We could've had a Green-Red or at least Red-Green government is what I mean.
...but, no, the Greens said "there's no female chancellor candidate, there must be one, therefore we will field a politician who's at least two magnitudes less electable" -- and that after no less than 16 years of Merkel. As if anything had to be proven on that front. As if self-congratulatory symbol politics would ever have gotten us anywhere.
I don't disagree that Habeck would have been the better candidate, I just don't believe he would have changed the outcome by that much.
In the end I think much of the difference between polls and election came from people saying they want climate protection, but in the end the yearly flight to Mallorca was more important.
people saying they want climate protection, but in the end the yearly flight to Mallorca was more important.
Nope that's cope. Classical green cope pattern, btw: "The people have a good heart but the devil of carbon is whispering in their ear".
Firstoff: No, people are aware that there might be some quality of life changes involved in climate change. The question they're asking is not "whether" but "do they make sense". "Do they lead somewhere".
Secondly: Sleeper trains and ferries exist. In principle you can fall asleep in Spandau and wake up in Palma.
Thirdly, because it's been so much fun: Who the fuck thought mandating houses to get individual heat pump installations was a good idea -- I mean I get it, members of the green party are usually well off, they bought one of those and thought it would be a great idea for everyone. Thing is: Ask scientists, they're saying district heating is the much better solution. When it comes to resource usage, overall cost, and definitely cost for the home owners.
But the Green party would never field a candidate to win, or a policy to be popular, or that failing, to be actually efficient because y'all are too busy driving your Cayenne to the farmer's market. And I mean what I say there: The Greens are considered hypocrites, caring about a gazillion things but nature and people's relationship with it.
Classical green cope pattern, btw: "The people have a good heart but the devil of carbon is whispering in their ear".
You're misrepresenting me, I never said anybody had a good heart. People are hypocrites. In theory they are all for the greater good as long as their own personal cost is zero.
Secondly: Sleeper trains and ferries exist. In principle you can fall asleep in Spandau and wake up in Alma.
And how is that relevant to what I said? What point are you trying to make here? You can also bike to work, many people still prefer to drive.
Who the fuck thought mandating houses to get individual heat pump installations was a good idea
First, nobody ever planned to mandate that. It's a lie made up by Bild and the FDP. From the very beginning the only thing the heating law was going to mandate was that your heating had to run on 60% (I believe, don't cite me on the exact number) CO2 neutral energy. Heat pumps are just automatically assumed to fulfill this condition, regardless of the current energy mix in Germany. But it was always going to be up to you how you fulfilled this condition.
Second, it IS a good idea. You can instantly lose one entire set of pipes going into your home and you instantly more than halve your carbon emissions even with the current energy mix. Yes it works, yes it also works in a cold winter, and no you don't have to instantly insulate your entire home, renew your roof and all your internal piping. At least not if you don't live in a farm house from the 1930s that never had any work done.
Third:
Thing is: Ask scientists, they're saying district heating is the much better solution.
Which is an option and would have been an option under the original law.
Also, what actual scientist says that, as an absolute, no "ifs", no conditions?
Because the thing is, if your district heating runs on fossils, which most do, it does jack shit to combat carbon emissions and helps exactly zero.
Also, getting hooked up to district heating isn't free either.
It also doesn't help if your city maybe sorta plans to start planning district heating to be eventually implemented some time in the 2090s, but only if we have enough money and the next 20 governments don't change the plan along the way. Emissions need to be reduced now, not some day in the future if we feel like it. Decentralized solutions are faster and can be implemented by individuals without waiting for political decisions that could happen in 10 years or never.
This is an excuse to not have to act, nothing more.
Which is an option and would have been an option under the original law.
It is not a realistic option because the federation isn't giving municipalities access to the capital needed to invest in that stuff.
Decentralized solutions are faster
No. Decentralised solutions need decentralised work which more often than not is a higher total amount than if there was some kind of centralisation -- also "municipal level" is not exactly the pinnacle of centralisation. With district heating a municipality needs a couple of specialists dealing with the actual heating part, installation workers which can be any plumber, not just specialists, and road workers which are a completely different pool. For a decentralised solution you need a gazillion of specialists, of which there are not enough. You need to order a gazillion of individual heat pumps and guess what companies aren't able to deliver in those numbers. Want to get a heat pump installed today? Call a company, they'll tell you that they'll be able to squeeze you in for an initial assessment in five years.
And this was known. The studies comparing different approaches had been made. Of course they were made this is Germany. And the Greens went ahead and said "we'll take the one that our members feel comfortable with, where they can feel superior to everyone else because they've been ahead of the curve". The biggest obstacle to Green policies in Germany is not the voter, but the insistence of the Green party to smell its own farts.
Greens and SPD never had a majority in any poll at the time and they weren't even close to it. Greens might have been stronger but probably SPD weaker in turn. We might have ended up with Jamaika in the end. Don't forget that a conservative anti-Habeck campaign would've also been possible. He had some unpopular positions back then, too, like giving weapons to Ukraine. What kind of insane warmonger amirite?
That's some Fundie shit. Seriously, noone but Fundies consider Realos to be war-mongers. They're also the only ones considering "Olivgrün" an insult. It's like vegans acting surprised when noone cares about their moraline-sour opinion of vegetarians.
Conservatives wouldn't have been able to touch Habeck, either, the man can quarrel with SH farmers calling him a clueless city boy and come out on top with everyone respecting him. Remember his Israel speech? Where one was left wondering "that was damn good, why isn't the chancellor doing that"? "why isn't the foreign minister doing that"? The answer is simple: Because neither of them are able to. They had to ignore their actual functions in government to get the message out.
Giving weapons to Ukraine was not popular back then, on the contrary. Habeck got a lot of shit for his statements, not only from his own party but all the other ones including conservatives.
I agree that he is much better rhetorically than Baerbock but I don't think he would have made Chancellor or even if he made Chancellor, green-red would not have made it, they would have needed the FDP anyway.
That might have been a strategic mistake idk, but it's not as bad as the cxu and many more parties straight up copying nazi talking points and steering the discussion towards the afd and against the GrEeNs °o°
rise of the far right all over Europe
I blame the greens of Germany for it
Nah, mate, this is about the structure of media ownership. I won't be one to defend the greens of Germany, they're disgusting, but the real problem is that private media have interest in the right winning the elections, and there's also a ton of money spent boosting far right influencers in social media
Thing is, they would've probably gained even more votes if they didn't incur so many scandals recently. People will probably forget about those until the next national elections
I saw postings on twitter and YouTube where teenager were outraged that the government didn't get that L'amour Tojours was just a harmless memes. So a few idiots voted in favour of AfD in response.
The Ampel may have gained control over the government at the worst possible time. Everything is currently shit and people always blame the government, even though some of that is not under their control, which currently places blame on the only three important center-left parties. Thus people turn right.
It's a tale as old as time. Conservatives fuck up so many things that they can't be fixed in the one term other parties occasionally get. And when those then fail to fix everything, people go "see? They're not better. Might as well vote conservative again."
If it helps to put it into more perspective. Those conservatives or CDU somewhat recently visited republicans in the US and figured that it might be a good idea to copy how they do politics in the US to apply it in Germany. But making noise is unfortunately what works even if it's not actually correct or an issue at all.
Not to mention they were kicked out of the Nazi group, because THEY WERE TOO EXTREME FOR THEM.
Wake me up in 5 years when we can hopefully stop this...
I have a horrible feeling that this is the beginning of a terrible slide. The racists will use this opportunity to be as obstructionist as they can and then scream in their home countries about how inefficient the EU is, and because the EU is so far away from home for most people, they'll believe them. And then we'll slide further.
Well, you can vote harder. The polls are not the only place you vote. Every purchase is a vote. Most people neglect their consumer power. I’m boycotting hundreds (if not thousands) of harmful companies and products, including Amazon. You can always vote harder by investigating the shops and brands you support. You can investigate whether your bank invests in the fossil fuel energy and change banks (or better, become unbanked). You can follow the !climate_action_individual community.
E.g. certainly one small thing @lurch can do is ditch sh.itjust.works for a different instance. Website weight has quadrupled since Cloudflare took hold because CF encourages web admins to create heavy websites. sh.itjust.works is CF-based.
My god... "Consumer power" is a myth, there's no evidence of it working for anything significant. "consumer power" will NOT help preventing the rise of the extreme right wing in Europe. Organize your workplace, create tight communities in your local area, strike and protest, create safety networks... Those are the things that are actually proven to work.
My god… “Consumer power” is a myth, there’s no evidence of it working for anything significant.
I guess you are not following Gaza. McDonalds in Israel decided to give free meals to Israeli soldiers. McDonalds customers who boycott Israel impacted McDonalds’ bottom line. And it’s a franchise. The McDonalds shops in Israel had different ownership than McDonalds outside Israel (where the boycott was impacting). So in response McDonalds HQ directly bought out all Israeli branches in order to stop the support to Israeli troops, just to protect their brand.
Lidl and Aldi both started taking a hit in Europe because their produce from Israel was being boycotted. Aldi got caught removing the origin label from their produce when Israel was the origin. Lidl got caught falsifying the label by displaying a different region. If the boycott was insignificant, there would be insufficient motivation for a grocery chain to commit fraud against their customers. So I boycott the whole Lidl chain and Aldi North, not just Israeli products.
Organize your workplace
Or boycott without organising, as this person did:
Boycotts only lack effect when in fact they are not executed. IOW, the apathy you advocate weakens the strength of boycotts. The shitty attitude that boycotts don’t work is the sole factor that disempowers boycotts from working.
ECR is shit, they're a bunch of eurosceptic, anti-immigration, libertarian conservative nationalists, but they don't hold a candle to ID, who are that, but on steroids.
Not sure if we should call them Nazi, as they kicked out the German Nazis, as explained in other comments.
Maybe call them nationalists or ultra nationalists?
They kicked out the German Nazis because they celebrated the SS, which is a no-go for French Nazis. Doesn't make them less Nazi, just the French kind that doesn't like to be killed by German Nazis
But what is a Nazi? I thought someone who praises or follows the idea and ideology of Hitler Germany.
So if someone says „ah this sounds too much like hitler or what is closest followers would say, therefore I dislike it“ can you then really call them a nazi? If someone think „this is to German“ can you be a nazi? After all Nazis where also German ultra nationalists, who think people who are not German are of less worthy.
So since other nationalistic parties follow this ideology, but just replace Germany by their own country, I think Ultra nationalists is better fitting.
You would also not say Japanese Nazis or Thailand Nazis. Or if you would say Argentinia Nazis, people who know should understand something very different.
Ah never thought about this origin. So Nazi means basically someone who supports Socialistic Nationalism, no matter for which country? !
Did not think about this but it makes sense.
Yeah, it's short for National Socialism which was just a rebranding of Fascism in Germany to get Workers on board. So I guess Fascism is the better term to use in any case but seriously, it's just different flavours of the same shit so I think it's a mood point to differentiate. They all support the same ideology and policies
I think the most important topic right now is confronting the climate change and the problems it is going to cause, on every level local, regional, national and international. This looming crisis is going to affect everything and everyone on an existential level, and requires every of these government levels, even every individual, to fucking work and to fucking stand together.
Yes but have you considered that brown people are to blame for all these things? And that they are also fictional lies by The Left (tm) to scare you away from the horrible brown people?
Also, it's clearly way more important that we let Chinese Intelligence Operations in broad daylight tell our youths to vote for nazis to destabilize the regions rather than peacefully coexist and solve out problems. After all, how else will we get communism if not that? /s
The whole "Fascism is coming from china!" thing is a conspiracy theory though, isn't it? Private media in the west are owned by western private media, not by Chinese psyops, and the funding that right wing influencers get in social media isn't from China either. The problem doesn't come from outside, it's literally inside.
China benefits from destabilizing the west (and India). Their online campaigns on various social media networks tend to promote misinformation, which correlates highly with conservative and far-right ideologies. TikTok in particular served as a pipeline into far right radicalization.
I'm not denying there is a problem within, and I'm not claiming China only pushes far right, but to claim that Chinese operations aren't noticeably impacting western politics in the most negative ways possible is just pure ignorance.
TikTok is originally Chinese, but most other social media is from the US. Would you argue that the rise of far-right content in YouTube, Facebook or Instagram is also a consequence of the Chinese government?
China's policy hasn't been to destabilize Europe, it's been to get closer commercially, for example with the Belt and Road initiative. Unless you bring further evidence than "TikTok is Chinese" (with it being the only Chinese social media we use), or "China benefits from it", it's nothing but speculation, which is absolutely unnecessary since the very far-right content creators from Europe and the US are from those countries and also funded by western organizations such as the Atlas Foundation.
I can't say exactly the scope of Chinese influence on YT or FB/IG, but we know they're 100% present. In fact, some time ago, CCP propaganda was flooding YT Shorts with machine generated content. We also know that FB have in the past been used for largescale campaigns to influence elections, they were fined 5 Billion USD by the FTC over the Cambridge Analytica scandal alone and pay similar fines frequently in Europe.
Yes, these sorts of operations are pretty commonly carried out by all of the world powers, but that's the highest form of whataboutism. It's a problem now that negatively affects us, it's not hypocritical to want to solve the problem. And China is #1 most problematic, in part because it's a top world power and a dictatorship and also because of the scale and frequency of their attacks on democracy.
China has been closing off it's commercial sector, recently. It plans to import less to allow their local corporations to dominate markets.
I can't say exactly the scope of Chinese influence on YT or FB/IG
We also know that FB have in the past been used for largescale campaigns to influence elections, they were fined 5 Billion USD by the FTC over the Cambridge Analytica scandal alone and pay similar fines frequently in Europe.
And China is #1 most problematic, [...] also because of the scale and frequency of their attacks on democracy.
Thank you for proving exactly my point that you're talking out of your ass, and you're capable of contradicting yourself in one comment
Climate change is literally on position 4 out of 5 for voters. People are absolute fucking morons and at this point I think we should just go extinct. This is ridiculous.
If you can't afford your bills you don't care about climate change.
Edit: I know, that climate change will only worsen your financial situation, but a lot of people don't see the long term effects on them and the economy.
Part of the reason why you can't afford your bills is climate change and it's going to get worse, doesn't prevent people from taking their car to drive 500m to drop their kids to school!
The human is primed for tribalism and these parties are exploiting that bug to offer the always-attractive solution of "this group of people is to blame". This time, it's Muslims and generally immigrants.
Well, the conservatives will sure help the little man to have more money in their pockets. (PSA: they won't)
Also, if the land you live on is flooded or dries out, you can't live there anymore. That's the far greater threat to peoples' existence. They just think they'll be among the lucky survivors and only some nasty brown people will die.
It seems anti-immigration is driving all these right wing votes. And xenophobia manifests from the naïve idea that immigrants will somehow reduce incomes.
If you can't afford your bills you don't care about climate change.
Well, then you should even more care about climate change. Like I said, morons.
But we all know that the rise of the far right isn't because of people's bills.
The Bad financial Situation of people is one reason why people tend to vote for the right wing parties. Its not the only one, but its part of the problem.
It's difficult to extinct us. If will take a thousand years of volcanoes, bad harvests, pandemics without vaccines, etc.
We're just so many now.
What's a lot faster is to wipe away the achievements of civilization, pushing us back into a state where starvation, disease and suffering are the norm and not the exception.
Thirded so long as we can drop the border down to include Cumbria, Northumberland, and Tyne & Wear... maybe North Yorkshire, too. I'd love to be Scottish if they'd be happy to have us!
Manchester should be fine, and Wales is a given. Who wants to pay £4bn for a project which only benefits England?
We may need to include Merseyside, Lancs and Cheshire just to have a land connection between New Scotland and Wales so we don't have to consider touching England.
I'm so incredibly grateful that the EU is really trying to fix the internet. Also grateful to organization like the EFF that try to do the same. I recently became a donor as I think their work really is critical.
Can you believe the shit these companies would do if it wasn't for the EU and their regulation? It'd be a dystopia (well, more than it already is at least).
As much as I like the concept of GDPR, i think it didn't fo far enough. EU tried, but they should've thought it through a few more times. For example I would've loved for the cookie warning to have a mandated "No to everything, get fucked, and never ask about access from this IP again."-button
Essentially that's mandated. Companies don't do it... But that is the law. And they can store a cookie with that info without requiring permission as it is essential to performing that action.
I thought this article was a good, brief discussion on cookie banners. The summary is that the EU didn't mandate cookie banners, just acquiring consent. And they forbid common dark patterns making the "no" option more difficult to submit. It's the tech industry that settled on the terrible banners, and many of them (most?) don't actually conform to the law's requirements.
A great thing about the banners is that it's not immediately obvious to everyone that websites are trying to track their every step online. The banners are annoying, but at least it pushes the tech industry to play with open cards.
You can complain with your local data protection agency.
Basically the law is that rejecting cookies must be exactly as easy as accepting them, so if there's an "accept all" button, there also has to be a "reject all" button right next to it, same size, same visibility.
Those banners are the perfect example of malicious compliance! The data collecting companies did their best to barely comply but in the most annoying way. Just to point out, that it is the GDPRs/EUs fault your internet browsing experience got so much worse!
I highly recommend at least using the content blocker uBlock Origin!
In addition to donating directly, fellow video games enjoyer can support the EFF by just buying games at humble bundle store and choosing EFF as the supported charity.
Is this the same AfD that got involved in several Russian spy scandals? It's an interesting coincidence their agenda and Russian interests always seem to line up.
There is also evidence that the AfD had Russian officials draft a strategy paper for them, which they used as a basis for writing their party program. They have a real kink for Daddy Putin.
Well you thought wrong. What even gave you that idea?
Recent and older scandals have proven, that the authoritarians in Austria, Czechia and Germany (probably elsewhere too) are receiving money and orders from Putin. They're not even nationalists in that sense, they just love fascism. Even trump with all his "America first" bs loves Putin. All enemies of democracy will work together to dismantle it.
That's the thing, you think that because they keep saying they like their country more than the others, a foreign leader who hates and want harms to their country would be their enemy.
The truth is (1) they get a boner for the authoritarian way Putin leads Russia and (2) Putin treats them well because he knows that strengthening those parties weaken the country they're in.
Also Putin hates EU, and they hate EU. The difference is that Putin hates EU because he knows that European countries are stronger together.
I'm literally crying looking at this. People are mad that there are 8.6% of nazis, meanwhile, over here in Russia, there's like 7.8% reps in the upper house and <4% in the lower who might secretly NOT be a nazi. The rest are pretty open about it.
She is a legend and I hope she knows it. I love how she sticks up to what’s right and doesn’t limit her activism to climate change alone. It goes to show how climate activism is all about human rights and dignity which makes her activism against the genocide in Gaza not that surprising to me.
This kind of cycle back and forth between full-throated conservative idiocy and then demanding to be saved from the consequences of their own actions is what really makes me so depressed about the majority of voters.
I could excuse a young person maybe for being naive and inexperienced enough to think conservativism might have some kind of merit, but grown-ass adults have literally no excuse to ever believe the right-wing ever about anything.
I'm tired of calling it protest votes. The last idiot in a cave should have heard by now that they are literally Nazis. People who voted for them are Nazis. Which gives me the creeps as a citizen of Germany.
But on the national issues thing I'm full on your side.
Our societies have not previously tolerated spaces that are beyond the reach of
law enforcement, where criminals can communicate safely and child abuse can
flourish.
I am pretty sure, churches were "tolerated spaces" bevor e2ee was a thing.
The West did (and still does) spy on people to a similar extent, they just have been less obnoxious about it (wholesale spying, but no wholesale persecution) so nobody gets too upset and makes a revolution or something.
Our societies have previously tolerated a whole lot of spaces where conversations could be had without fear of law enforcement listening in, but many of those have disappeared as communications moved online. Encryption is the only thing that can restore the balance.
But that’s exactly their point: it it’s legal for them to bug your house when all prerequisites are met. That last part is very important. Without voicing my opinion: that is the current law in many western democracies.
End-to-end encryption means that even with very stringent limitations, they would never be able to listen in. None of the previous spaces “beyond their reach” has been that.
And BTW as far as I know churches have never been this, legally. There was a time when you could find asylum in a church, and you couldn’t be arrested, but they were never barred from law enforcement listening in.
And, for the record, this part is my opinion: end-to-end encryption should be possible, and without backdoors.
Strangely enough that confidentiality suddenly no longer applies to other, "newer" forms of communication.
Probably because it's less easy for security services to ignore.
No, Just Stop Oil is not an "activist" group. They're in cahoots with the enemy. They're defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it's unclear if she supports the left or right.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I'm unsure if he'd deface anything.
There's no proof but what else could be these people's problem? They have to know what they're doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It's not like they're helping. I don't get it.
it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?
Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.
I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.
fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.
All I'm really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don't think they're doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.
Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK's protests. As far as I'm aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It's two different kinds of pissing people off.
Except this doesn't make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it's vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It's just unhinged.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit.
So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don't have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody's so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.
Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It's the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
The self-professed aims of these organisations and their millionaire backers are to bypass politics and implement radical measures upon the world’s population without democratic consultation.
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges?
Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We're long past the point of polite protests, and they didn't work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
I've read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn't to say they shouldn't do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It's usually reactionary claims of "you're making people mad, so it's counterproductive", while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is "is it justified?". In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with "so they should risk everything for you." That's like responding with "so you hate waffles" to a tweet saying "pancakes taste good"
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad.
I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
Radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can't possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they're just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
I don't think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group's political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement......I'm not sure if that's a productive use of political capital.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to question a group's motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I'd hardly say paying some teens to "vandalize" a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them..... That would be radical.
This is so hilariously wrong. There's a lot of stuff I won't admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don't support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
It's corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It's not so much the "damage" done but that it doesn't feel like a productive protest and that it'll piss of more people than anything.
If that were true, wouldn't their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.
Circumventing the Swedish labour model by refusing to talk to unions, stealing money from workers that wish to engage with strikes, and bringing in foreign labour force to circumvent union blockades.
It absolutely does in Sweden where it's become much harder and more expensive to buy a Tesla, and there's a possibility you won't be able to get a valid license plate due to sympathy strikes.
Yes, of course a product that is less available, more expensive and has potentially more hurdles to obtain will be bought less, but that's not what I meant and these things are specific to sweden and don't necessarily apply to the rest of Europe.
Tesla being a company with shitty morals and being owned by an asshole is nothing that influences buyers' decisions enough large. Look at other brands that build their cars with forced labor in china. Are people buying fewer of those cars?
Plenty of the Chinese EV brands strike a better balance between affordability and reliability than Tesla, so honestly you'd be dumb to buy the latter.
Look at other brands that build their cars with forced labor in china. Are people buying fewer of those cars?
Well no, but we also don't visibly see the suffering that goes into the making of products. People are still buying chocolate, bananas, and fast fashion. Besides it's not like Tesla cars are made without suffering, so it's all the same shit, really.
Given how high fascist parties like AfD, RN and the Brothers Of Italy are riding in the polls, you’d expect some of the glow to rub off on Tesla and boost their sales, but Musk doesn’t even have the soft skills to pull that off.
Europe
Top