climate justice, violence
I am honestly finding pacifist stances regarding climate justice to be increasingly indefensible.
Like, I've never been a fan of pacifism in the sense of "nobody should be allowed to use violence ever", because "violence" is always defined in a suspiciously narrow manner that just so *happens* to benefit the established powers.
But like... we're getting *beyond* that point now. We're getting to a point where human-driven climate change is becoming so impactful and deadly that even the absolute worst hypothetical out-of-control 'mob rule' (the one that never happens but that people are always afraid of) couldn't possibly match the scale of violence and death in climate change.
When even the absolute worst case of violent resistance is less deadly and less impactful than *not* doing so... how can you possibly continue to argue for 'peaceful' resistance, by any reasonable standard of ethics?
And like, burning down polluting infrastructure will stop its pollution, the practical effect is not in question. This whole discussion is purely about ethical considerations and harm reduction.
So like, what's the remaining argument for 'peaceful' resistance, then? Because I'm not seeing it.
re: climate justice, violence
Also, to clarify: I do in fact believe that "no violence should exist at all".
The problem is that whenever people *say* that, without extra context and clauses, that's never what they actually *mean* - instead, what they mean is "no things *that I recognize as* violence should exist", which is something entirely different and not something I can stand behind.
fuchsiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
re: climate justice, violence
@joepie91 I guess literally burning down polluting infrastructure could also be quite harmful to the environment, luckily there's a multitude of other ways to monkeywrench
re: climate justice, violence
@f0x While technically true, that is harmful to the environment *once*, vs. basically forever
re: climate justice, violence
@joepie91 there's a surprising amount of people who really do believe more in kanthian value ethics than greater good. They're wrong, of course, but nobody has found a way to tell them that yet.
climate justice, violence
@joepie91 "because "violence" is always defined in a suspiciously narrow manner that just so *happens* to benefit the established powers."
most people are tolerant of state violence, but not because they think it's not violence. they either have a explicit exception for it (just some incoherent nonsense in my experience) or they feel like they can just ignore it somehow. i think when pushed the'll admit they don't really care about non-violence that mush after all…
climate justice, violence
@joepie91 (not nessecarily just government violence, of course. the same can be true for sexist, racist, classist, etc violence. but government violence seems the most tolerated by far nowadays…)
re: climate justice, violence
@sofia I'm more talking about the people who define "violence" as "physical impact with a body part or weapon" and nothing else, and who from that perspective "oppose violence" (often also from the state!) but are ignorant to other forms of violence
re: climate justice, violence
@joepie91 well, it deems to me what violence comes down to. plus poisoning, infecting people with diseases and whatever.
i think in the abstract people could agree that causing climate change can be seen as an aggressive act, too.
but again, i don't think the problem tends to be the definitions of violence, but the excuses for and tolerance of it.
re: climate justice, violence
@joepie91 well threats play a big role in power relation too, of course, but that's usually because those threats are plausible. if the state threatens you with locking you up, they are very likely able to pull it off (again, same for all established power relations).
i don't think a society can make it harder do say threatening things, but it can reduce the likelyhood of them being put into action…
climate justice, violence
@joepie91 as for burning down polluting infrastructure, well that causes a whole lot of pollution first of all.
and also: they can be rebuilt. taxes are your enemy in this game. also most kinds of infrastructure have some legitimate use, they would just be mush less used if people had to pay to undo the damage done in the process.
climate justice, violence
@joepie91 the best thing i can think of would be bombing slaughterhouses. which has a fairly good case of being a defensive act. if that is sustained to the level that rebuilding slaughterhouses is just pointless, that could be helpful. but you gotta have some level in the general opinion for that, and it could cause some very nasty pushback.
and the same result, if not better could be achieved by most people refusing the consumption and production of meat…
climate justice, violence
@joepie91 i don't know, i just don't see the case for "ah, if only people dared to be more violent". one reason i'm an anarchist is that i think violence is generally unproductive.
it's the foundation of political parties: promising that (state) violence will somehow do these miraculous things like end addiction or bring communism or all kinds of goals of varying ridiculousness. they tend towards stupid goals to begin but that's another issue…
re: climate justice, violence
That's only partly a rhetorical question, by the way. If someone has a legitimate argument, I'd be willing to hear it. But I'm skeptical of anything I've heard so far.