Blackbeard

Now to say that you cut family off because of how they vote

But cutting family off because they share a different political viewpoint

Again, that’s not what’s happening here. Stop misrepresenting what people are saying to you.

People who snivel about sensitive feelings when they have absolutely no idea

This you?

The way people are writing off family instead of just talking to them is awful.

This is the most circular argument I’ve ever been a part of. Can’t say I didn’t try.

I have friends who were abandoned by their parents and subsequently adopted. I lost a half-sibling with mental illness after their religious paternal family subjected them to actual exorcisms and other emotional trauma which eventually led to their suicide. My wife has a new 60-year old biological sister that she discovered 2 years ago via DNA. I have friends who cut ties with physically and sexually abusive parents. Family is quite mutable, we are under no obligation to hold fast to toxic blood relatives, and in many cases what we consider “reprehensible” depends entirely on how “reprehensible” the blood relative’s committed offenses are.

I’m going to assume you’re just arguing from extremely limited personal experience and save the long list of expletives I want to hurl at you on behalf of my friends and family because I’d prefer not to be banned from this community. Good day to you.

Trust me, most of us have tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried. Some certainly may have preemptively cut people out without discussion, but most of us have beaten our heads against a wall for almost a decade now, trying to convince them that we’re human beings with dignity who deserve respect. We just withdraw from engagement, piece by piece, until there’s nothing lost by just giving up. Cutting them off is usually the last and most consequential move, rather than the first.

The way people are writing off family instead of just talking to them is awful.

What makes you think we haven’t tried talking to them?

I’m certainly not disputing that western governments have more leverage over some countries than others.

Schoof’s hard right government has only been in power since June, and though they’ve voiced explicit support for Israel they have called for a ceasefire and urged Bibi to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza. So in that way, yes, they could have chosen not to call for a ceasefire or humanitarian aid at all.

Thank you.

Public polling is showing that Harris would get a big boost in voter support if she and Biden went for a weapons embargo.

Source?

edit: It’s absolutely amazing to me what y’all will downvote.

Just wanted to direct folks to !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world, which is a brand new community for exactly these kinds of discussions. Cheers!

Just wanted to direct folks to !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world, which is a brand new community for exactly these kinds of discussions. Cheers folks!

I’m not sure you’ll get that from any instance that allows politics, to be perfectly honest, as politics will tend to swamp all other discussion because it generates more traffic and discussion. I’ve spent time on microskiff.com (a boating forum), which is intensely right-wing, and it got so toxic they had to ban political discussion altogether. They have an open feud with The Hull Truth (another boating forum) which leans more left and attracts more voices who challenge conservatives. /r/Hunting was kinda conservative and generally policed itself, but that’s because the mod team nuked anything that went off the rails.

Conservative-friendly spaces usually stay functional one of two ways: either they create a conservatives-only safe space or they refuse to let conservatives be overtly conservative. As someone who was a Reddit moderator for over a decade, you’re kinda driving at the major gripe conservatives have with the open internet. They tend not to get a warm welcome not because they’re conservative, but because when they flock together they tend to get disruptive and toxic very quickly. So then the warnings, removals, and bans come out, and the toxic crowd crows about being “censored”, and the toxicity/pushback ramps up in an endless loop. It’s the same song and dance everywhere they go, unfortunately. The conservative-sphere is just too infested with toxic conservatives for non-toxic conservatives find breathing room.

Additionally, Lemmy the platform has a steep learning curve which limits it to a more tech-savvy audience, and these kinds of forums naturally attract more left-leaning users, so I don’t think Lemmy is the place you’re going to find much conservative traffic in the first place.

cAnCeL CuLtUrE11!!! fReEzE pEaCh!!!@

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

No, the part that bothers me is you’re completely ignoring the point I’ve made multiple times, namely that this protest is counterproductive and doesn’t actually do anything to change the situation. It just pisses people off. It doesn’t promote climate action or change the amount that people care about it or want to do something about it.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

With the exception of the first, none of those sentences form a complete thought, and I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say or if there’s a question buried in there somewhere.

some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name.

WHY?

This is so far beyond the point of the article I’m just not sure why you keep falling back on this singular argument. Why is that relevant? This thread started because I said the people currently sitting in prison are being lazy because they painted a rock rather than doing something productive. You’ve now latched onto some weird scenario where they can do multiple kinds of protesting but can’t do it in one organization and have to form or join splinter groups to do multiple kinds of organizing? It like you’ve convinced yourself that what JSO is doing is fine because its members are doing something else less disruptive in another group, which is so disconnected and irrelevant as to be utterly meaningless. Not to mention it’s a thing which (as far as I can tell) is entirely made up on the spot!

So again, why is one detrimental to the other? So far you’ve only said it’s confusing, but you haven’t said why it’s confusing, and you also skipped over the part where painting a rock to protest oil is also confusing.

And I’m saying one does and one does not. You’ve yet to actually demonstrate that these protests have any value or have ever moved the needle in the right direction.

Well would you look at that, meaningful progress in Hawaii and Montana that didn’t involve damaging priceless historical artifacts. Who knew!

You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.

No, I’m very clearly saying these are “more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.” For some reason you have committed to this weird hypothetical where the people currently sitting in jail have some other secondary organization they use for grassroots organization, which was a stretch when you first brought it up. I’m only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it’s increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who’s pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.

And water is wet. I’m saying that these protests are stupid and counterproductive. You’re now veering off into platitudes that don’t actually contribute anything to the conversation.

I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.

And what you still haven’t grasped is that climate change is not a problem because people don’t know about it. This isn’t some kind of pink ribbon campaign where we’re bringing attention to an issue that’s too often ignored as nonexistent. Climate change is front and center, it’s all encompassing, and it’s deeply imbedded with the way that our entire global economy operates. The reason we can’t deal with climate change isn’t awareness, it’s capacity and political will. If you bring up that I’m not eating enough fruit, and I tell you that I can’t afford to buy fruit on my current salary, then pelting me in the face with oranges isn’t going to get me to eat more fruit. It’s just going to piss me off.

Painting Stonehenge or pouring soup on a priceless piece of art isn’t doing anything to shine light on bad actors, or to challenge us to think about the problem differently, or to provide more information, or anything else like that. It’s just blind rage. The people who weren’t allowed to sit in whites-only cafes didn’t protest by dumping piles of trash in the street, they protested by sitting in the whites-only cafe and refusing to move. They didn’t protest having to sit in the back of the bus by painting the walls of the town hall. They protested by sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move. They protested as throngs of people in the streets and marching across the country. This is two spoiled little shits spraying paint because they want to be the center of attention, and per your very words because they don’t want us to be able to do anything except focus on them. This kind of protest is absolutely, unequivocally ridiculous.

Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.

No offense, but you can take a hike. There is so much actual, tangible work that happens behind the scenes that I’m actually stunned you’d say something so flatly asinine. We are making progress, and we’re doing it within existing governmental systems. We’re doing it with marketing campaigns. We’re doing it with land acquisition. We’re doing it by working with these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations, and these organizations.

Which really just reiterates that it’s not awareness that’s the problem. It’s capacity. And painting a rock is like taking a shit in the middle of the street to protest climate change. Like, what the actual hell are you expecting to come from painting Stonehenge? And you’re trying to tell me that hundreds of thousands of people working tirelessly day in and day out to solve this issue isn’t enough, but a bunch of spoiled brats painting rocks is going to make a difference? Give me a fucking break.

Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.

I have no idea why you keep trying to twist my words. I’m saying that by doing this the only people who are going to sympathize with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight are the people who were already sympathetic with the cause the protestors are trying to highlight. And what I’m saying to you is that you’re not convincing anyone who’s not already convinced. In fact, you’re probably pissing some of your allies off in the process, so it’s quite literally counterproductive to do stupid shit like this. It hurts more than it helps.

So again, don’t come back with that same platitude that protests have to be inconvenient to be effective. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be. I’m simply saying that this is a stupid form of protest that does more harm than good and likely alienates some of your potential allies while converting and convincing absolutely NO ONE.

*your

The fact that we are talking about this and not about climate change is also partly your decision. You are free at any point to disengage this thread and focus your energy on more productive things. The fact that you’re not doing this is just one example of humans being humans and not always doing the best of all things. Me still arguing with you is of course another example.

No one in this thread or any other Lemmy thread about this situation is talking about climate change. Everyone is talking about paint on rocks.

I can repeat this as often as you want: people want to engage in different kinds of activities under different names because the actions do not relate and the messaging becomes confusing. I can both disturb the operation of a pipeline and try to mobilize locals to support the building of a solar power plant. Doing both under the same name makes everything more complicated even if there is personal overlap. I really don’t get why you are so hung up on this.

Because if you’re not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn’t have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you’re trying to hard to suggest it’s prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.

I don’t exactly get the question here. I’m not saying any of those options is particularly confusing. I’m saying doing both under the same name might get confusing for people not intimately familiar with your group and their actions.

And painting a rock is confusing to people who don’t understand what the paint or the rock have to do with climate change. Yet you’re her cheering for rock painting. Why are you worried about confusing the public in one instance but not worried about confusing the public in the other instance?

The hypothetical that you are posing instead of what I’m actually arguing for. You then argue against that hypothetical instead of my actual points. That’s a classic example of a strawman.

No, it’s a hypothetical that’s followed by a question mark. It’s also called a “thought exercise”. Nowhere did I attribute the argument to you in order to debunk it. You need to read the definition of strawman fallacy more carefully.

Yes I’m advocating for bothering people in public. Where else would you bother people?

You would bother people who aren’t already on your team and in a way that leads to a productive conversation, rather than in a way that’s completely detached from the cause and in a way that completely distracts from the issue.

That’s a choice the public is making. And again I think this is fine.

Also known as a shittily designed protest. If you set out to accomplish a goal and the public responds predictably in a way that doesn’t help you achieve that goal, you should probably reflect on the fact that your methods were shit.

That’s also fine. It’s not like there aren’t any publicly available sources on how to fight climate change. If the people are interested they can go talk to the many many local groups that engage in productive activities.

Ah, so now it’s enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you’re not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people’s faces so they can’t ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?

This thread is a prime example of people like you who could be allies here and engage people who aren’t yet convinced that we need to take action, that instead take up a lot of time and energy to argue about the kind of protest.

I am an ally. That’s what you don’t understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I’m an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I’ve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I’m telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive. The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.

I didn’t say it wasn’t.

Removed by mod