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
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.
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.
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.