this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
189 points (94.4% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DistractedDev@lemm.ee 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Protests should be disruptive in that they incite change, not in that they incite rage. This.

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 5 months ago

I was literally agreeing with you, but alright

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

and somebody else should be taking that kind of risk for us, for you?

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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"

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I donβ€˜t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad. I didnβ€˜t position myself about that. He did, and I think heβ€˜s a hypocrite for doing so.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

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.