[giraffe_lady]

Again I will make this point, again and again. Here, today, on HN, in this comment section, we have people endorsing mass population culling of the most dispossessed people on earth, and the least responsible for climate change. How am I the moral transgressor for arguing, abstractly, that redirecting the harm towards those actually perpetrating it is preferable?

The CCP isn't my problem honestly. Most of the major contributors to climate change are operated from within my own country, so I'll focus on that. There's plenty of work to go around, I'm sure someone over there can handle that part of the project.

The fact that people can never really come up with anything except "but well CHINA" speaks volumes to me. You aren't rejecting this stance because you abhor violence. Climate change IS VIOLENCE. Where is your outrage, what are you willing to do about it?

[ramblerman]

But you have no solution, you just condone killing a few people in your own country because surely that will do something.

The fact that you can't even understand this is a global problem and just figure "someone over there can handle that part of the project" is telling.

You are a dangerous ideologue.

[giraffe_lady]

No one ever actually asked what my solution was!

My actual position is that there does need to be an extremist counterpart to the peaceful climate movement that can plausibly escalate to violence against people. But that there are several steps along the way with chances for those in power to de-escalate first.

Things like targeted destruction of fossil fuel facilities and harassment campaigns against certain politicians and executives are likely to be very effective at raising the cost of contributing to the climate crisis. If those with the power to actually respond to those measures do so, it won't need to escalate further. Hopefully violence isn't necessary but at this point unfortunately, the credible threat of it is.

[kortilla]

> Hopefully violence isn't necessary but at this point unfortunately, the credible threat of it is.

The credible threat of violence doesn’t even work unless you can credibly threaten a huge portion of the population. Just look at how ineffective terrorism has been for the last 50 years.

Have you considered the civil rights movement was not successful because of the threat of violence but was instead successful because people actually changed their minds?

We have same sex marriage now, which was as unpopular as desegregation a couple of decades ago. When Obama went into office he was against same sex marriage. Society changed rapidly and without violence.

It likely changed so rapidly because it was not a coercive movement at all, but that’s just speculation on my behalf.

[kortilla]

Mass murders in the US won’t help if someone isn’t picking up a machine gun in China as well.

You just said “not my problem”, which means you don’t actually care about stopping climate change. You need to stop thinking about how to kill locally when the problem is global.