative impact on peoples wellbeing.

On the other hand, blocking the M25 creates a huge trap where a vast, indiscriminate group of people are held captive for hours on end, so it's quite different. It's like locking all of the entrances to Wembley stadium when it's at full capacity for a gig and not letting anyone leave for hours. This action could have significant negative effects on people's health (e.g. the somewhat trite ambulance argument), missed hospital appointments, or their finances in the context of work stresses, lost earnings etc.

[duncs500]

I was thinking that it's amazing that people can be willing to go to prison for so long for scientific research that they probably are incapable of comprehending... but actually, far more people would do worse for stuff that has no shred of basis in science, so I guess they're not even that mental in the greater scheme of things.

That’s a bit of an assumption on your part Duncs.

It’s weird how well educated and intelligent people will write off other mostly well educated and intelligent people because they disagree with them.

Yeah, fair. Although I don't think I said I disagreed with them. However, well educated intelligent people probably understand that blocking roads achieves very little to further a cause or gain popular support to a cause.

[ZedLeg]

It depends on what your aim is. JSO are agitators, if you’re discussing their actions they’re doing their jobs.

You can argue as to whether their techniques are effective for raising awareness or whatever but I’d argue that people are aware that climate change is having a negative effect, they just don’t want to do anything about it “but what about china/india/asia in general” etc.

[ZedLeg]

That’s a slippery slope though, where do you draw the line at non violent violence?

Is a sit in at shell’s office violence?

Throwing soup over the covering for a painting?

Public protest march?

If Whitehall is closed for a march there's still plenty of ways to avoid that, even if the traffic is bad. A sit-in at Shell's office does nothing violent. Throwing soup on a painting definitely is an aggressive act, although it has zero negative impact on peoples wellbeing.

On the other hand, blocking the M25 creates a huge trap where a vast, indiscriminate group of people are held captive for hours on end, so it's quite different. It's like locking all of the entrances to Wembley stadium when it's at full capacity for a gig and not letting anyone leave for hours. This action could have significant negative effects on people's health (e.g. the somewhat trite ambulance argument), missed hospital appointments, or their finances in the context of work stresses, lost earnings etc.

I disagree but I can’t really be bothered arguing about it

[Gavster]

The climate-deniers get too much airtime on social media; it's usual problem that 5% of the people make 95% of the noise.

A lot of normal people do want to do something about climate change and that's borne out by surveys, however, when it comes to food you will find that people are primarily directed in their choices via their own needs. It's known as the attitude-behaviour gap. E.g. stop 100 people on the street and ask what their concerns are and many will list the environment, food quality, animal welfare etc. Then if you track their purchases they'll shop based on what's cheapest/best value, followed by what they think tastes best. The things that they said were super important previously have suddenly been relegated down the list.

Same goes for other areas of life, people always chose immediate gratification. The only time they find the 'better' choice easy to switch to is when there's minimal barrier. E.g. free range eggs were very widely adopted in the 90s becuase they cost about 15p more than normal eggs at the time so simple to do. Same goes for energy, a lot of people use green energy suppliers because the cost is no longer prohibitve.

However this all goes back to why it's an issue that the government needs to lead on, to create the incentives that make the healty/sustainable chocie the easy choice. I'm not convinced that a small amount of disruptive campaigners such as JSO have ever had a major effect on policy changes. They'd have more impact if they tried to cosy up to politicicans and lobbyists, rather than alienating the public.

[duncs500]

It depends on what your aim is. JSO are agitators, if you’re discussing their actions they’re doing their jobs.

We're not really discussing climate change though are we? We're discussing their specific actions, and in a negative way for 99% of people, and the other 1% don't need convincing.

And now they're going to prison where they can do very little to raise public awareness and support, all the while the non-criminal campaigners can continue their work.

Brilliant plan!

[ZedLeg]

It depends on what your aim is. JSO are agitators, if you’re discussing their actions they’re doing their jobs.

We're not really discussing climate change though are we? We're discussing their specific actions, and in a negative way for 99% of people, and the other 1% don't need convincing.

And now they're going to prison where they can do very little to raise public awareness and support, all the while the non-criminal campaigners continue their work.

Brilliant plan!

I don’t necessarily agree that they’re doing good work either tbh and in fact would probably say that they’re helping the government’s anti protest push as a lot of people think they’re worse than hitler.

However, we shouldn’t be so quick to applaud crackdowns on peaceful protest, no matter how inconvenient/annoying they are.

[Gavster]

I'm convinced that the majority of protestors are doing it for personal reasons to satisfy their ego or make themselves feel better. They're certainly not doing it based on any evidence of what invokes major policy shifts - because that requires lots of unseen, hidden hard work for many years.

[ZedLeg]

The climate-deniers get too much airtime on social media; it's usual problem that 5% of the people make 95% of the noise.

A lot of normal people do want to do something about climate change and that's borne out by surveys, however, when it comes to food you will find that people are primarily directed in their choices via their own needs. It's known as the attitude-behaviour gap. E.g. stop 100 people on the street and ask what their concerns are and many will list the environment, food quality, animal welfare etc. Then if you track their purchases they'll shop based on what's cheapest/best value, followed by what they think tastes best. The things that they said were super important previously have suddenly been relegated down the list.

Same goes for other areas of life, people always chose immediate gratification. The only time they find the 'better' choice easy to switch to is when there's minimal barrier. E.g. free range eggs were very widely adopted in the 90s becuase they cost about 15p more than normal eggs at the time so simple to do. Same goes for energy, a lot of people use green energy suppliers because the cost is no longer prohibitve.

However this all goes back to why it's an issue that the government needs to lead on, to create the incentives that make the healty/sustainable chocie the easy choice. I'm not convinced that a small amount of disruptive campaigners such as JSO have ever had a major effect on policy changes. They'd have more impact if they tried to cosy up to politicicans and lobbyists, rather than alienating the public.

I’m not saying most people are complete deniers but most people get pretty angry when you suggest that they maybe don’t need to drive so much.

Personal inconvenience is the worst crime for some.

[ZedLeg]

I'm convinced that for the majority of protestors are doing it for personal reasons to satisfy their ego or make themselves feel better. They're certainly not doing it based on any evidence of what invokes major policy shifts - because that requires lots of unseen, hidden hard work for many years.

The environmental movement will never have the lobbying power of fossil fuels. That’s why we’re in this mess in the first place.

[Simon]

That’s a slippery slope though, where do you draw the line at non violent violence?

Is a sit in at shell’s office violence?

Throwing soup over the covering for a painting?

Public protest march?

[snip].. people are held captive.. [/snip]

The key four words from this entire discussion. There's no way out for these people. They can't 'turn around and leave'.

They are literally keeping hundreds or thousands hostage on a road. So, as before, fuck 'em.

[Gavster]

I’m not saying most people are complete deniers but most people get pretty angry when you suggest that they maybe don’t need to drive so much.

Personal inconvenience is the worst crime for some.

Is that 'personal inconvenience' in relation to behaviour change or the protests?

If it's about behaviour change then I'd frame it as habit. It's incredibly hard to get people to do things differently, not because they're offended at the alternative, but simply through sheer force of their daily habits being ridiculously hard to move. That's why nudge was so popular, because it actualy works and makes changes.

[Explosive Newt]

I'm convinced that the majority of protestors are doing it for personal reasons to satisfy their ego or make themselves feel better.

I'd agree completely with this. There are a lot of people who have encorporated strong views into their identity and wish to value signal them, but out of convenience choose soft targets. I have seen things with tangential at most bearing on the matter at hand disrupted so someone can make a point, e.g. lectures interrupted because the host institution has not decried the war in Gaza, or the Ballie Gifford fiasco over literary festivals.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t really buy that tbh.

The whole “virtue signalling” thing is predicated on a level of self involvement that you don’t see that often imo.

Also it’s usually said with the assumption that “I don’t think this is worth protesting so they must be lying or doing it for clout”.

[ZedLeg]

I’m not saying most people are complete deniers but most people get pretty angry when you suggest that they maybe don’t need to drive so much.

Personal inconvenience is the worst crime for some.

Is that 'personal inconvenience' in relation to behaviour change or the protests?

If it's about behaviour change then I'd frame it as habit. It's incredibly hard to get people to do things differently, not because they're offended at the alternative, but simply through sheer force of their daily habits being ridiculously hard to move. That's why nudge was so popular, because it actualy works and makes changes.

It goes further than habit imo, it’s entitlement.

[Gavster]

I'm convinced that the majority of protestors are doing it for personal reasons to satisfy their ego or make themselves feel better.

I'd agree completely with this. There are a lot of people who have encorporated strong views into their identity and wish to value signal them, but out of convenience choose soft targets. I have seen things with tangential at most bearing on the matter at hand disrupted so someone can make a point, e.g. lectures interrupted because the host institution has not decried the war in Gaza, or the Ballie Gifford fiasco over literary festivals.

I've only reached this conclusion through my work in food policy. The people I've met who have had the biggest impact are largely unknown and never seen at marches or protests. They've simply been grinding away in the background for years on end, striving to make real change happen.