-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well I mean... it certainly would have made things easier. After all, the Northern Ireland situation is the one thing that makes Brexit fundamentally impossible to achieve cleanly. Everything else might be bad for the country, but it doesn't in itself violate a previous agreement.
Of course, it seems to be a typically English way of approaching the problem - "how about we just ignore the fact Northern Ireland extists".
-
Just moved in to a new place and every bulb has a different fitting or wattage.
Oh good god don't get me started on that. Jesus fucking Christ it is aggravating. Not only that though, every single bulb has a different colour tone as well. I have no idea how the previous tenants were living, but having 'antiseptic white' light in one half of the living room and 'caveman cosy' light in the other half is driving me insane. Unfortunately there's a few other, bigger issues we need to address first, but the lights are high up on the priority list for next week.
-
-
On the one hand yes, on the other hand deflecting any criticism by saying "why don't you do it better" is also the laziest possible defence. And my point, again, isn't that the entire XR movement is bad and shouldn't exist - not at all. But there definitely needs to be thought about what public perception of some of the actions is going to be, and the internal logical consistency of some of the actions.
-
-
How about blocking Bank during peak banker commuting times, rather than Canning Town while all the cleaners are trying to get to work? (Yes, I'm simplifying a bit, but you get my point)
How about focusing more action on political buildings? Or buildings associated with the elite? Blockade Eton, ffs, but not Canning Town.
-
the clear link between non violent civil disobedience and systemic change
The problem is that this 'non violent civil disobedience' is usually supposed to be a tactic used by the oppressed against their oppressor (and by the way, even there I'm personally not so convinced that the non-violent approach really is that effective, but... I don't want to be done for inciting violence). This just does not hold true here.
Because people will be completely unable to see past it and bleat on and on about it, not focusing on the issue at hand and the 3 aims of XR.
'See past it'? What do you mean 'see past it'? Isn't the entire point that people should not see past it, but have the whole action be very 'in their face' and not to be missed?
Well yeah, no shit blocking Canning Town doesn't really serve to advertise the 3 aims of XR, especially as those weren't exactly prominently on display.
Also, one thing you seem to be missing: whether you like it or not, the people 'bleating on and on about it' are the people you are trying to convince to get on your side and ultimately vote the right way / put pressure on politics in a way that will actually force change.
-
Target the wealthy, privileged, and politically powerful. Not one of the most underprivileged areas in the UK. I'd like to cite Wikipedia on this:
Canning Town however remains among the 5 per cent most deprived areas in the UK, with many long term residents suffering from poor health, low education and poverty.
Especially if you're claiming to be 'woke' to the whole context of capitalism, how is it defensible to cause more disruption to the lives of some of the poorer parts of London? It just feels intrinsically wrong. It feels like self-appointed saviours from more privileged backgrounds preaching to mostly less privileged people, merrily ignoring the actual power structure of the country.
-
That's the message they're getting across. 'you think this is bad, just wait'. Its not just low lying pacific rim islands that are at threat.
Yes, I get the idea behind that, and it is in principle entirely true of course. The problem is that being right doesn't mean that your methods necessarily work out. And especially if you are trying to actually achieve change, just pissing off a few people using the tube is not constructive at all, it might very well be the opposite.
-
overly self regarding bullshit
Funny, that's exactly what I thought about your account of how you rub shoulders with super important people and how they all loved you.
create serious disruption in order to force change
Causal. Link. Where is it?
Repeating the line of 'forcing change' doesn't mean you've explained it. Actions such as the one in Canning Town, how specifically is this 'forcing change'?
Blathering uselessly about commuters being late for work is just hot air.
Sure sounds like you actually can't take the criticism and instead just like to call it 'blathering' and 'bleating'. You will have to accept that XR's methods will be examined and criticised. And yes, the questions of "why are you blocking normal people trying to get to work in one of the more environmentally-friendly modes of transport available" will not stop. So far I have not heard a convincing answer.
Finally, as I've said before, it's worth remembering that the people you're arguing with here, including myself, are actually on the same side of the issue. I can be pretty radical in some of my views, including on capitalism etc., and yet (or maybe also partially because of that) I'm not convinced by this approach. How many of the people in Canning Town who might not care as much to begin with do you think have been won over?
-
-
These are the people that these protests are trying to target. Systemic change needs to come from the top
So why are London's average commuters in buses and tubes being impeded on their way to work? Not exactly the elites of the elites in there. It's easy for those 'very senior people' and 'serious private equity people' etc. to be congratulatory when they're being driven past in their Maybach.
just stop going on and on and on and on. It's tiresome.
Yeah, sorry, but you will need to be able to take sustained criticism. Things like 'stop your bleating' etc. are not helping your PR effort.
-
Yeah I mean, that's not OK. I'm not really shocked through. The tube is serious business and stressed people corralled in a small space can quickly deteriorate into a mob, especially when the 'enemy' is so clearly identifiable.
It reaffirms my previous point: I fail to see how this is supposed to lead to any changes.
-
I absolutely agree, it's extremely frustrating and the task is enormous. That's why I do like the fact movements like XR exist, even though I don't think their approach is really going to be as helpful as they themselves think. In the end, I think a vast majority of the people in this thread really are on the same side and agree with each other, just maybe not about how to best go about making any changes implemented more urgently.
-
-
What on this earth makes you think that?
The fact that it is constantly mentioned in all kinds of situations. No, climate change denialism isn't really a big problem in the UK. This article from 2015 says:
Britons are more likely to agree the climate is changing than at any time in recent years, with nearly nine in 10 people saying climate change is happening and 84% attributing this somewhat or entirely to human activity, new research has found. Two-thirds say they are concerned by global warming.
And this graphic shows concern has been on the rise since before XR's first action last November.
In short - 'awareness' is not the problem here. Maybe in the US, but not here. The problem is getting anywhere useful from that awareness. And that's why I'm so critical of people who seem to think getting into the news is a big win in itself. Its a little bit too self-congratulatory.
It's still pretty vague with regards to how exactly this is going to work. They already have the support of a certain minority, so I assume they do still want to get more support. And then what? What does that 'large enough' minority do? They're all about being peaceful, so I'm supposing they're not talking about a revolt here, which basically leaves voting 'the right people' into power, right? Is that the avenue through which they want this to happen? I genuinely don't know.
This is completely disregarding a much more fundamental issue with their argument, which is basically repeating the 'homo oeconomicus' mistake, but on a much bigger level as they are applying it to the entire government: governments don't always make 'rational decisions', purely weighing up the costs. Actually, they rarely do. If they did, Cannabis would have been legalised a long time ago, and cycling would be the main way people get around. There's so many different factors influencing decisions, and that's before taking into account that there are plenty of people in government who are working to benefit themselves and their mates, and really don't care about how much it costs the country as a whole at all.