[fargle]

wow, that's maybe even a better example of hyperbole. Engaging in written discourse that disagrees with you is closer to being a nazi than saying protesters that break numerous laws, harass thousands of innocent people for media attention, who injured and killed (unwittingly) are eco-terrorists? Sure they didn't bomb anything, but they sure intended to illegally harm and harass innocent folks just to make their point.

So yeah, I'm not convinced "big oil" is the bigger danger to democracy than this kind of, perhaps misguided, behavior in a free and civilized society. You really want minority opinion groups enforcing their strong opinions on everybody else by force and terrorist tactics? That door swings both ways big time and what happens next wouldn't be "fixing big oil" it'd be far, far, worse (China? Russia? Saudi?).

[yellowapple]

> So yeah, I'm not convinced "big oil" is the bigger danger to democracy than this kind of, perhaps misguided, behavior in a free and civilized society.

If you're unconvinced that the very perpetrators of what's in all likelihood an existential threat to humanity as a species are a bigger danger to democracy than the very people doing what little they can to prevent that existential threat, then you are encouraged to review the abundance of evidence available. Kinda hard to have democracy when we're all dead.

[fargle]

in all probability, i've been reviewing all the evidence for a lot longer than most. i appreciate the sentiment, but remain unconvinced. certainly condescending, tarring other belief's with "nazi" for disagreeing, etc. isn't convincing me more.

but you also miss my real point, even if you believe strongly that this must be solved: you can't fight big oil when you are a dictatorship

you can't fight anything unless you have a strong majority that all agree "if we do a majority vote, we'll all be 100% behind whatever the decision is because we trust our imperfect democracy to be good enough".

what we are normalizing is a society that says we'll all be behind the decision, unless it's not what our special group said was the right one otherwise we'll have a tantrum. once nobody trusts that system or anyone else in it, guess who wins and "unites" everyone? mau, stalin, putin, etc. not mr. snuggles who will save us all from houselessness and oil.

divisive and illegal tactics are incredibly harmful to both society and your own cause. the group of people who watched the private plane owners inconvenienced said "ha ha - great! serves them right" already believes your argument. the rest of the people, those who you need to convince, said "yikes these are dangerous morons throwing a tantrum" and aren't ready to listen to anything they say.

[yellowapple]

> "if we do a majority vote, we'll all be 100% behind whatever the decision is because we trust our imperfect democracy to be good enough".

That's never how majoritarian democracy has worked even in theory, let alone practice. There have always been people resisting the majority decision, specifically because the majority is not always right.

And this presumes, of course, that any of the "democratic" societies of today's world are actually democracies rather than oligarchies.

> tantrum

That you'd write off recognition of an existential threat to humankind's existence as a "tantrum" is telling, and suggests that no, you have not been reviewing "all the evidence" with anywhere near enough depth; it's a bit rich to accuse climate activists of all people of "tantrums" in the context of rich people being prevented from enjoying a disproportionately wasteful and destructive luxury and calling in military police over it instead of, you know, taking a train or gasp flying with the poors in First Class.

Point being: if you're already willing to prioritize billionaire luxuries over the planet's ability to sustain life as we know it, then no amount of civility on the part of climate activists is going to change that; you'll just find some other excuse to dismiss them while we all continue to stare down the barrel of a self-induced extinction event.

> the rest of the people, those who you need to convince

The ones we need to convince are the ones with the actual power over the global socioeconomic system designed to prioritize profit over all else, Earth's biosphere included. Coddling those in charge hasn't worked; the rich and powerful should be entirely unsurprised that the responses to them largely ignoring the well-being of their subjects might escalate.

[fargle]

> There have always been people resisting the majority decision

if you resist within the law and generous existing freedoms to do that, that's fine. if you feel it requires anything beyond that, you are essentially invoking a call to revolution. so if you'd tear down what we have, imperfect or not, over your single issue, that's exactly what I mean by "more dangerous". consider the substantial risk that we'd end up in an much more inequitable and un-ecologically sound system.

> That you'd write off recognition of an existential threat to humankind's existence as a "tantrum" is telling

I appreciate you mean "telling" as a complement. it also demonstrates nicely what I mean by "tantrum": if I don't agree with you, then I must not have studied the data enough because it's so obvious that your position is right.

> if you're already willing to prioritize billionaire luxuries

I'm willing to prioritize everyone's right to exist and function withing the framework of society. Including billionaires, if they are people too.

> The ones we need to convince are the ones with the actual power

are they? I doubt those in the actual power are going to be convinced by you sitting in front of their private jets or really anything else.

who you need to convince is super-majority of the rest of society. this kind of behavior and dismissiveness is spectacularly inept at convincing, which is why it hasn't worked to your satisfaction. back to the original problem, making thousands of people wait in traffic, while killing someone in the process is extremely unconvincing.

[yellowapple]

> if you feel it requires anything beyond that, you are essentially invoking a call to revolution.

There's a pretty broad spectrum of civil disobedience between "passive protest" and "overthrow of the current regime" - for example, disrupting the lives of those both largely responsible for the looming existential threat and in possession of the authority to make a meaningful attempt at mitigating further damage.

> if I don't agree with you, then I must not have studied the data enough because it's so obvious that your position is right.

Well yes. If I didn't believe my position to be right, then I wouldn't be arguing it, now would I? And if there wasn't ample evidence of said position being right, then I wouldn't have reason to believe it to be right, now would I?

Again: the stakes here are human extinction. Blaming the people concerned about that risk for being a bit passionate about, you know, not fucking dying is kinda asinine, no?

> are they?

Yes, by virtue of them, you know, being in power. The alternative would be to remove them from power - a.k.a. revolution - but you seem opposed to that so that kinda narrows things down.

[fargle]

> There's a pretty broad spectrum of civil disobedience between

this I agree with. and when you go past innocent civil disobedience and disrupt not just the lives of those who, according to you as judge and jury, are responsible, but other folks, you are into mild forms of eco-terrorism. when someone dies, it's not as mild.

> Well yes.

ok, then I believe the moon is made of green cheese and is inhabited by lizard people. If you don't believe me, you haven't studied the facts enough. Are you convinced? No? I'll call you names then, block traffic and make you late for work. In this whole exchange you're focused on the truth and righteousness of your cause - I'm saying your methods of convincing people are faulty and your idea of how to instigate change is as dangerous as it is ineffectual.

> alternative

you get a majority of regular people together and out vote them out. the people that are in power are there because we (not you or i, but we) let them be. you need to bring the argument to people in a form that is convincing, not spit through your teeth that it is extinction!, damnit!

the reason nobody does anything about big oil is that they are too powerful for a small noisy minority to do anything about. they are not too powerful if everyone believed as strongly as you do. but everybody doesn't.

and stunts and behaviors and extremism are highly unlikely to change that. you're not convincing powerful people to fear you, you aren't convincing regular people to follow you, you aren't convincing thoughtful people to listen. folks that act that way are doing more to harm your cause than help it, regardless of whether it's true or not.

[ok_dad]

> If I called you a Nazi right now (I’m not, it’s rhetorical)

> it’s rhetorical

[fargle]

but if you did, you stated it'd be closer to the truth than me calling terrorists worse than big oil. and you accuse me of hyperbole!

look, lets say you are right about the seriousness and evilness of big oil. the reason the eco-terrorists are worse than them is that instead of making it more likely to effect the changes you want, they are hurting your own cause. disrupting thousands of peoples lives, endangering and killing people is not going to get more people to help you. the people doing these stunts are not helping you here.