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.
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
@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…
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.